# Our Kennedy.



## Sallow

Bill Maher nails it.

Bill Maher on JFK vs Reagan: 'Our Kennedy Is Kennedy' | Video Cafe



> Bill Maher had a few words for the Republicans who still "get a lump in their throat" for "their Kennedy" Ronald Reagan during his New Rules segment this Friday night.
> 
> 
> MAHER: Now, I don't know if all politics is local, but I do think all politics is tribal and just as some people are dog people and others are cat people, some have a chip in their brain to be Democrats and others to be Republicans. We have Kennedy, you have Reagan. We have marijuana, you have Metamucil.
> 
> We want gays in the military. You want them in the airport restroom. [...]
> 
> The one reason we looked uglier in the '80's, is because we were uglier. It was when the baby boomers, the generation that was supposed to be different, just gave up and sold out completely. Kennedy's time was the time of "Ask not what your country can do for you." Reagan's was the time of "Greed is good."
> 
> JFK was far from perfect, but he was a true wit and a sex machine and he knew how to wear a pair of shades. Reagan was an amiable square in a cowboy hat who had sex with a woman he called mommie.
> 
> *Kennedy was James Bond. Reagan was Matlock. Love him or hate him, we win. Republicans can call Reagan their Kennedy all they want, but it's like calling Miller High Life 'the champagne of beer. It's why calling someone your Kennedy will never really cut it, because our Kennedy, is Kennedy.*


----------



## eagle1462010

I heard Bill has an increase in ratings............A dozen or so decided to watch him...............


----------



## Sallow

eagle1462010 said:


> I heard Bill has an increase in ratings............A dozen or so decided to watch him...............



Funny you folks never had any outrage when he was booted off the air for using the power of free speech.


----------



## eagle1462010

LOL

Nothing to do with his ratings huh.................


----------



## CrusaderFrank

Nobody calls Reagan "our Kennedy"

Kennedy would get primaried out in today Progressive Dem Party, he's to the right of most modern Presidents


----------



## eagle1462010

Comparing Kennedy to today's Lib is a joke..............


----------



## Spiderman

I want to know how much CO2 the eternal flame on Kennedy's grave has pumped into the atmosphere.

I'm sure we can link a few tornadoes or floods to it.


----------



## eagle1462010

Holy Cow Spider Man..............

Kennedy is destroying the planet from his grave..................

Can you knock it out with a web....................

The Liberals want the real Spider Man to save the planet from this Pure Evil.................


----------



## jon_berzerk

CrusaderFrank said:


> Nobody calls Reagan "our Kennedy"
> 
> Kennedy would get primaries out in today Progressive Dem Party, he's to the right of most modern Presidents



true 

unlike this prezbo 

Kennedy did take responsibility for his actions 

but it doesnt stop there 

his peace through strength policy 

argued to lower the debt 

tax cutter 

favored balanced budgets  

unlike this admin that 

considers a series of blank checks "the budget"

yeah they would have thrown him out on his ear


----------



## eagle1462010

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.?

Who said that..................................


----------



## jon_berzerk

eagle1462010 said:


> Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.?
> 
> Who said that..................................



*the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.*

Who said that


----------



## eagle1462010

Shallow.....................

Why have you and the Liberal Horde perverted his message...............................


----------



## Lumpy 1

"My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
JFK

This quote alone would get Kennedy kicked out of the (entitlement for votes) Democrat Party of today.


----------



## eagle1462010

Lumpy 1 said:


> "My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
> JFK
> 
> This quote alone would get Kennedy kicked out of the (entitlement for votes) Democrat Party of today.



But he is their HERO................

Used in this very OP..............

Surely we misunderstand the words of JFK.................


----------



## Redfish

JFK was closer to today's libertarians than to either the liberals or the conservatives.

He was for smaller government, strong military, and he cut taxes.  

Kennedy would not be a democrat today.


----------



## jon_berzerk

eagle1462010 said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
> JFK
> 
> This quote alone would get Kennedy kicked out of the (entitlement for votes) Democrat Party of today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But he is their HERO................
> 
> Used in this very OP..............
> 
> Surely we misunderstand the words of JFK.................
Click to expand...


if he is their hero 

then they will really like this line from the speech

*We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.*


----------



## Lumpy 1

Redfish said:


> JFK was closer to today's libertarians than to either the liberals or the conservatives.
> 
> He was for smaller government, strong military, and he cut taxes.
> 
> Kennedy would not be a democrat today.



I just don't see Pelosi & Kennedy hugging, no how, no way......


----------



## Freewill

Sallow said:


> Bill Maher nails it.
> 
> Bill Maher on JFK vs Reagan: 'Our Kennedy Is Kennedy' | Video Cafe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Maher had a few words for the Republicans who still "get a lump in their throat" for "their Kennedy" Ronald Reagan during his New Rules segment this Friday night.
> 
> 
> MAHER: Now, I don't know if all politics is local, but I do think all politics is tribal and just as some people are dog people and others are cat people, some have a chip in their brain to be Democrats and others to be Republicans. We have Kennedy, you have Reagan. We have marijuana, you have Metamucil.
> 
> We want gays in the military. You want them in the airport restroom. [...]
> 
> The one reason we looked uglier in the '80's, is because we were uglier. It was when the baby boomers, the generation that was supposed to be different, just gave up and sold out completely. Kennedy's time was the time of "Ask not what your country can do for you." Reagan's was the time of "Greed is good."
> 
> JFK was far from perfect, but he was a true wit and a sex machine and he knew how to wear a pair of shades. Reagan was an amiable square in a cowboy hat who had sex with a woman he called mommie.
> 
> *Kennedy was James Bond. Reagan was Matlock. Love him or hate him, we win. Republicans can call Reagan their Kennedy all they want, but it's like calling Miller High Life 'the champagne of beer. It's why calling someone your Kennedy will never really cut it, because our Kennedy, is Kennedy.*
Click to expand...


Actually Kennedy was a conservative and definitely would be a Republican today.  So claim the liberal left.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Except his lore was all contrived after his death.  His administration was a mess.  He was in serious trouble for even being re elected.


----------



## Spoonman

Redfish said:


> JFK was closer to today's libertarians than to either the liberals or the conservatives.
> 
> He was for smaller government, strong military, and he cut taxes.
> 
> Kennedy would not be a democrat today.



the democratic party underwent a massive shift to the far left in the late 1960's.  as a matter of fact, they even pushed the extreme left to completely new, unheard of before limits


----------



## Spoonman

LordBrownTrout said:


> Except his lore was all contrived after his death.  His administration was a mess.  He was in serious trouble for even being re elected.



kennedy was an irish catholic.  libs hate Christians.    kennedy was a drinker.   didn't they always bash bush for being a drinker.  kennedy was an unfaithful husband and womanizer.


----------



## Lumpy 1

Check the link, this is just a snippet..."Kennedy on being a liberal"

----------I'm too tired to read and concentrate on it ..


What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal."

John F. Kennedy

My Left Wing:: John F. Kennedy: On Being a Liberal


----------



## 1776

JFK wouldn't be a Democrap today.

He was pro-military, anti-communist, a Catholic, pro-low taxes, pro-business, etc.

Hmmmm, except for the Catholic angle.....he looks like Romney.

The Democraps would just roll out some black, Hispanic, Asian....woman that is also a lesbian to run against him.


----------



## Sarah G

JFK Assassination, The Definitive Guide.

They had this documentary on The History Channel, I guess it was last night but they're replaying it today at 5:00.  Then there is one on Lee Harvey Oswald on at 4:00 today.  I just watched the JFK one and it consists of all conspiracy theories and the percentage of people who believe any given theory.

It's an excellent summary.  The Oswald one is similarly addressed.


----------



## Sarah G

Oh, he would be a great Democrat today were he still alive.  He'd be 96, btw.


----------



## Sallow

CrusaderFrank said:


> Nobody calls Reagan "our Kennedy"
> 
> Kennedy would get primaried out in today Progressive Dem Party, he's to the right of most modern Presidents



Naw.

Quite the opposite.

And you might have noticed it was Kennedy's brother (Who you folks vilified to no end) that helped Obama get elected and worked with him on health care.


----------



## Sallow

1776 said:


> JFK wouldn't be a Democrap today.
> 
> He was pro-military, anti-communist, a Catholic, pro-low taxes, pro-business, etc.
> 
> Hmmmm, except for the Catholic angle.....he looks like Romney.
> 
> The Democraps would just roll out some black, Hispanic, Asian....woman that is also a lesbian to run against him.





Kennedy started the Peace Corps, was working on a health care plan that would become Medicare, wanted to spend more on education and science..and wanted to go to the moon. That and he wanted to get the civil rights act passed.

None of that is at  all conservative.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Sallow said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I heard Bill has an increase in ratings............A dozen or so decided to watch him...............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny you folks never had any outrage when he was booted off the air for using the power of free speech.
Click to expand...


 That's bullshit of course. The right wingers were defending Maher for having the right to say what he want's to say. This includes Limbaugh and Hannity.


----------



## Redfish

Sallow said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> JFK wouldn't be a Democrap today.
> 
> He was pro-military, anti-communist, a Catholic, pro-low taxes, pro-business, etc.
> 
> Hmmmm, except for the Catholic angle.....he looks like Romney.
> 
> The Democraps would just roll out some black, Hispanic, Asian....woman that is also a lesbian to run against him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy started the Peace Corps, was working on a health care plan that would become Medicare, wanted to spend more on education and science..and wanted to go to the moon. That and he wanted to get the civil rights act passed.
> 
> None of that is at  all conservative.
Click to expand...


horseshit, shallow.   helping people is a conservative belief,  medicare was passed with GOP votes,  the moon landing was supported by people from both parties and with all political viewpoints.   The civil rights act would not have passed without GOP votes and was fillibustered by democrats.

your view of history is totally incorrect.   were you taught by a member of the teachers union?


----------



## Sunshine

eagle1462010 said:


> Comparing Kennedy to today's Lib is a joke..............



Isn't THAT the God's honest truth! IOU rep when I can.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLdA1ikkoEc]John F Kennedy 'Ask not' - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Redfish

Sallow said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody calls Reagan "our Kennedy"
> 
> Kennedy would get primaried out in today Progressive Dem Party, he's to the right of most modern Presidents
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw.
> 
> Quite the opposite.
> 
> And you might have noticed it was Kennedy's brother (Who you folks vilified to no end) that helped Obama get elected and worked with him on health care.
Click to expand...


prior to obama, teddy (the swimmer) kennedy was the most liberal member of the senate.  He accomplished nothing in all his years in the senate, but he did allow a girl to die.    What a hero!


----------



## eagle1462010

Sunshine said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Comparing Kennedy to today's Lib is a joke..............
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't THAT the God's honest truth! IOU rep when I can.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JLdA1ikkoEc]John F Kennedy 'Ask not' - YouTube[/ame]
Click to expand...


Your sig shows Shallow in his true colors.

They don't have a clue on Kennedy.  Some kind of fascination or something.

BTW  IOU another rep...........Love your posts....


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Liberals need historical revisionism to help them cling to ideas and programs that have long since been proven a failure. This includes making Kennedy a modern day liberal. Some on the left have even tried to make Lincoln and Reagan liberals. It's just sad but it's what they do. Bending truth like a pretzel while dipping it in government subsidized mustered is the liberals only defense against reality.


----------



## Bfgrn

jon_berzerk said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody calls Reagan "our Kennedy"
> 
> Kennedy would get primaries out in today Progressive Dem Party, he's to the right of most modern Presidents
> 
> 
> 
> 
> true
> 
> unlike this prezbo
> 
> Kennedy did take responsibility for his actions
> 
> but it doesnt stop there
> 
> his peace through strength policy
> 
> argued to lower the debt
> 
> tax cutter
> 
> favored balanced budgets
> 
> unlike this admin that
> 
> considers a series of blank checks "the budget"
> 
> yeah they would have thrown him out on his ear
Click to expand...


Compared to Reagan, who tripled the national debt, ended the Democrats 'tax and spend' policy and replaced it with 'borrow and spend'. 

It took America 200 years to accumulate a trillion dollars of debt...it took Reagan a mere 5 years.

"The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.


----------



## Bfgrn

JohnL.Burke said:


> Liberals need historical revisionism to help them cling to ideas and programs that have long since been proven a failure. This includes making Kennedy a modern day liberal. Some on the left have even tried to make Lincoln and Reagan liberals. It's just sad but it's what they do. Bending truth like a pretzel while dipping it in government subsidized mustered is the liberals only defense against reality.



Very typical...right wing dogma will never die...I have proven you wrong at every turn, yet you still parrot the same bullshit.


----------



## Redfish

Bfgrn said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody calls Reagan "our Kennedy"
> 
> Kennedy would get primaries out in today Progressive Dem Party, he's to the right of most modern Presidents
> 
> 
> 
> 
> true
> 
> unlike this prezbo
> 
> Kennedy did take responsibility for his actions
> 
> but it doesnt stop there
> 
> his peace through strength policy
> 
> argued to lower the debt
> 
> tax cutter
> 
> favored balanced budgets
> 
> unlike this admin that
> 
> considers a series of blank checks "the budget"
> 
> yeah they would have thrown him out on his ear
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Compared to Reagan, who tripled the national debt, ended the Democrats 'tax and spend' policy and replaced it with 'borrow and spend'.
> 
> It took America 200 years to accumulate a trillion dollars of debt...it took Reagan a mere 5 years.
> 
> "The debt explosion has resulted not from big spending by the Democrats, but instead the Republican Party's embrace, about three decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don't matter if they result from tax cuts."
> David Stockman - Director of the Office of Management and Budget for U.S. President Ronald Reagan.
Click to expand...




  national debt when obama took over 10 trillion,  national debt after 5 years of obama  17 trillion.   and you are ranting about reagan adding 1 trillion in 8 years?????   you are a


----------



## Sunshine

Redfish said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody calls Reagan "our Kennedy"
> 
> Kennedy would get primaried out in today Progressive Dem Party, he's to the right of most modern Presidents
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw.
> 
> Quite the opposite.
> 
> And you might have noticed it was Kennedy's brother (Who you folks vilified to no end) that helped Obama get elected and worked with him on health care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> prior to obama, teddy (the swimmer) kennedy was the most liberal member of the senate.  He accomplished nothing in all his years in the senate, but he did allow a girl to die.    What a hero!
Click to expand...


The whole family was corrupt in one way or anther.   Joe Sr. made his money bootlegging.  They all had affairs.  Joe Sr. even took his mistress, Gloria Swanson, on a cruise along with his wife.


----------



## Bfgrn

Redfish said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody calls Reagan "our Kennedy"
> 
> Kennedy would get primaried out in today Progressive Dem Party, he's to the right of most modern Presidents
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw.
> 
> Quite the opposite.
> 
> And you might have noticed it was Kennedy's brother (Who you folks vilified to no end) that helped Obama get elected and worked with him on health care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> prior to obama, teddy (the swimmer) kennedy was the most liberal member of the senate.  He accomplished nothing in all his years in the senate, but he did allow a girl to die.    What a hero!
Click to expand...


No US Senator has a longer list of accomplishments than Ted Kennedy.

The Lion Sleeps Tonight: Ted Kennedy Leaves Long, Impressive Legacy

"The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die"
Senator Edward M. Kennedy


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Bfgrn said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals need historical revisionism to help them cling to ideas and programs that have long since been proven a failure. This includes making Kennedy a modern day liberal. Some on the left have even tried to make Lincoln and Reagan liberals. It's just sad but it's what they do. Bending truth like a pretzel while dipping it in government subsidized mustered is the liberals only defense against reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Very typical...right wing dogma will never die...I have proven you wrong at every turn, yet you still parrot the same bullshit.
Click to expand...


Very typical... left wing dogma will never die... I have proven you wrong at every turn, yet you still parrot the same bullshit. 
 See? I can argue on a third grade level too! Want a cookie?


----------



## PredFan

I remember I was 8 when Kennedy was shot. They let us out of school early so I was a happy kid.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Sarah G said:


> Oh, he would be a great Democrat today were he still alive.  He'd be 96, btw.



LOL. You would have called for his resignation after the Bay of Pigs. Don't sit there and lie to people.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Sallow said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> JFK wouldn't be a Democrap today.
> 
> He was pro-military, anti-communist, a Catholic, pro-low taxes, pro-business, etc.
> 
> Hmmmm, except for the Catholic angle.....he looks like Romney.
> 
> The Democraps would just roll out some black, Hispanic, Asian....woman that is also a lesbian to run against him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy started the Peace Corps, was working on a health care plan that would become Medicare, wanted to spend more on education and science..and wanted to go to the moon. That and he wanted to get the civil rights act passed.
> 
> None of that is at  all conservative.
Click to expand...


Kennedy 

1) Expanded our military

2) Sanctioned multiple attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro

3) Allowed U-2 spying on Russia's missile sites

4) Expanded the space program

5) Was anti-Communist

6) In 1963 before his death he:

a) Cut the corporate tax rate from 52 to 47%


b) Cut income taxes from a range of 20-91% to 14-65%
7) Advocated pro-growth economic policy in general

8) Was pro-Israel

9) Founded the US-Israeli military alliance

10) Advocated a coup of the Iraqi government 

11) Launched the invasion of the Bay of Pigs

12) Signed Proclamation 3504 authorizing the naval quarantine of Communist Cuba

So, were any of these things liberal by your standards? The irony here is that he seems awfully and eerily similar to Bush is a lot of ways. Especially his attitudes toward Iraq, his economic policies, his attitude towards Israel and his military strategy overall. His campaign against communism was similar in scope to Bush's War on Terrorism. You can't say that the Space program was a liberal thing, since many presidents built upon it, the first moon landing in July 1969 happened on Nixon's watch. You have no clue how conservative he was. In fact had he been around today, he'd have more in common with Republicans than Democrats.


----------



## TemplarKormac

/thread


----------



## Stephanie

what is it about liberals, they think people BELONG to them...

they do the same with black people, homosexuals, now Hispanics

it's awful how they look on people as (they own them)

Bill Maher going off on another stupid rant...and him going on about greed...He sits up on his show and soaks people out of their money to watch his ignorant ass...

you can only laugh at people like him...ugly nobody who goes around calling women, cxxts...and notice the left admires him for it


----------



## blackhawk

I have tried on more than a few times to care about Mahers opinions and have never been able to care and still don't.


----------



## Harry Dresden

CrusaderFrank said:


> *Nobody calls Reagan "our Kennedy"
> *
> Kennedy would get primaried out in today Progressive Dem Party, he's to the right of most modern Presidents



yea i have never heard that either.....and someone should tell Bill that lots of older Democrats use Metamucil too....


----------



## Harry Dresden

eagle1462010 said:


> Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.?
> 
> Who said that..................................



is that a trick question?....


----------



## Harry Dresden

jon_berzerk said:


> eagle1462010 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.?
> 
> Who said that..................................
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.*
> 
> Who said that
Click to expand...

*
Consider for a moment....is there any beauty in the name Ralph?.*

who said that?....


----------



## 1776

So liberals....how does JFK's speech "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" fit into your welfare world???


----------



## Bfgrn

1776 said:


> So liberals....how does JFK's speech "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" fit into your welfare world???



Perfectly...

It is a call to PUBLIC service, not private greed.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
President John F. Kennedy


----------



## JohnL.Burke

"Ask not what your fascistic  gun crazed greedy free market country can do for you, ask what you can do to get a free phone".
                    - Barack Obama


----------



## tinydancer

Bfgrn said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So liberals....how does JFK's speech "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" fit into your welfare world???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perfectly...
> 
> It is a call to PUBLIC service, not private greed.
> 
> If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
> President John F. Kennedy
Click to expand...

'Surely you jest.

You have the most wealthy souls in America calling for public service. Tell me you realize this at the time.


----------



## Plasmaball

Lumpy 1 said:


> "My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
> JFK
> 
> This quote alone would get Kennedy kicked out of the (entitlement for votes) Democrat Party of today.



No it wouldn't.


----------



## Plasmaball

Freewill said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Maher nails it.
> 
> Bill Maher on JFK vs Reagan: 'Our Kennedy Is Kennedy' | Video Cafe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Maher had a few words for the Republicans who still "get a lump in their throat" for "their Kennedy" Ronald Reagan during his New Rules segment this Friday night.
> 
> 
> MAHER: Now, I don't know if all politics is local, but I do think all politics is tribal and just as some people are dog people and others are cat people, some have a chip in their brain to be Democrats and others to be Republicans. We have Kennedy, you have Reagan. We have marijuana, you have Metamucil.
> 
> We want gays in the military. You want them in the airport restroom. [...]
> 
> The one reason we looked uglier in the '80's, is because we were uglier. It was when the baby boomers, the generation that was supposed to be different, just gave up and sold out completely. Kennedy's time was the time of "Ask not what your country can do for you." Reagan's was the time of "Greed is good."
> 
> JFK was far from perfect, but he was a true wit and a sex machine and he knew how to wear a pair of shades. Reagan was an amiable square in a cowboy hat who had sex with a woman he called mommie.
> 
> *Kennedy was James Bond. Reagan was Matlock. Love him or hate him, we win. Republicans can call Reagan their Kennedy all they want, but it's like calling Miller High Life 'the champagne of beer. It's why calling someone your Kennedy will never really cut it, because our Kennedy, is Kennedy.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually Kennedy was a conservative and definitely would be a Republican today.  So claim the liberal left.
Click to expand...

No he wouldnt


----------



## Plasmaball

Spoonman said:


> LordBrownTrout said:
> 
> 
> 
> Except his lore was all contrived after his death.  His administration was a mess.  He was in serious trouble for even being re elected.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> kennedy was an irish catholic.  libs hate Christians.    kennedy was a drinker.   didn't they always bash bush for being a drinker.  kennedy was an unfaithful husband and womanizer.
Click to expand...


No they dont.


----------



## Plasmaball

CrusaderFrank said:


> Nobody calls Reagan "our Kennedy"
> 
> Kennedy would get primaried out in today Progressive Dem Party, he's to the right of most modern Presidents



This is how fucking stupid you people are. In order to win the presidency you must run more moderate period. This goes for both parties. You start off on one end and move your way to the center. Obama did it. Bush did it Clinton did it.romney did it.
Hell reagan was to left for you people,  but you dont buy that. Even though he expanded government,  amnesty for illegals, signed a treaty to reduce nukes with russia.....of wait that sounds like obama...i get the two confused these days. 

This is what happens when bottom feeders get on the internet. They pollute the waters with their stupidity.


----------



## Iustitia

Kennedy was a pretty bad president.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Plasmaball said:


> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody calls Reagan "our Kennedy"
> 
> Kennedy would get primaried out in today Progressive Dem Party, he's to the right of most modern Presidents
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is how fucking stupid you people are. In order to win the presidency you must run more moderate period. This goes for both parties. You start off on one end and move your way to the center. Obama did it. Bush did it Clinton did it.romney did it.
> Hell reagan was to left for you people,  but you dont buy that. Even though he expanded government,  amnesty for illegals, signed a treaty to reduce nukes with russia.....of wait that sounds like obama...i get the two confused these days.
> *
> This is what happens when bottom feeders get on the internet. They pollute the waters with their stupidity*.
Click to expand...


and here you are swimming down here with the rest of us....


----------



## Amelia

Sallow said:


> Bill Maher nails it.
> 
> Bill Maher on JFK vs Reagan: 'Our Kennedy Is Kennedy' | Video Cafe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Maher had a few words for the Republicans who still "get a lump in their throat" for "their Kennedy" Ronald Reagan during his New Rules segment this Friday night.
> 
> 
> MAHER: Now, I don't know if all politics is local, but I do think all politics is tribal and just as some people are dog people and others are cat people, some have a chip in their brain to be Democrats and others to be Republicans. We have Kennedy, you have Reagan. We have marijuana, you have Metamucil.
> 
> We want gays in the military. You want them in the airport restroom. [...]
> 
> The one reason we looked uglier in the '80's, is because we were uglier. It was when the baby boomers, the generation that was supposed to be different, just gave up and sold out completely. Kennedy's time was the time of "Ask not what your country can do for you." Reagan's was the time of "Greed is good."
> 
> JFK was far from perfect, but he was a true wit and a sex machine and he knew how to wear a pair of shades. Reagan was an amiable square in a cowboy hat who had sex with a woman he called mommie.
> 
> *Kennedy was James Bond. Reagan was Matlock. Love him or hate him, we win. Republicans can call Reagan their Kennedy all they want, but it's like calling Miller High Life 'the champagne of beer. It's why calling someone your Kennedy will never really cut it, because our Kennedy, is Kennedy.*
Click to expand...




Why would we call Reagan our Kennedy?

How silly.


----------



## PredFan

Bill Maher running his mouth?

Fuck, not given.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

> The one reason we looked uglier in the '80's, is because we were uglier. It was when the baby boomers, the generation that was supposed to be different, just gave up and sold out completely. Kennedy's time was the time of "Ask not what your country can do for you." Reagan's was the time of "Greed is good."



Very true. 

The Reagan years ushered in an era of ignorance and reactionary fear; as social conservatives, Christian fundamentalists, and rightwing extremists fought against a Nation becoming more inclusive, diverse, and desirous to promote and protect individual liberty.


----------



## asaratis

Bill Maher running his silly mouth.  Bill Maher is a mediocre shock jock...dependent upon cuteness and adolescence to make a living...from the adoration of simpletons...and you silly bastards attach some value to what he says?  What is the world coming to?  This entire thread is based upon the words of a fucking idiot!  JFK was one of the best men that ever lived.  There is no way he would have approved of today's liberalism.  He bravely served in the military on PT 109...he fought against oppression, communism and LYING...he would NOT have approved of Obama, Reid, Pelosi and all of the leeches that run the Liberal front today.

Thread failed!


----------



## asaratis

...JFK would be encouraging NASA to PUT A MAN ON MARS BY THE END OF THE CENTURY rather than confining them to make the Muslims feel good about themselves!


----------



## Mertex

1776 said:


> So liberals....how does JFK's speech "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" fit into your welfare world???




It fits in quite well.  We like to make welfare, food stamps and other services available to the poor and needy who can't afford it and can't make enough to buy it, or can't work due to disabilities - and we don't mind paying higher taxes to do it...*that's what we do for our country.* 

What do you do for your country?  Whine and cry about those services?


----------



## Mertex

tinydancer said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So liberals....how does JFK's speech "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" fit into your welfare world???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perfectly...
> 
> It is a call to PUBLIC service, not private greed.
> 
> If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 'Surely you jest.
> 
> You have the most wealthy souls in America calling for public service. Tell me you realize this at the time.
Click to expand...


Is that what you tell yourself so as not to feel guilty that you begrudge children food?


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Mertex said:


> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perfectly...
> 
> It is a call to PUBLIC service, not private greed.
> 
> If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> 
> 
> 'Surely you jest.
> 
> You have the most wealthy souls in America calling for public service. Tell me you realize this at the time.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is that what you tell yourself so as not to feel guilty that you begrudge children food?
Click to expand...


  Really? You're playing the You-must-hate-children card? What happened? Run out of race cards or did you misplace your you-must-hate-the-elderly cards? Perhaps you have some you-hate-clean-water cards under the sofa cushions that you can play every time your argument is too vacuous to stand on its own. Personally, if I were you I would stick some war-on-women cards up my sleeve just in case you get boxed in by facts and reality.


----------



## Bfgrn

tinydancer said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So liberals....how does JFK's speech "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" fit into your welfare world???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perfectly...
> 
> It is a call to PUBLIC service, not private greed.
> 
> If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 'Surely you jest.
> 
> You have the most wealthy souls in America calling for public service. Tell me you realize this at the time.
Click to expand...


Here is an idea...educate yourself. The Kennedy legacy is public service.

President Kennedy gave one of my favorite speeches less than a month before his murder.

_On Oct. 26, 1963, President John F. Kennedy gave a Convocation address as part of the ground breaking ceremonies for the Robert Frost Library at Amherst College._






Excerpt:

"Privilege is here, and with privilege goes responsibility. And I think, as your president said, that it must be a source of satisfaction to you that this school's graduates have recognized it. And I hope that the students who are here now will also recognize it in the future. Although Amherst has been in the forefront of extending aid to needy and talented students, private colleges, taken as a whole, draw 50 percent of their students from the wealthiest 10 percent of our nation. And even state universities and other public institutions derive 25 percent of their students from this group. In March 1962, persons of 18 years or older who had not completed high school made up 46 percent of the total labor force, and such persons comprised 64 percent of those who were unemployed. And in 1958, the lowest fifth of families in the United States had 4.5 percent of the total personal income, the highest fifth, 45.5 percent.

There is inherited wealth in this country and also inherited poverty. And unless the graduates of this college and other colleges like it who are given a running start in life, unless they are willing to put back into our society those talents, the broad sympathy, the understanding, the compassionunless they're willing to put those qualities back into the service of the Great Republic, then obviously the presuppositions upon which our democracy are based are bound to be fallible.

The problems which this country now faces are staggering, both at home and abroad. We need the service, in the great sense, of every educated man or woman to find 10 million jobs in the next 2 1/2 years, to govern our relationsa country which lived in isolation for 150 years, and is now suddenly the leader of the free worldto govern our relations with over 100 countries, to govern those relations with success, so that the balance of power remains strong on the side of freedom, to make it possible for Americans of all different races and creeds to live together in harmony, to make it possible for a world to exist in diversity and freedom. All this requires the best of all of us.

And therefore, I am proud to come to this college, whose graduates have recognized this obligation and to say to those who are now here that the need is endless, and I'm confident that you will respond.

Robert Frost said it:

    Two roads diverged in a wood, and I
    I took the one less traveled by,
    And that has made all the difference. 

I hope that road will not be the less traveled by, and I hope your commitment to the great public interest in years to come will be worthy of your long inheritance since your beginning.


----------



## Papageorgio

Bfgrn said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Naw.
> 
> Quite the opposite.
> 
> And you might have noticed it was Kennedy's brother (Who you folks vilified to no end) that helped Obama get elected and worked with him on health care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> prior to obama, teddy (the swimmer) kennedy was the most liberal member of the senate.  He accomplished nothing in all his years in the senate, but he did allow a girl to die.    What a hero!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No US Senator has a longer list of accomplishments than Ted Kennedy.
> 
> The Lion Sleeps Tonight: Ted Kennedy Leaves Long, Impressive Legacy
> 
> "The work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives and the dream shall never die"
> Senator Edward M. Kennedy
Click to expand...


To bad his girlfriend drowned before hearing those words.


----------



## DigitalDrifter

Unfortunately the Dimocrats of today instead of saying "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country".
Are saying "Ask not what your country can do for you, DEMAND IT !"


----------



## jon_berzerk

Redfish said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> JFK wouldn't be a Democrap today.
> 
> He was pro-military, anti-communist, a Catholic, pro-low taxes, pro-business, etc.
> 
> Hmmmm, except for the Catholic angle.....he looks like Romney.
> 
> The Democraps would just roll out some black, Hispanic, Asian....woman that is also a lesbian to run against him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy started the Peace Corps, was working on a health care plan that would become Medicare, wanted to spend more on education and science..and wanted to go to the moon. That and he wanted to get the civil rights act passed.
> 
> None of that is at  all conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> horseshit, shallow.   helping people is a conservative belief,  medicare was passed with GOP votes,  the moon landing was supported by people from both parties and with all political viewpoints.   The civil rights act would not have passed without GOP votes and was fillibustered by democrats.
> 
> your view of history is totally incorrect.   were you taught by a member of the teachers union?
Click to expand...


well that is what happens when you get all of your view points 

from MSLSD and truthout 

--LOL


----------



## Two Thumbs

I've never heard RR referred to as our kennedy.


He had WAY more class than jfk could dream about


----------



## TemplarKormac

Bfgrn said:


> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So liberals....how does JFK's speech "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" fit into your welfare world???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perfectly...
> 
> It is a call to PUBLIC service, not private greed.
> 
> If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
> President John F. Kennedy
Click to expand...


Question:

If you tax the rich into oblivion, who will save the poor? Who will help them (the poor) prosper?


----------



## WelfareQueen

JohnL.Burke said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Surely you jest.
> 
> You have the most wealthy souls in America calling for public service. Tell me you realize this at the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what you tell yourself so as not to feel guilty that you begrudge children food?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? You're playing the You-must-hate-children card? What happened? Run out of race cards or did you misplace your you-must-hate-the-elderly cards? Perhaps you have some you-hate-clean-water cards under the sofa cushions that you can play every time your argument is too vacuous to stand on its own. Personally, if I were you I would stick some war-on-women cards up my sleeve just in case you get boxed in by facts and reality.
Click to expand...




You pretty much nailed it.  Liberals could give a shit about the downtrodden poor.  It's complete bullshit.  They play the fake "let's do it for the chiltren card," as a means of increasing Governmental control over people's lives and eroding individual freedom and liberty.  Their entire agenda is about power and control.  Nothing more.


----------



## Sallow

Lumpy 1 said:


> "My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
> JFK
> 
> This quote alone would get Kennedy kicked out of the (entitlement for votes) Democrat Party of today.



Kennedy wasn't advocating get rid of programs to help the poor. What he was advocating with those folks with means to start working for the good of the country..instead of just themselves.

You folks pervert everything that is good and pure.


----------



## Sallow

Redfish said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> CrusaderFrank said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody calls Reagan "our Kennedy"
> 
> Kennedy would get primaried out in today Progressive Dem Party, he's to the right of most modern Presidents
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Naw.
> 
> Quite the opposite.
> 
> And you might have noticed it was Kennedy's brother (Who you folks vilified to no end) that helped Obama get elected and worked with him on health care.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> prior to obama, teddy (the swimmer) kennedy was the most liberal member of the senate.  He accomplished nothing in all his years in the senate, but he did allow a girl to die.    What a hero!
Click to expand...


Like I said, you guys continue to vilify him, even in death.

Romney has a body on his record, for nearly the exact same thing..a car accident.

So does Laura Bush. Not a peep from you guys.

And bar none, Edward Kennedy was one of the most successful Senators in the history of congress.

Ted Kennedy's legislative record - National populist | Examiner.com


----------



## TemplarKormac

Sallow said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
> JFK
> 
> This quote alone would get Kennedy kicked out of the (entitlement for votes) Democrat Party of today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy was advocating get rid of programs to help the poor. What he was advocating with those folks with means to start working for the good of the country..instead of just themselves.
> 
> You folks pervert everything that is good and pure.
Click to expand...


(Guffaws)

Really now? Could you make more sense in the future? I can't make heads or tails of this post.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Sallow said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Naw.
> 
> Quite the opposite.
> 
> And you might have noticed it was Kennedy's brother (Who you folks vilified to no end) that helped Obama get elected and worked with him on health care.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> prior to obama, teddy (the swimmer) kennedy was the most liberal member of the senate.  He accomplished nothing in all his years in the senate, but he did allow a girl to die.    What a hero!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said, you guys continue to vilify him, even in death.
> 
> Romney has a body on his record, for nearly the exact same thing..a car accident.
> 
> So does Laura Bush. Not a peep from you guys.
> 
> And bar none, Edward Kennedy was one of the most successful Senators in the history of congress.
> 
> Ted Kennedy's legislative record - National populist | Examiner.com
Click to expand...


Who said we were vilifying him? Had he been a Democrat today, he would have been laughed off of Capitol Hill.


----------



## Sallow

jon_berzerk said:


> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy started the Peace Corps, was working on a health care plan that would become Medicare, wanted to spend more on education and science..and wanted to go to the moon. That and he wanted to get the civil rights act passed.
> 
> None of that is at  all conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> horseshit, shallow.   helping people is a conservative belief,  medicare was passed with GOP votes,  the moon landing was supported by people from both parties and with all political viewpoints.   The civil rights act would not have passed without GOP votes and was fillibustered by democrats.
> 
> your view of history is totally incorrect.   were you taught by a member of the teachers union?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> well that is what happens when you get all of your view points
> 
> from MSLSD and truthout
> 
> --LOL
Click to expand...


The GOP of yesterday isn't the GOP of today.

But the conservative vs. liberal paradigm? Yeah..that carries on.

It's conservatives that want to do away with Medicare, civil rights, science and education.


----------



## Sallow

TemplarKormac said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> prior to obama, teddy (the swimmer) kennedy was the most liberal member of the senate.  He accomplished nothing in all his years in the senate, but he did allow a girl to die.    What a hero!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, you guys continue to vilify him, even in death.
> 
> Romney has a body on his record, for nearly the exact same thing..a car accident.
> 
> So does Laura Bush. Not a peep from you guys.
> 
> And bar none, Edward Kennedy was one of the most successful Senators in the history of congress.
> 
> Ted Kennedy's legislative record - National populist | Examiner.com
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Who said we were vilifying him? Had he been a Democrat today, he would have been laughed off of Capitol Hill.
Click to expand...


Go back.

Re-read the post.

I don't think you know what you are talking about.


----------



## Sallow

TemplarKormac said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
> JFK
> 
> This quote alone would get Kennedy kicked out of the (entitlement for votes) Democrat Party of today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy was advocating get rid of programs to help the poor. What he was advocating with those folks with means to start working for the good of the country..instead of just themselves.
> 
> You folks pervert everything that is good and pure.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (Guffaws)
> 
> Really now? Could you make more sense in the future? I can't make heads or tails of this post.
Click to expand...


It was a mis-type.

I fixed the post.

Kennedy *wasn't*


----------



## TemplarKormac

Sallow said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, you guys continue to vilify him, even in death.
> 
> Romney has a body on his record, for nearly the exact same thing..a car accident.
> 
> So does Laura Bush. Not a peep from you guys.
> 
> And bar none, Edward Kennedy was one of the most successful Senators in the history of congress.
> 
> Ted Kennedy's legislative record - National populist | Examiner.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who said we were vilifying him? Had he been a Democrat today, he would have been laughed off of Capitol Hill.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Go back.
> 
> Re-read the post.
> 
> I don't think you know what you are talking about.
Click to expand...


Oh, I think I do. You've been exuding butthurt from the moment I knocked your "Kennedy isn't a conservative" argument out of the park. 

Romney has a body on his record? Link?

So does Laura Bush? Also, link?


----------



## Sallow

TemplarKormac said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who said we were vilifying him? Had he been a Democrat today, he would have been laughed off of Capitol Hill.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Go back.
> 
> Re-read the post.
> 
> I don't think you know what you are talking about.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, I think I do. You've been exuding butthurt from the moment I knocked your "Kennedy isn't a conservative" argument out of the park.
> 
> Romney has a body on his record? Link?
> 
> So does Laura Bush? Also, link?
Click to expand...


Okay..first off..

I was posting about vilifying Edward Kennedy.

That continues to this day.

Secondly? Romney had an accident in France killing his passenger. You can google it.

Laura Bush had an accident that killed her ex boyfriend.

You can google that too.

You not very good at "gotcha" or much else.

Dope.

And John F. Kennedy DESCRIBED HIMSELF as a LIBERAL.


----------



## Stephanie

Sallow said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
> JFK
> 
> This quote alone would get Kennedy kicked out of the (entitlement for votes) Democrat Party of today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy wasn't advocating get rid of programs to help the poor. What he was advocating with those folks with means to start working for the good of the country..instead of just themselves.
> 
> You folks pervert everything that is good and pure.
Click to expand...


you mean like slaves used to work for their masters?

aren't you liberals just so forward thinking...you want people to be slaves for you so you can crow how much you all care for the poor ..
Well last I heard we were born in FREE COUNTRY to make our live as we wished...that's either to be poor or rich without you stealing our money from us to make us your all's SLAVES for your dumb sayings


----------



## paperview

Sallow said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back.
> 
> Re-read the post.
> 
> I don't think you know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I think I do. You've been exuding butthurt from the moment I knocked your "Kennedy isn't a conservative" argument out of the park.
> 
> Romney has a body on his record? Link?
> 
> So does Laura Bush? Also, link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay..first off..
> 
> I was posting about vilifying Edward Kennedy.
> 
> That continues to this day.
> 
> Secondly? Romney had an accident in France killing his passenger. You can google it.
> 
> Laura Bush had an accident that killed her ex boyfriend.
> 
> You can google that too.
> 
> You not very good at "gotcha" or much else.
> 
> Dope.
> 
> And John F. Kennedy DESCRIBED HIMSELF as a LIBERAL.
Click to expand...

Yes, his famous I am a liberal speech is hallmark.

And just look how the conservatives want to own this:



> In the words of Robert D. Marcus: "Kennedy entered office with  ambitions to eradicate poverty and to raise America&#8217;s eyes to the stars  through the space program."[3]
> 
> Amongst the legislation passed by Congress during the Kennedy Administration, unemployment benefits  were expanded, aid was provided to cities to improve housing and  transportation, funds were allocated to continue the construction of a  national highway system started under Eisenhower, a water pollution  control act was passed to protect the country&#8217;s rivers and streams, and  an agricultural act to raise farmers&#8217; incomes was made law.[4]
> *
> A significant amount of anti-poverty legislation was passed by  Congress, including increases in social security benefits and in the  minimum wage, several housing bills, and aid to economically distressed  areas. A few antirecession public works packages*,[3] together with a number of measures designed to assist farmers,[5]  were introduced.
> 
> *Major expansions and improvements were made in Social  Security (including retirement at 62 for men), hospital construction,  library services, family farm assistance and reclamation.[6]
> 
> Food stamps for low-income Americans were reintroduced,
> 
> food  distribution to the poor was increased,
> 
> and there was an expansion in  school milk and school lunch distribution. The most comprehensive farm  legislation since 1938 was carried out, with expansions in rural  electrification, soil conservation, crop insurance, farm credit, and  marketing orders.*
> 
> In September 1961, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency  was established as the focal point in government for the &#8220;planning,  negotiation, and execution of international disarmament and arms control  agreements.&#8221;[7]
> 
> Altogether, the New Frontier witnessed the passage of a broad range of important social and economic reforms.[8]
> According to Theodore White,  under John F. Kennedy, more new legislation was actually approved and  passed into law than at any other time since the Thirties.[9]
> 
> When Congress recessed in the latter part of 1961, 33 out of 53 bills  that Kennedy had submitted to Congress were enacted. A year later, 40  out of 54 bills that the Kennedy Administration had proposed were passed  by Congress, and in 1963 35 out of 58 &#8220;must&#8221; bills were enacted. As  noted by Larry O&#8217;Brien, "A myth had arisen that he [Kennedy] was  uninterested in Congress, or that he &#8220;failed&#8221; with Congress. The facts, I  believe, are otherwise. Kennedy&#8217;s legislative record in 1961&#8211;63 was the  best of any President since Roosevelt&#8217;s first term."[10]





> The Kennedy Administration pushed an economic stimulus program  through congress in an effort to kick-start the American economy  following an economic downturn. On February 2, 1961, Kennedy sent a  comprehensive Economic Message to Congress which had been in preparation  for several weeks. The legislative proposals put forward in this  message included:[6]
> 
> 
> The addition of a temporary thirteen-week supplement to jobless benefits,
> The extension of aid to the children of unemployed workers,
> The redevelopment of distressed areas,
> An increase in Social Security payments and the encouragement of earlier retirement,
> An increase in the minimum wage and an extension in coverage,
> The provision of emergency relief to feed grain farmers, and
> The financing of a comprehensive homebuilding and slum clearance program.
> The following month, the first of these seven measures became law,  and the remaining six measures had been signed by the end of June.


New Frontier


----------



## TemplarKormac

Sallow said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back.
> 
> Re-read the post.
> 
> I don't think you know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I think I do. You've been exuding butthurt from the moment I knocked your "Kennedy isn't a conservative" argument out of the park.
> 
> Romney has a body on his record? Link?
> 
> So does Laura Bush? Also, link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay..first off..
> 
> I was posting about vilifying Edward Kennedy.
> 
> That continues to this day.
> 
> Secondly? Romney had an accident in France killing his passenger. You can google it.
> 
> Laura Bush had an accident that killed her ex boyfriend.
> 
> You can google that too.
> 
> You not very good at "gotcha" or much else.
> 
> Dope.
> 
> And John F. Kennedy DESCRIBED HIMSELF as a LIBERAL.
Click to expand...


Anywho, you can't stick to the topic of your own thread, which was about John F. Kennedy. Given the list I generated of policy decisions made by him, his staff or his party, I'd say that aligns him with more with conservatives than liberals.

The sad part here is that you consider the man an object, not a role model. "Our Kennedy." How pathetic. 

Of course, Laura Bush ran a stop sign. In 1963. And of course, Ted Kennedy had his moment in the Chappaquiddick in 1969. Funny I don't see you vilifying him at all.


----------



## TemplarKormac

paperview said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I think I do. You've been exuding butthurt from the moment I knocked your "Kennedy isn't a conservative" argument out of the park.
> 
> Romney has a body on his record? Link?
> 
> So does Laura Bush? Also, link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay..first off..
> 
> I was posting about vilifying Edward Kennedy.
> 
> That continues to this day.
> 
> Secondly? Romney had an accident in France killing his passenger. You can google it.
> 
> Laura Bush had an accident that killed her ex boyfriend.
> 
> You can google that too.
> 
> You not very good at "gotcha" or much else.
> 
> Dope.
> 
> And John F. Kennedy DESCRIBED HIMSELF as a LIBERAL.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yes, his famous I am a liberal speech is hallmark.
> 
> And just look how the conservatives want to own this:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the words of Robert D. Marcus: "Kennedy entered office with  ambitions to eradicate poverty and to raise Americas eyes to the stars  through the space program."[3]
> 
> Amongst the legislation passed by Congress during the Kennedy Administration, unemployment benefits  were expanded, aid was provided to cities to improve housing and  transportation, funds were allocated to continue the construction of a  national highway system started under Eisenhower, a water pollution  control act was passed to protect the countrys rivers and streams, and  an agricultural act to raise farmers incomes was made law.[4]
> *
> A significant amount of anti-poverty legislation was passed by  Congress, including increases in social security benefits and in the  minimum wage, several housing bills, and aid to economically distressed  areas. A few antirecession public works packages*,[3] together with a number of measures designed to assist farmers,[5]  were introduced.
> 
> *Major expansions and improvements were made in Social  Security (including retirement at 62 for men), hospital construction,  library services, family farm assistance and reclamation.[6]
> 
> Food stamps for low-income Americans were reintroduced,
> 
> food  distribution to the poor was increased,
> 
> and there was an expansion in  school milk and school lunch distribution. The most comprehensive farm  legislation since 1938 was carried out, with expansions in rural  electrification, soil conservation, crop insurance, farm credit, and  marketing orders.*
> 
> In September 1961, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency  was established as the focal point in government for the planning,  negotiation, and execution of international disarmament and arms control  agreements.[7]
> 
> Altogether, the New Frontier witnessed the passage of a broad range of important social and economic reforms.[8]
> According to Theodore White,  under John F. Kennedy, more new legislation was actually approved and  passed into law than at any other time since the Thirties.[9]
> 
> When Congress recessed in the latter part of 1961, 33 out of 53 bills  that Kennedy had submitted to Congress were enacted. A year later, 40  out of 54 bills that the Kennedy Administration had proposed were passed  by Congress, and in 1963 35 out of 58 must bills were enacted. As  noted by Larry OBrien, "A myth had arisen that he [Kennedy] was  uninterested in Congress, or that he failed with Congress. The facts, I  believe, are otherwise. Kennedys legislative record in 196163 was the  best of any President since Roosevelts first term."[10]
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Kennedy Administration pushed an economic stimulus program  through congress in an effort to kick-start the American economy  following an economic downturn. On February 2, 1961, Kennedy sent a  comprehensive Economic Message to Congress which had been in preparation  for several weeks. The legislative proposals put forward in this  message included:[6]
> 
> 
> The addition of a temporary thirteen-week supplement to jobless benefits,
> The extension of aid to the children of unemployed workers,
> The redevelopment of distressed areas,
> An increase in Social Security payments and the encouragement of earlier retirement,
> An increase in the minimum wage and an extension in coverage,
> The provision of emergency relief to feed grain farmers, and
> The financing of a comprehensive homebuilding and slum clearance program.
> The following month, the first of these seven measures became law,  and the remaining six measures had been signed by the end of June.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> New Frontier
Click to expand...


Need I quote you what I quoted Sallow with earlier?


----------



## TemplarKormac

TemplarKormac said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> JFK wouldn't be a Democrap today.
> 
> He was pro-military, anti-communist, a Catholic, pro-low taxes, pro-business, etc.
> 
> Hmmmm, except for the Catholic angle.....he looks like Romney.
> 
> The Democraps would just roll out some black, Hispanic, Asian....woman that is also a lesbian to run against him.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy started the Peace Corps, was working on a health care plan that would become Medicare, wanted to spend more on education and science..and wanted to go to the moon. That and he wanted to get the civil rights act passed.
> 
> None of that is at  all conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kennedy
> 
> 1) Expanded our military
> 
> 2) Sanctioned multiple attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro
> 
> 3) Allowed U-2 spying on Russia's missile sites
> 
> 4) Expanded the space program
> 
> 5) Was anti-Communist
> 
> 6) In 1963 before his death he:
> 
> a) Cut the corporate tax rate from 52 to 47%
> 
> 
> b) Cut income taxes from a range of 20-91% to 14-65%
> 7) Advocated pro-growth economic policy in general
> 
> 8) Was pro-Israel
> 
> 9) Founded the US-Israeli military alliance
> 
> 10) Advocated a coup of the Iraqi government
> 
> 11) Launched the invasion of the Bay of Pigs
> 
> 12) Signed Proclamation 3504 authorizing the naval quarantine of Communist Cuba
> 
> So, were any of these things liberal by your standards? The irony here is that he seems awfully and eerily similar to Bush is a lot of ways. Especially his attitudes toward Iraq, his economic policies, his attitude towards Israel and his military strategy overall. His campaign against communism was similar in scope to Bush's War on Terrorism. You can't say that the Space program was a liberal thing, since many presidents built upon it, the first moon landing in July 1969 happened on Nixon's watch. You have no clue how conservative he was. In fact had he been around today, he'd have more in common with Republicans than Democrats.
Click to expand...


(Pause for effect)


----------



## paperview

> Need I quote you what I quoted Sallow with earlier?



What you _need _to do is ignore what I just showed you for the cognitive dissonance to not be so uncomfortable.


----------



## paperview

And just look how the conservatives want to own this:



> In the words of Robert D. Marcus: "Kennedy entered office with   ambitions to eradicate poverty and to raise America&#8217;s eyes to the stars   through the space program."[3]
> 
> Amongst the legislation passed by Congress during the Kennedy Administration, unemployment benefits   were expanded, aid was provided to cities to improve housing and   transportation, funds were allocated to continue the construction of a   national highway system started under Eisenhower, a water pollution   control act was passed to protect the country&#8217;s rivers and streams, and   an agricultural act to raise farmers&#8217; incomes was made law.[4]
> *
> A significant amount of anti-poverty legislation was passed by   Congress, including increases in social security benefits and in the   minimum wage, several housing bills, and aid to economically distressed   areas. A few antirecession public works packages*,[3] together with a number of measures designed to assist farmers,[5]  were introduced.
> 
> *Major expansions and improvements were made in Social  Security  (including retirement at 62 for men), hospital construction,  library  services, family farm assistance and reclamation.[6]
> 
> Food stamps for low-income Americans were reintroduced,
> 
> food  distribution to the poor was increased,
> 
> and there was an expansion in  school milk and school lunch  distribution. The most comprehensive farm  legislation since 1938 was  carried out, with expansions in rural  electrification, soil  conservation, crop insurance, farm credit, and  marketing orders.*
> 
> In September 1961, the Arms Control and Disarmament Agency   was established as the focal point in government for the &#8220;planning,   negotiation, and execution of international disarmament and arms control   agreements.&#8221;[7]
> 
> Altogether, the New Frontier witnessed the passage of a broad range of important social and economic reforms.[8]
> According to Theodore White,   under John F. Kennedy, more new legislation was actually approved and   passed into law than at any other time since the Thirties.[9]
> 
> When Congress recessed in the latter part of 1961, 33 out of 53 bills   that Kennedy had submitted to Congress were enacted. A year later, 40   out of 54 bills that the Kennedy Administration had proposed were passed   by Congress, and in 1963 35 out of 58 &#8220;must&#8221; bills were enacted. As   noted by Larry O&#8217;Brien, "A myth had arisen that he [Kennedy] was   uninterested in Congress, or that he &#8220;failed&#8221; with Congress. The facts, I   believe, are otherwise. Kennedy&#8217;s legislative record in 1961&#8211;63 was  the  best of any President since Roosevelt&#8217;s first term."[10]





> The Kennedy Administration pushed an economic stimulus program  through  congress in an effort to kick-start the American economy  following an  economic downturn. On February 2, 1961, Kennedy sent a  comprehensive  Economic Message to Congress which had been in preparation  for several  weeks. The legislative proposals put forward in this  message included:[6]
> 
> 
> The addition of a temporary thirteen-week supplement to jobless benefits,
> The extension of aid to the children of unemployed workers,
> The redevelopment of distressed areas,
> An increase in Social Security payments and the encouragement of earlier retirement,
> An increase in the minimum wage and an extension in coverage,
> The provision of emergency relief to feed grain farmers, and
> The financing of a comprehensive homebuilding and slum clearance program.
> The following month, the first of these seven measures became law,  and  the remaining six measures had been signed by the end of June.


New Frontier


----------



## Sallow

TemplarKormac said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I think I do. You've been exuding butthurt from the moment I knocked your "Kennedy isn't a conservative" argument out of the park.
> 
> Romney has a body on his record? Link?
> 
> So does Laura Bush? Also, link?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Okay..first off..
> 
> I was posting about vilifying Edward Kennedy.
> 
> That continues to this day.
> 
> Secondly? Romney had an accident in France killing his passenger. You can google it.
> 
> Laura Bush had an accident that killed her ex boyfriend.
> 
> You can google that too.
> 
> You not very good at "gotcha" or much else.
> 
> Dope.
> 
> And John F. Kennedy DESCRIBED HIMSELF as a LIBERAL.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Anywho, you can't stick to the topic of your own thread, which was about John F. Kennedy. Given the list I generated of policy decisions made by him, his staff or his party, I'd say that aligns him with more with conservatives than liberals.
> 
> The sad part here is that you consider the man an object, not a role model. "Our Kennedy." How pathetic.
> 
> Of course, Laura Bush ran a stop sign. In 1963. And of course, Ted Kennedy had his moment in the Chappaquiddick in 1969. Funny I don't see you vilifying him at all.
Click to expand...


Wait what?

The Topic of my thread is John Kennedy. A self described Liberal.

And no, most of the stuff he advocated for isn't within the realm of conservativism.

I didn't vilify either Laura Bush or Edward Kennedy. Neither have Liberals.

It's conservatives that seem to forget that both Laura Bush and Mitt Romney were involved in accidents that resulted in fatalities while labeling Edward Kennedy a criminal for his accident.


----------



## TemplarKormac

paperview said:


> What you _need _to do is ignore what I just showed you for the cognitive dissonance to not be so uncomfortable.



I ignored it because I have substantive proof to the contrary. Democrats were way more conservative back in the 1960s than they are now. The party you belong to has moved significantly to the far left side of the ideological spectrum, whereas Democrats of that era were left of center. Republicans of that era were right of center, and ironically pushed for and backed many of the policies Kennedy proposed. Bipartisanship was a regular occurrence in most cases back then.

What you _need_ to do is ignore history to make the butthurt not seem so uncomfortable.


----------



## paperview

*Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination*
September 14, 1960


*What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?"  If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who  is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who  is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this  party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of  "Liberal." 



But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and  not behind, 



someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, 



someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their  housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil  liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate  and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they  mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."


 But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal"  to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a  "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.


Accepting the NY Liberal Party Nomination, 1960 . JFK . WGBH American Experience | PBS*


----------



## TemplarKormac

Sallow said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay..first off..
> 
> I was posting about vilifying Edward Kennedy.
> 
> That continues to this day.
> 
> Secondly? Romney had an accident in France killing his passenger. You can google it.
> 
> Laura Bush had an accident that killed her ex boyfriend.
> 
> You can google that too.
> 
> You not very good at "gotcha" or much else.
> 
> Dope.
> 
> And John F. Kennedy DESCRIBED HIMSELF as a LIBERAL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anywho, you can't stick to the topic of your own thread, which was about John F. Kennedy. Given the list I generated of policy decisions made by him, his staff or his party, I'd say that aligns him with more with conservatives than liberals.
> 
> The sad part here is that you consider the man an object, not a role model. "Our Kennedy." How pathetic.
> 
> Of course, Laura Bush ran a stop sign. In 1963. And of course, Ted Kennedy had his moment in the Chappaquiddick in 1969. Funny I don't see you vilifying him at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait what?
> 
> The Topic of my thread is John Kennedy. A self described Liberal.
> 
> And no, most of the stuff he advocated for isn't within the realm of conservativism.
> 
> I didn't vilify either Laura Bush or Edward Kennedy. Neither have Liberals.
> 
> It's conservatives that seem to forget that both Laura Bush and Mitt Romney were involved in accidents that resulted in fatalities while labeling Edward Kennedy a criminal for his accident.
Click to expand...


LOL, you mentioning them (Mitt and Laura) in accidents seems to me like you're vilifying them. Hey, you brought it up, not me.


----------



## Sallow

TemplarKormac said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy started the Peace Corps, was working on a health care plan that would become Medicare, wanted to spend more on education and science..and wanted to go to the moon. That and he wanted to get the civil rights act passed.
> 
> None of that is at  all conservative.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy
> 
> 1) Expanded our military
> 
> 2) Sanctioned multiple attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro
> 
> 3) Allowed U-2 spying on Russia's missile sites
> 
> 4) Expanded the space program
> 
> 5) Was anti-Communist
> 
> 6) In 1963 before his death he:
> 
> a) Cut the corporate tax rate from 52 to 47%
> 
> 
> b) Cut income taxes from a range of 20-91% to 14-65%
> 7) Advocated pro-growth economic policy in general
> 
> 8) Was pro-Israel
> 
> 9) Founded the US-Israeli military alliance
> 
> 10) Advocated a coup of the Iraqi government
> 
> 11) Launched the invasion of the Bay of Pigs
> 
> 12) Signed Proclamation 3504 authorizing the naval quarantine of Communist Cuba
> 
> So, were any of these things liberal by your standards? The irony here is that he seems awfully and eerily similar to Bush is a lot of ways. Especially his attitudes toward Iraq, his economic policies, his attitude towards Israel and his military strategy overall. His campaign against communism was similar in scope to Bush's War on Terrorism. You can't say that the Space program was a liberal thing, since many presidents built upon it, the first moon landing in July 1969 happened on Nixon's watch. You have no clue how conservative he was. In fact had he been around today, he'd have more in common with Republicans than Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> (Pause for effect)
Click to expand...



Pause for what effect?

You folks were calling him a communist. Heck, you folks were calling Eisenhower a communist. And yeah..Eisenhower was a liberal Republican.

By the way, you folks STILL TO THIS DAY call liberals, communists.

Some of our MOST ANTI-COMMUNIST Presidents, were Liberal.


----------



## TemplarKormac

paperview said:


> *Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination*
> September 14, 1960
> 
> 
> *What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?"  If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who  is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who  is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this  party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of  "Liberal."
> 
> 
> 
> But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and  not behind,
> 
> 
> 
> someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions,
> 
> 
> 
> someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their  housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil  liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate  and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they  mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
> 
> 
> But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal"  to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a  "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.
> 
> 
> Accepting the NY Liberal Party Nomination, 1960 . JFK . WGBH American Experience | PBS*



Spare me your citations. 

"NY Liberal Party"? Need I repeat myself?


----------



## Stephanie

Sallow said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy
> 
> 1) Expanded our military
> 
> 2) Sanctioned multiple attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro
> 
> 3) Allowed U-2 spying on Russia's missile sites
> 
> 4) Expanded the space program
> 
> 5) Was anti-Communist
> 
> 6) In 1963 before his death he:
> 
> a) Cut the corporate tax rate from 52 to 47%
> 
> 
> b) Cut income taxes from a range of 20-91% to 14-65%
> 7) Advocated pro-growth economic policy in general
> 
> 8) Was pro-Israel
> 
> 9) Founded the US-Israeli military alliance
> 
> 10) Advocated a coup of the Iraqi government
> 
> 11) Launched the invasion of the Bay of Pigs
> 
> 12) Signed Proclamation 3504 authorizing the naval quarantine of Communist Cuba
> 
> So, were any of these things liberal by your standards? The irony here is that he seems awfully and eerily similar to Bush is a lot of ways. Especially his attitudes toward Iraq, his economic policies, his attitude towards Israel and his military strategy overall. His campaign against communism was similar in scope to Bush's War on Terrorism. You can't say that the Space program was a liberal thing, since many presidents built upon it, the first moon landing in July 1969 happened on Nixon's watch. You have no clue how conservative he was. In fact had he been around today, he'd have more in common with Republicans than Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Pause for effect)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Pause for what effect?
> 
> You folks were calling him a communist.
> 
> By the way, you folks STILL TO THIS DAY call liberal communists.
> 
> Some of our MOST ANTI-COMMUNIST Presidents, were Liberal.
Click to expand...


oh brother, you liberals think so highly of yourselves...it's an embarrassing trait


----------



## TemplarKormac

Sallow said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy
> 
> 1) Expanded our military
> 
> 2) Sanctioned multiple attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro
> 
> 3) Allowed U-2 spying on Russia's missile sites
> 
> 4) Expanded the space program
> 
> 5) Was anti-Communist
> 
> 6) In 1963 before his death he:
> 
> a) Cut the corporate tax rate from 52 to 47%
> 
> 
> b) Cut income taxes from a range of 20-91% to 14-65%
> 7) Advocated pro-growth economic policy in general
> 
> 8) Was pro-Israel
> 
> 9) Founded the US-Israeli military alliance
> 
> 10) Advocated a coup of the Iraqi government
> 
> 11) Launched the invasion of the Bay of Pigs
> 
> 12) Signed Proclamation 3504 authorizing the naval quarantine of Communist Cuba
> 
> So, were any of these things liberal by your standards? The irony here is that he seems awfully and eerily similar to Bush is a lot of ways. Especially his attitudes toward Iraq, his economic policies, his attitude towards Israel and his military strategy overall. His campaign against communism was similar in scope to Bush's War on Terrorism. You can't say that the Space program was a liberal thing, since many presidents built upon it, the first moon landing in July 1969 happened on Nixon's watch. You have no clue how conservative he was. In fact had he been around today, he'd have more in common with Republicans than Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (Pause for effect)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Pause for what effect?
> 
> You folks were calling him a communist.
> 
> By the way, you folks STILL TO THIS DAY call liberal communists.
> 
> Some of our MOST ANTI-COMMUNIST Presidents, were Liberal.
Click to expand...


Have I ever called JFK a communist? Have I called Obama a communist? Have I called YOU a communist? Perhaps you should stop lying now. 

To boot, some of our most anti communist presidents were Conservative. Your point? Everyone hates Communism.


----------



## paperview

Look at JFK's great _conservative _heroes:

This is an important election -- in many ways as important as any  this century -- and I think that the Democratic Party and the Liberal  Party here in New York, and those who believe in progress all over the  United States, should be associated with us in this great effort. 



The  reason that *Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and  Adlai Stevenson* had influence abroad, and the United States in their  time had it, was *because they moved this country here at home, because  they stood for something here in the United States, for expanding the  benefits of our society to our own people, and the people around the  world looked to us as a symbol of hope.*


I think it is our task to re-create the same atmosphere in our own  time. Our national elections have often proved to be the turning point  in the course of our country. I am proposing that 1960 be another  turning point in the history of the great Republic.
 Some pundits are saying it's 1928 all over again. 
*
I say it's 1932 all  over again.* I say this is the great opportunity that we will have in  our time to move our people and this country and the people of the free  world beyond the new frontiers of the 1960s.

*
Accepting the NY Liberal Party Nomination, 1960 . JFK . WGBH American Experience | PBS*


----------



## Sallow

TemplarKormac said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you _need _to do is ignore what I just showed you for the cognitive dissonance to not be so uncomfortable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I ignored it because I have substantive proof to the contrary. *Democrats were way more conservative back in the 1960s than they are now*. The party you belong to has moved significantly to the far left side of the ideological spectrum, whereas Democrats of that era were left of center. Republicans of that era were right of center, and ironically pushed for and backed many of the policies Kennedy proposed. Bipartisanship was a regular occurrence in most cases back then.
> 
> What you _need_ to do is ignore history to make the butthurt not seem so uncomfortable.
Click to expand...


Yeah..some of them were.

We called them "DixieCrats".


----------



## TemplarKormac

Stephanie said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> (Pause for effect)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pause for what effect?
> 
> You folks were calling him a communist.
> 
> By the way, you folks STILL TO THIS DAY call liberal communists.
> 
> Some of our MOST ANTI-COMMUNIST Presidents, were Liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> oh brother, you liberals think so highly of yourselves...it's an embarrassing trait
Click to expand...


"Arrogance is bliss"


----------



## Sallow

TemplarKormac said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> (Pause for effect)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pause for what effect?
> 
> You folks were calling him a communist.
> 
> By the way, you folks STILL TO THIS DAY call liberal communists.
> 
> Some of our MOST ANTI-COMMUNIST Presidents, were Liberal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Have I ever called JFK a communist? Have I called Obama a communist? Have I called YOU a communist? Perhaps you should stop lying now.
> 
> To boot, some of our most anti communist presidents were Conservative. Your point? Everyone hates Communism.
Click to expand...


Then perhaps..you should convince your conservative friends that almost all American liberals are stanchly anti-communist.


----------



## Sallow

TemplarKormac said:


> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination*
> September 14, 1960
> 
> 
> *What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?"  If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who  is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who  is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this  party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of  "Liberal."
> 
> 
> 
> But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and  not behind,
> 
> 
> 
> someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions,
> 
> 
> 
> someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their  housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil  liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate  and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they  mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
> 
> 
> But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal"  to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a  "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.
> 
> 
> Accepting the NY Liberal Party Nomination, 1960 . JFK . WGBH American Experience | PBS*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare me your citations.
> 
> "NY Liberal Party"? Need I repeat myself?
Click to expand...


Yes..that was Kennedy..accepting the Liberal Party nomination.


----------



## Stephanie

The Kennedy clan is full of criminals from murders, rapist, drug addicts, etc etc

Joe Kennedy the daddy was a commie sympathizer and made their money from bootlegging..

 Jfk was nothing more special than any other President...He was assassinated...that's it and it was 

probably done by his own party

Reagan was shot and almost died, that didn't make him special either


----------



## TemplarKormac

Sallow said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you _need _to do is ignore what I just showed you for the cognitive dissonance to not be so uncomfortable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I ignored it because I have substantive proof to the contrary. *Democrats were way more conservative back in the 1960s than they are now*. The party you belong to has moved significantly to the far left side of the ideological spectrum, whereas Democrats of that era were left of center. Republicans of that era were right of center, and ironically pushed for and backed many of the policies Kennedy proposed. Bipartisanship was a regular occurrence in most cases back then.
> 
> What you _need_ to do is ignore history to make the butthurt not seem so uncomfortable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah..some of them were.
> 
> We called them "DixieCrats".
Click to expand...


Sorry, Kennedy belonged to the same party those DixieCrats belonged to. The DixieCrats were Southern Traditionalist, White Supremacists. Or normally what you yourself would attribute to Republicans today. And no, I am not accusing Kennedy of being one of them.


----------



## Bfgrn

TemplarKormac said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 1776 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So liberals....how does JFK's speech "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country" fit into your welfare world???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Perfectly...
> 
> It is a call to PUBLIC service, not private greed.
> 
> If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Question:
> 
> If you tax the rich into oblivion, who will save the poor? Who will help them (the poor) prosper?
Click to expand...


Liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil. 
Liberals believe in raising people up, conservatives believe in pushing people down.
Liberals believe in encouragement, conservatives believe in scorn.
*Liberals always stand up for the little guy, conservatives always stand up for the big guy.*

PROOF...

Taxing the rich into 'oblivion'...

Suppose they say they are going to raise taxes on incomes above $250K. People seem to think that this means if you earn $250K plus a dollar, that you owe an additional tax on the entire $250K. This is not correct. 

Here is how it really works. What happens is that the first $250K is taxed just like it has been, but anything that is made over $250K -- and only the amount over $250K -- is then taxed at the higher rate. The tax on the amount below $250K is not changed.

Example: Suppose the tax increase is 5% on income over $250K. This means that a person who reports income of $250K plus one dollar will be taxed an additional 5 cents. *FIVE CENTS!*

Yes, that's right, if it is 5% they are talking about then it means a 5 cent tax increase on people who make $250,001.

Let me repeat that. If you make $250,001, and they raise taxes 5% on people who make over $250K, then you will have to pay 5 cents more. Five cents. *F.I.V.E. C.E.N.T.S*. That is what people are so upset about. 5 cents.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Sallow said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> paperview said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination*
> September 14, 1960
> 
> 
> *What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?"  If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who  is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who  is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this  party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of  "Liberal."
> 
> 
> 
> But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and  not behind,
> 
> 
> 
> someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions,
> 
> 
> 
> someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their  housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil  liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate  and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they  mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
> 
> 
> But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal"  to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a  "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.
> 
> 
> Accepting the NY Liberal Party Nomination, 1960 . JFK . WGBH American Experience | PBS*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Spare me your citations.
> 
> "NY Liberal Party"? Need I repeat myself?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes..that was Kennedy..accepting the Liberal Party nomination.
Click to expand...


And this is him being conservative:



TemplarKormac said:


> Kennedy
> 
> 1) Expanded our military
> 
> 2) Sanctioned multiple attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro
> 
> 3) Allowed U-2 spying on Russia's missile sites
> 
> 4) Expanded the space program
> 
> 5) Was anti-Communist
> 
> 6) In 1963 before his death he:
> 
> a) Cut the corporate tax rate from 52 to 47%
> 
> 
> b) Cut income taxes from a range of 20-91% to 14-65%
> 7) Advocated pro-growth economic policy in general
> 
> 8) Was pro-Israel
> 
> 9) Founded the US-Israeli military alliance
> 
> 10) Advocated a coup of the Iraqi government
> 
> 11) Launched the invasion of the Bay of Pigs
> 
> 12) Signed Proclamation 3504 authorizing the naval quarantine of Communist Cuba
> 
> So, were any of these things liberal by your standards? The irony here is that he seems awfully and eerily similar to Bush is a lot of ways. Especially his attitudes toward Iraq, his economic policies, his attitude towards Israel and his military strategy overall. His campaign against communism was similar in scope to Bush's War on Terrorism. You can't say that the Space program was a liberal thing, since many presidents built upon it, the first moon landing in July 1969 happened on Nixon's watch. You have no clue how conservative he was. In fact had he been around today, he'd have more in common with Republicans than Democrats.


----------



## Stephanie

Bfgrn said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perfectly...
> 
> It is a call to PUBLIC service, not private greed.
> 
> If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question:
> 
> If you tax the rich into oblivion, who will save the poor? Who will help them (the poor) prosper?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> Liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil.
> Liberals believe in raising people up, conservatives believe in pushing people down.
> Liberals believe in encouragement, conservatives believe in scorn.
> Liberals always stand up for the little guy, conservatives always stand up for the big guy.*
> 
> PROOF...
> 
> Taxing the rich into 'oblivion'...
> 
> Suppose they say they are going to raise taxes on incomes above $250K. People seem to think that this means if you earn $250K plus a dollar, that you owe an additional tax on the entire $250K. This is not correct.
> 
> Here is how it really works. What happens is that the first $250K is taxed just like it has been, but anything that is made over $250K -- and only the amount over $250K -- is then taxed at the higher rate. The tax on the amount below $250K is not changed.
> 
> Example: Suppose the tax increase is 5% on income over $250K. This means that a person who reports income of $250K plus one dollar will be taxed an additional 5 cents. *FIVE CENTS!*
> 
> Yes, that's right, if it is 5% they are talking about then it means a 5 cent tax increase on people who make $250,001.
> 
> Let me repeat that. If you make $250,001, and they raise taxes 5% on people who make over $250K, then you will have to pay 5 cents more. Five cents. *F.I.V.E. C.E.N.T.S*. That is what people are so upset about. 5 cents.
Click to expand...


yeah right, that's your made up stupidity...why would you want everyone to see it?
shoot the high horse you liberals ride on...it's worn out

everything you liberals think about HELPING OTHERS is done by the force of government and with taxation..it's not done on your OWN FREE WILL


----------



## TemplarKormac

Bfgrn said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Perfectly...
> 
> It is a call to PUBLIC service, not private greed.
> 
> If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Question:
> 
> If you tax the rich into oblivion, who will save the poor? Who will help them (the poor) prosper?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil.
> Liberals believe in raising people up, conservatives believe in pushing people down.
> Liberals believe in encouragement, conservatives believe in scorn.
> *Liberals always stand up for the little guy, conservatives always stand up for the big guy.*
> 
> PROOF...
> 
> Taxing the rich into 'oblivion'...
> 
> Suppose they say they are going to raise taxes on incomes above $250K. People seem to think that this means if you earn $250K plus a dollar, that you owe an additional tax on the entire $250K. This is not correct.
> 
> Here is how it really works. What happens is that the first $250K is taxed just like it has been, but anything that is made over $250K -- and only the amount over $250K -- is then taxed at the higher rate. The tax on the amount below $250K is not changed.
> 
> Example: Suppose the tax increase is 5% on income over $250K. This means that a person who reports income of $250K plus one dollar will be taxed an additional 5 cents. *FIVE CENTS!*
> 
> Yes, that's right, if it is 5% they are talking about then it means a 5 cent tax increase on people who make $250,001.
> 
> Let me repeat that. If you make $250,001, and they raise taxes 5% on people who make over $250K, then you will have to pay 5 cents more. Five cents. *F.I.V.E. C.E.N.T.S*. That is what people are so upset about. 5 cents.
Click to expand...


Uhh, that bolded statement just invalidates your entire argument. It wouldn't hurt you to know that Conservatives are more generous with their money than Liberals are. Ironically. 

RealClearPolitics - Articles - Conservatives More Liberal Givers


----------



## Bfgrn

Stephanie said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Question:
> 
> If you tax the rich into oblivion, who will save the poor? Who will help them (the poor) prosper?
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil.
> Liberals believe in raising people up, conservatives believe in pushing people down.
> Liberals believe in encouragement, conservatives believe in scorn.
> Liberals always stand up for the little guy, conservatives always stand up for the big guy.*
> 
> PROOF...
> 
> Taxing the rich into 'oblivion'...
> 
> Suppose they say they are going to raise taxes on incomes above $250K. People seem to think that this means if you earn $250K plus a dollar, that you owe an additional tax on the entire $250K. This is not correct.
> 
> Here is how it really works. What happens is that the first $250K is taxed just like it has been, but anything that is made over $250K -- and only the amount over $250K -- is then taxed at the higher rate. The tax on the amount below $250K is not changed.
> 
> Example: Suppose the tax increase is 5% on income over $250K. This means that a person who reports income of $250K plus one dollar will be taxed an additional 5 cents. *FIVE CENTS!*
> 
> Yes, that's right, if it is 5% they are talking about then it means a 5 cent tax increase on people who make $250,001.
> 
> Let me repeat that. If you make $250,001, and they raise taxes 5% on people who make over $250K, then you will have to pay 5 cents more. Five cents. *F.I.V.E. C.E.N.T.S*. That is what people are so upset about. 5 cents.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> yeah right, that's your made up stupidity...why would you want everyone to see it?
> shoot the high horse you liberals ride on...it's worn out
Click to expand...


It amazes me that you folks on the right are so oblivious to those truths...they manifest every single day on this board.


----------



## Sallow

TemplarKormac said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Spare me your citations.
> 
> "NY Liberal Party"? Need I repeat myself?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes..that was Kennedy..accepting the Liberal Party nomination.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And this is him being conservative:
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy
> 
> 1) Expanded our military
> 
> 2) Sanctioned multiple attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro
> 
> 3) Allowed U-2 spying on Russia's missile sites
> 
> 4) Expanded the space program
> 
> 5) Was anti-Communist
> 
> 6) In 1963 before his death he:
> 
> a) Cut the corporate tax rate from 52 to 47%
> 
> 
> b) Cut income taxes from a range of 20-91% to 14-65%
> 7) Advocated pro-growth economic policy in general
> 
> 8) Was pro-Israel
> 
> 9) Founded the US-Israeli military alliance
> 
> 10) Advocated a coup of the Iraqi government
> 
> 11) Launched the invasion of the Bay of Pigs
> 
> 12) Signed Proclamation 3504 authorizing the naval quarantine of Communist Cuba
> 
> So, were any of these things liberal by your standards? The irony here is that he seems awfully and eerily similar to Bush is a lot of ways. Especially his attitudes toward Iraq, his economic policies, his attitude towards Israel and his military strategy overall. His campaign against communism was similar in scope to Bush's War on Terrorism. You can't say that the Space program was a liberal thing, since many presidents built upon it, the first moon landing in July 1969 happened on Nixon's watch. You have no clue how conservative he was. In fact had he been around today, he'd have more in common with Republicans than Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Eyeah..they were.

Conservatives were a great deal more isolationist in the 60s and Liberals wanted to export Democracy. That flipped with Nixon.


----------



## Stephanie

Bfgrn said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> *
> Liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil.
> Liberals believe in raising people up, conservatives believe in pushing people down.
> Liberals believe in encouragement, conservatives believe in scorn.
> Liberals always stand up for the little guy, conservatives always stand up for the big guy.*
> 
> PROOF...
> 
> Taxing the rich into 'oblivion'...
> 
> Suppose they say they are going to raise taxes on incomes above $250K. People seem to think that this means if you earn $250K plus a dollar, that you owe an additional tax on the entire $250K. This is not correct.
> 
> Here is how it really works. What happens is that the first $250K is taxed just like it has been, but anything that is made over $250K -- and only the amount over $250K -- is then taxed at the higher rate. The tax on the amount below $250K is not changed.
> 
> Example: Suppose the tax increase is 5% on income over $250K. This means that a person who reports income of $250K plus one dollar will be taxed an additional 5 cents. *FIVE CENTS!*
> 
> Yes, that's right, if it is 5% they are talking about then it means a 5 cent tax increase on people who make $250,001.
> 
> Let me repeat that. If you make $250,001, and they raise taxes 5% on people who make over $250K, then you will have to pay 5 cents more. Five cents. *F.I.V.E. C.E.N.T.S*. That is what people are so upset about. 5 cents.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah right, that's your made up stupidity...why would you want everyone to see it?
> shoot the high horse you liberals ride on...it's worn out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It amazes me that you folks on the right are so oblivious to those truths...they manifest every single day on this board.
Click to expand...


everything you liberals think about HELPING OTHERS is done by the force of government and with taxation..it's not done on your OWN FREE WILL 

So shoot your all frikken high horse, you might think those things of YOURSELVES, but you aren't..


----------



## TemplarKormac

Sallow said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes..that was Kennedy..accepting the Liberal Party nomination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is him being conservative:
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy
> 
> 1) Expanded our military
> 
> 2) Sanctioned multiple attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro
> 
> 3) Allowed U-2 spying on Russia's missile sites
> 
> 4) Expanded the space program
> 
> 5) Was anti-Communist
> 
> 6) In 1963 before his death he:
> 
> a) Cut the corporate tax rate from 52 to 47%
> 
> 
> b) Cut income taxes from a range of 20-91% to 14-65%
> 7) Advocated pro-growth economic policy in general
> 
> 8) Was pro-Israel
> 
> 9) Founded the US-Israeli military alliance
> 
> 10) Advocated a coup of the Iraqi government
> 
> 11) Launched the invasion of the Bay of Pigs
> 
> 12) Signed Proclamation 3504 authorizing the naval quarantine of Communist Cuba
> 
> So, were any of these things liberal by your standards? The irony here is that he seems awfully and eerily similar to Bush is a lot of ways. Especially his attitudes toward Iraq, his economic policies, his attitude towards Israel and his military strategy overall. His campaign against communism was similar in scope to Bush's War on Terrorism. You can't say that the Space program was a liberal thing, since many presidents built upon it, the first moon landing in July 1969 happened on Nixon's watch. You have no clue how conservative he was. In fact had he been around today, he'd have more in common with Republicans than Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eyeah..they were.
> 
> Conservatives were a great deal more isolationist in the 60s and Liberals wanted to export Democracy. That flipped with Nixon.
Click to expand...


Bwa ha.

Nice cop out Sallow. Kennedy was highly interventionist. Read the Kennedy Doctrine and get back to me. And as a side note, who entered the US into WWII?

Next.


----------



## Bfgrn

TemplarKormac said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> And this is him being conservative:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Eyeah..they were.
> 
> Conservatives were a great deal more isolationist in the 60s and Liberals wanted to export Democracy. That flipped with Nixon.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bwa ha.
> 
> Nice cop out Sallow. Kennedy was highly interventionist. Read the Kennedy Doctrine and get back to me. And as a side note, who entered the US into WWII?
> 
> Next.
Click to expand...


Did JFK send in US troops during the Bay of Pigs invasion?
Did JFK send in US troops during the Cuban missile crisis??
Did JFK send in troops when the Berlin Wall went up???

At EVERY turn, JFK was NON-interventionist.

And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem. 
President John F. Kennedy


----------



## Bfgrn

Stephanie said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah right, that's your made up stupidity...why would you want everyone to see it?
> shoot the high horse you liberals ride on...it's worn out
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It amazes me that you folks on the right are so oblivious to those truths...they manifest every single day on this board.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> everything you liberals think about HELPING OTHERS is done by the force of government and with taxation..it's not done on your OWN FREE WILL
> 
> So shoot your all frikken high horse, you might think those things of YOURSELVES, but you aren't..
Click to expand...


Ah, *THE Arthur Brooks study*

Arthur Brooks writes: "When it comes to giving or not giving, conservatives and liberals look a lot alike. *Conservative people are a percentage point or two more likely to give money* each year than liberal people, *but* a percentage point or so* less likely to volunteer* [citing the 2002 General Social Survey (GSS) and the 2000 Social Capital Community Benchmark Survey (SCCBS)]". (pp. 21-22)

So, according to THE Arthur Brooks study: conservatives believe in the giving of mammon (money) and liberals believe in the giving of themselves.


----------



## Redfish

Sallow said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes..that was Kennedy..accepting the Liberal Party nomination.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And this is him being conservative:
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy
> 
> 1) Expanded our military
> 
> 2) Sanctioned multiple attempts to assassinate Fidel Castro
> 
> 3) Allowed U-2 spying on Russia's missile sites
> 
> 4) Expanded the space program
> 
> 5) Was anti-Communist
> 
> 6) In 1963 before his death he:
> 
> a) Cut the corporate tax rate from 52 to 47%
> 
> 
> b) Cut income taxes from a range of 20-91% to 14-65%
> 7) Advocated pro-growth economic policy in general
> 
> 8) Was pro-Israel
> 
> 9) Founded the US-Israeli military alliance
> 
> 10) Advocated a coup of the Iraqi government
> 
> 11) Launched the invasion of the Bay of Pigs
> 
> 12) Signed Proclamation 3504 authorizing the naval quarantine of Communist Cuba
> 
> So, were any of these things liberal by your standards? The irony here is that he seems awfully and eerily similar to Bush is a lot of ways. Especially his attitudes toward Iraq, his economic policies, his attitude towards Israel and his military strategy overall. His campaign against communism was similar in scope to Bush's War on Terrorism. You can't say that the Space program was a liberal thing, since many presidents built upon it, the first moon landing in July 1969 happened on Nixon's watch. You have no clue how conservative he was. In fact had he been around today, he'd have more in common with Republicans than Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Eyeah..they were.
> 
> Conservatives were a great deal more isolationist in the 60s and Liberals wanted to export Democracy. That flipped with Nixon.
Click to expand...


Do you have TV on your planet?


----------



## Dragonlady

"Ask not what your country can do for you" was Kennedy's call to young people to serve in the Peace Corps at slave wages for two years.  It was not a rant against expecting government handouts, but a call to public service.

The fact that conservatives don't understand this and try to pervert into something it isn't is all you need to know about how they continually try to pervert liberal idealogy.


----------



## Stephanie

Dragonlady said:


> "Ask not what your country can do for you" was Kennedy's call to young people to serve in the Peace Corps at slave wages for two years.  It was not a rant against expecting government handouts, but a call to public service.
> 
> The fact that conservatives don't understand this and try to pervert into something it isn't is all you need to know about how they continually try to pervert liberal idealogy.



oh brother...here we go again, we just don't understand what it means

we don't have to "pervert" liberal ideology...

it is perverted and harmful to others,  where it make's them dependents of government instead of preaching, standing on their own as free people in a free country

it's that slave mentality of liberal ideology..what better way for them to have CONTROL over people


----------



## Dragonlady

Stephanie said:


> we don't have to "pervert" liberal ideology...
> 
> it is perverted and harmful to others,  where it make's them dependents of government instead of preaching, standing on their own as free people in a free country
> 
> it's that slave mentality of liberal ideology..what better way for them to have CONTROL over people



You have it backwards.  It is conservative economic policies which created the "takers".  Bush is the guy who came up with "earned income credits" because he didn't want to raise the minimum wage.  Food stamp recipients tripled under Ronald Reagan, and wages for the working class stagnanted from 1980 onward.

The conservative media has been villifed the poor since Reagan's "welfare queen" lie of the 1980's to distract the gullible and the stupid from the real sources of poverty, all the while transferring the wealth of the nation to the richest individuals and corporations.

Liberal idealogy seeks to level the playing field, and give everyone an equal opportunity to succeed.  Conservative policies tilt the playing field to favour the rich.  If you're stupid enough to believe that Republicans want smaller government and a balanced budget, despite all reasonable evidence to the contrary, you truly are deserving of the "sheeple" label you keep trying to pin on liberals.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

Bfgrn said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Eyeah..they were.
> 
> Conservatives were a great deal more isolationist in the 60s and Liberals wanted to export Democracy. That flipped with Nixon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bwa ha.
> 
> Nice cop out Sallow. Kennedy was highly interventionist. Read the Kennedy Doctrine and get back to me. And as a side note, who entered the US into WWII?
> 
> Next.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did JFK send in US troops during the Bay of Pigs invasion?
> Did JFK send in US troops during the Cuban missile crisis??
> Did JFK send in troops when the Berlin Wall went up???
> 
> At EVERY turn, JFK was NON-interventionist.
> 
> And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.&#8221;
> President John F. Kennedy
Click to expand...


He was very much interventionist. He sent an additional thousand advisors into vietnam breaking the earlier geneva contract.  LBJ continued his dream by sending/forcing troops in the hundreds of thousands into the area.  We never had any business there.


----------



## jon_berzerk

LordBrownTrout said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bwa ha.
> 
> Nice cop out Sallow. Kennedy was highly interventionist. Read the Kennedy Doctrine and get back to me. And as a side note, who entered the US into WWII?
> 
> Next.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did JFK send in US troops during the Bay of Pigs invasion?
> Did JFK send in US troops during the Cuban missile crisis??
> Did JFK send in troops when the Berlin Wall went up???
> 
> At EVERY turn, JFK was NON-interventionist.
> 
> And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was very much interventionist. He sent an additional thousand advisors into vietnam breaking the earlier geneva contract.  LBJ continued his dream by sending/forcing troops in the hundreds of thousands into the area.  We never had any business there.
Click to expand...


or The Cuban Project


----------



## mudwhistle




----------



## Papageorgio

Dragonlady said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> we don't have to "pervert" liberal ideology...
> 
> it is perverted and harmful to others,  where it make's them dependents of government instead of preaching, standing on their own as free people in a free country
> 
> it's that slave mentality of liberal ideology..what better way for them to have CONTROL over people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have it backwards.  It is conservative economic policies which created the "takers".  Bush is the guy who came up with "earned income credits" because he didn't want to raise the minimum wage.  Food stamp recipients tripled under Ronald Reagan, and wages for the working class stagnanted from 1980 onward.
> 
> The conservative media has been villifed the poor since Reagan's "welfare queen" lie of the 1980's to distract the gullible and the stupid from the real sources of poverty, all the while transferring the wealth of the nation to the richest individuals and corporations.
> 
> Liberal idealogy seeks to level the playing field, and give everyone an equal opportunity to succeed.  Conservative policies tilt the playing field to favour the rich.  If you're stupid enough to believe that Republicans want smaller government and a balanced budget, despite all reasonable evidence to the contrary, you truly are deserving of the "sheeple" label you keep trying to pin on liberals.
Click to expand...


EIC's started in 1975 and have been revamped several times since then, to say Bush came up with EIC's is not correct.

Food stamp recipients went down, not up under Reagan, another incorrect statement. 

The facts are the real median income rose by $4,000 under Reagan. 

Liberal ideology wants an elite class to tell the rest what to do. 

Republicans want as much spending and government as the Democrats. Conservatives want small government, less spending, balanced budgets.


----------



## jon_berzerk

mudwhistle said:


>



how many democrats today believe that 

--LOL


----------



## Stephanie

Liberals have made up and actually believe they are "superior" and so is their Ideology...then ask why people can't stand them

that's why they worship a man like Obama...he is nothing but his Ideology..He was good at community agitating...about the only thing...Now he's agitating us and our country to TRANSFORM into his warped Visions while take our FREEDOMS from us...and so are his followers..


and he is as intolerant, hateful, a thug when he doesn't get his way, arrogant and cold...

that is the Liberal...we see here everyday


----------



## Harry Dresden

Sallow said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> "My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.
> JFK
> 
> This quote alone would get Kennedy kicked out of the (entitlement for votes) Democrat Party of today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy wasn't advocating get rid of programs to help the poor. What he was advocating with those folks with means to start working for the good of the country..instead of just themselves.
> 
> You folks pervert everything that is good and pure.
Click to expand...


*start working for the good of the country..instead of just themselves.*

if only today's Congress would adhere to that...


----------



## Freewill

Dragonlady said:


> "Ask not what your country can do for you" was Kennedy's call to young people to serve in the Peace Corps at slave wages for two years.  It was not a rant against expecting government handouts, but a call to public service.
> 
> The fact that conservatives don't understand this and try to pervert into something it isn't is all you need to know about how they continually try to pervert liberal idealogy.



Here is the quote in entirety, where is public service mentioned?

"Ask Not What Your Country Can Do For You"

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shank from this responsibility  I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavour will light our country and all who serve it  and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

_And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you  ask what you can do for your country.

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own._


----------



## Harry Dresden

Sallow said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Redfish said:
> 
> 
> 
> horseshit, shallow.   helping people is a conservative belief,  medicare was passed with GOP votes,  the moon landing was supported by people from both parties and with all political viewpoints.   The civil rights act would not have passed without GOP votes and was fillibustered by democrats.
> 
> your view of history is totally incorrect.   were you taught by a member of the teachers union?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> well that is what happens when you get all of your view points
> 
> from MSLSD and truthout
> 
> --LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The GOP of yesterday isn't the GOP of today.
> 
> But the conservative vs. liberal paradigm? Yeah..that carries on.
> 
> *It's conservatives that want to do away with Medicare, civil rights, science and education.*
Click to expand...


been talking to Dean?....


----------



## Mac1958

.

Kennedy would be considered a Blue Dog, at most, in the Democrat Party today.

Which is a good thing.

.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Sallow said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back.
> 
> Re-read the post.
> 
> I don't think you know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I think I do. You've been exuding butthurt from the moment I knocked your "Kennedy isn't a conservative" argument out of the park.
> 
> Romney has a body on his record? Link?
> 
> So does Laura Bush? Also, link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay..first off..
> 
> I was posting about vilifying Edward Kennedy.
> 
> That continues to this day.
> 
> Secondly? Romney had an accident in France killing his passenger. You can google it.
> 
> Laura Bush had an accident that killed her ex boyfriend.
> 
> You can google that too.
> 
> You not very good at "gotcha" or much else.
> 
> Dope.
> 
> And John F. Kennedy DESCRIBED HIMSELF as a LIBERAL.
Click to expand...


Sallow did those 2 run away from the scene of the accident?....just asking....


----------



## Stephanie

Dragonlady said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> we don't have to "pervert" liberal ideology...
> 
> it is perverted and harmful to others,  where it make's them dependents of government instead of preaching, standing on their own as free people in a free country
> 
> it's that slave mentality of liberal ideology..what better way for them to have CONTROL over people
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have it backwards.  It is conservative economic policies which created the "takers".  Bush is the guy who came up with "earned income credits" because he didn't want to raise the minimum wage.  Food stamp recipients tripled under Ronald Reagan, and wages for the working class stagnanted from 1980 onward.
> 
> The conservative media has been villifed the poor since Reagan's "welfare queen" lie of the 1980's to distract the gullible and the stupid from the real sources of poverty, all the while transferring the wealth of the nation to the richest individuals and corporations.
> 
> *Liberal idealogy seeks to level the playing field,* and give everyone an equal opportunity to succeed.  Conservative policies tilt the playing field to favour the rich.  If you're stupid enough to believe that Republicans want smaller government and a balanced budget, despite all reasonable evidence to the contrary, you truly are deserving of the "sheeple" label you keep trying to pin on liberals.
Click to expand...


yeah, by force or  a gun at people's heads
you aren't all that, you just think you are
you people are doing a FINE job of leveling the playing field with ABORTION
funny you don't think the same about them


----------



## Papageorgio

Harry Dresden said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> well that is what happens when you get all of your view points
> 
> from MSLSD and truthout
> 
> --LOL
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The GOP of yesterday isn't the GOP of today.
> 
> But the conservative vs. liberal paradigm? Yeah..that carries on.
> 
> *It's conservatives that want to do away with Medicare, civil rights, science and education.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> been talking to Dean?....
Click to expand...


It's liberals like rdean, and sallow that keep lying and are not honest.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

jon_berzerk said:


> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how many democrats today believe that
> 
> --LOL
Click to expand...


Today, food stamps and unemployment create jobs.


----------



## Stephanie

> You folks pervert everything that is good and pure.



and you liberals don't?


> Liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil.
> Liberals believe in raising people up, conservatives believe in pushing people down.
> Liberals believe in encouragement, conservatives believe in scorn.
> Liberals always stand up for the little guy, conservatives always stand up for the big guy.



you people are nothing but, perversion
you couldn't live with yourselves if you didn't have that


----------



## whitehall

Once again the left gets their history analysis from the comedy channel.


----------



## Stephanie

I find the liberal ideology to be PHONY and just downright sick and evil

they can support abortion, then carry on about wanting to even the playing field, they care more for people...blah blah blah is all I hear


----------



## Dragonlady

Papageorgio said:


> It's liberals like rdean, and sallow that keep lying and are not honest.



Yeah that's why those who use Fox as their news source know less about current events than people who don't watch TV at all.  Because Fox news is so full of misstatements, and outright lies that their viewers have no clue what's really going on in the world.  Of course, if they told the truth, more people would be voting for the Democratic party, because the facts are that the Republicans don't have the best interests of the people of the United States as their over-riding concern.  Their hearts and souls have been sold to the highest bidder.


----------



## jon_berzerk

LordBrownTrout said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mudwhistle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how many democrats today believe that
> 
> --LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Today, food stamps and unemployment create jobs.
Click to expand...


funemployment as pelosi would say


----------



## Stephanie

Dragonlady said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's liberals like rdean, and sallow that keep lying and are not honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that's why those who use Fox as their news source know less about current events than people who don't watch TV at all.  Because Fox news is so full of misstatements, and outright lies that their viewers have no clue what's really going on in the world.  Of course, if they told the truth, more people would be voting for the Democratic party, because the facts are that the Republicans don't have the best interests of the people of the United States as their over-riding concern.  Their hearts and souls have been sold to the highest bidder.
Click to expand...


right here folks is liberals..

everything is fox fox fox fox fox fox news
nobody can think for themselves in their uppity warped world


----------



## Bfgrn

LordBrownTrout said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bwa ha.
> 
> Nice cop out Sallow. Kennedy was highly interventionist. Read the Kennedy Doctrine and get back to me. And as a side note, who entered the US into WWII?
> 
> Next.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did JFK send in US troops during the Bay of Pigs invasion?
> Did JFK send in US troops during the Cuban missile crisis??
> Did JFK send in troops when the Berlin Wall went up???
> 
> At EVERY turn, JFK was NON-interventionist.
> 
> And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was very much interventionist. He sent an additional thousand advisors into vietnam breaking the earlier geneva contract.  LBJ continued his dream by sending/forcing troops in the hundreds of thousands into the area.  We never had any business there.
Click to expand...


TOTAL bullshit...

THE SECOND BIGGEST LIE

The biggest lie of our time, after the Warren Report, is the notion that Johnson
merely continued or expanded Kennedy's policy in Vietnam after the
assassination.

NSAM 263, signed on Oct. 11, 1963, officially approved and implemented the same
McNamara-Taylor recommendations that had prompted the press statement of Oct. 2.
They recommended that:

"A program be established to train Vietnamese so that essential functions now
performed by U.S. military personnel can be carried out by Vietnamese *by the end
of 1965. It should be possible to withdraw the bulk of U.S. personnel by that
time.*

"In accordance with the program to train progressively Vietnamese to take over
military functions, the Defense Department should announce in the very near
future *presently prepared plans to withdraw 1000 U.S. military personnel by the
end of 1963.* This action should be explained in low key as an initial step in a
long-term program to replace U.S. personnel with trained Vietnamese without
impairment of the war effort" (Pentagon Papers, NY: Bantam, 1971, pp. 211-212).

The *withdrawal* policy was confirmed at a news conference on Oct. 31, where
Kennedy said in response to a reporter's question if there was "any speedup in
the *withdrawa*l from Vietnam":


----------



## Bfgrn

JFK was a liberal. If you hated Teddy's politics, you would have hated Jack and Bobby's too. Ted dedicated his public life to carrying out his two brother's unfinished agenda.

The Great Society was based on our slain President's New Frontier. The following were President Kennedy's agenda and proposals:

Civil Rights Bill
Medicare
War on Poverty

And JFK did not believe in trickle down economics.

*JFK, The Demand-Side Tax Cutter*

*JFK lowered taxes, but supply-siders wrongly claim he's their patron saint.*






"The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.

This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.

When Kennedy ran for president in 1960 amid a sluggish economy, he vowed to "get the country moving again." After his election, his advisers, led by chief economist Walter Heller, urged a classically Keynesian solution: running a deficit to stimulate growth. (The $10 billion deficit Heller recommended, bold at the time, seems laughably small by today's standards.) In Keynesian theory, a tax cut aimed at consumers would have a "multiplier" effect, since each dollar that a taxpayer spent would go to another taxpayer, who would in effect spend it againmeaning the deficit would be short-lived.

At first Kennedy balked at Heller's Keynesianism. He even proposed a balanced budget in his first State of the Union address. But Heller and his team won over the president. By mid-1962 Kennedy had seen the Keynesian light, and in January 1963 he declared that "the enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic issues in this Congress."

The plan Kennedy's team drafted had many elements, including the closing of loopholes (the "tax reform" Kennedy spoke of).Ultimately, in the form that Lyndon Johnson signed into law, it reduced tax withholding rates, initiated a new standard deduction, and boosted the top deduction for child care expenses, among other provisions. It did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point than anything we've seen in recent years: 91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.

If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
President John F. Kennedy


----------



## Papageorgio

Dragonlady said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's liberals like rdean, and sallow that keep lying and are not honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that's why those who use Fox as their news source know less about current events than people who don't watch TV at all.  Because Fox news is so full of misstatements, and outright lies that their viewers have no clue what's really going on in the world.  Of course, if they told the truth, more people would be voting for the Democratic party, because the facts are that the Republicans don't have the best interests of the people of the United States as their over-riding concern.  Their hearts and souls have been sold to the highest bidder.
Click to expand...


I don't know anything about FOXNews. I wonder why you watch it if you find it so bad? 

So high unemployment, hurting the middle class with increased health insurance rates, hold off another year of Obamacare from business, so it hurts the working middle class more. 

The democrats table every budget put forth, further hurting the recovery. The Democratic Party and Obama have lied to the American people about being able to keep their insurance, they have done nothing to create jobs, they increase taxes during a bad economy. It looks like Obama, who bought GMC, lowered GE's taxes to nothing, that helped insurance companies to great profits, is more for the rich than anyone else. Looks like Democrats have sold their soul to the highest bidder. 

Again, the Demmies have who's interests at heart, it doesn't seem that they like the hard working middle class at all.

Care to address the misinformation about Reagan, EIC that you try to spread?


----------



## Sallow

Papageorgio said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's liberals like rdean, and sallow that keep lying and are not honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that's why those who use Fox as their news source know less about current events than people who don't watch TV at all.  Because Fox news is so full of misstatements, and outright lies that their viewers have no clue what's really going on in the world.  Of course, if they told the truth, more people would be voting for the Democratic party, because the facts are that the Republicans don't have the best interests of the people of the United States as their over-riding concern.  Their hearts and souls have been sold to the highest bidder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know anything about FOXNews. I wonder why you watch it if you find it so bad?
> 
> So high unemployment, hurting the middle class with increased health insurance rates, hold off another year of Obamacare from business, so it hurts the working middle class more.
> 
> The democrats table every budget put forth, further hurting the recovery. The Democratic Party and Obama have lied to the American people about being able to keep their insurance, they have done nothing to create jobs, they increase taxes during a bad economy. It looks like Obama, who bought GMC, lowered GE's taxes to nothing, that helped insurance companies to great profits, is more for the rich than anyone else. Looks like Democrats have sold their soul to the highest bidder.
> 
> Again, the Demmies have who's interests at heart, it doesn't seem that they like the hard working middle class at all.
> 
> Care to address the misinformation about Reagan, EIC that you try to spread?
Click to expand...


The misinformation essentially comes from FOX, which isn't new..and it's Saudi propaganda.

You conservatives have had nothing to do with forming this country and have been trying to destroy it ever since. Whether  that be through the loyalists, torries, whigs, confederates, dixiecrats, john birchers, neocons, pnac or tea party..the name changes but the goal doesn't.


----------



## Papageorgio

Sallow said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that's why those who use Fox as their news source know less about current events than people who don't watch TV at all.  Because Fox news is so full of misstatements, and outright lies that their viewers have no clue what's really going on in the world.  Of course, if they told the truth, more people would be voting for the Democratic party, because the facts are that the Republicans don't have the best interests of the people of the United States as their over-riding concern.  Their hearts and souls have been sold to the highest bidder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know anything about FOXNews. I wonder why you watch it if you find it so bad?
> 
> So high unemployment, hurting the middle class with increased health insurance rates, hold off another year of Obamacare from business, so it hurts the working middle class more.
> 
> The democrats table every budget put forth, further hurting the recovery. The Democratic Party and Obama have lied to the American people about being able to keep their insurance, they have done nothing to create jobs, they increase taxes during a bad economy. It looks like Obama, who bought GMC, lowered GE's taxes to nothing, that helped insurance companies to great profits, is more for the rich than anyone else. Looks like Democrats have sold their soul to the highest bidder.
> 
> Again, the Demmies have who's interests at heart, it doesn't seem that they like the hard working middle class at all.
> 
> Care to address the misinformation about Reagan, EIC that you try to spread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The misinformation essentially comes from FOX, which isn't new..and it's Saudi propaganda.
> 
> You conservatives have had nothing to do with forming this country and have been trying to destroy it ever since. Whether  that be through the loyalists, torries, whigs, confederates, dixiecrats, john birchers, neocons, pnac or tea party..the name changes but the goal doesn't.
Click to expand...


Keep watching FOXNews, I never watch it.

The rest of your post is more opinion based on your limited views.

Do you think dragon lady will address her lies, probably not huh?


----------



## Sallow

Papageorgio said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know anything about FOXNews. I wonder why you watch it if you find it so bad?
> 
> So high unemployment, hurting the middle class with increased health insurance rates, hold off another year of Obamacare from business, so it hurts the working middle class more.
> 
> The democrats table every budget put forth, further hurting the recovery. The Democratic Party and Obama have lied to the American people about being able to keep their insurance, they have done nothing to create jobs, they increase taxes during a bad economy. It looks like Obama, who bought GMC, lowered GE's taxes to nothing, that helped insurance companies to great profits, is more for the rich than anyone else. Looks like Democrats have sold their soul to the highest bidder.
> 
> Again, the Demmies have who's interests at heart, it doesn't seem that they like the hard working middle class at all.
> 
> Care to address the misinformation about Reagan, EIC that you try to spread?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The misinformation essentially comes from FOX, which isn't new..and it's Saudi propaganda.
> 
> You conservatives have had nothing to do with forming this country and have been trying to destroy it ever since. Whether  that be through the loyalists, torries, whigs, confederates, dixiecrats, john birchers, neocons, pnac or tea party..the name changes but the goal doesn't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Keep watching FOXNews, I never watch it.
> 
> The rest of your post is more opinion based on your limited views.
> 
> Do you think dragon lady will address her lies, probably not huh?
Click to expand...




Truth always hurts.

Conservatives have never been involved in anything positive.

It's always about tearing something  down.


----------



## Rozman

JFK... "Ask not what your country can do for you"
Obama.  Ask for everything you want your country to do for you and I will get right on that!


----------



## Amelia

Sallow said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that's why those who use Fox as their news source know less about current events than people who don't watch TV at all.  Because Fox news is so full of misstatements, and outright lies that their viewers have no clue what's really going on in the world.  Of course, if they told the truth, more people would be voting for the Democratic party, because the facts are that the Republicans don't have the best interests of the people of the United States as their over-riding concern.  Their hearts and souls have been sold to the highest bidder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know anything about FOXNews. I wonder why you watch it if you find it so bad?
> 
> So high unemployment, hurting the middle class with increased health insurance rates, hold off another year of Obamacare from business, so it hurts the working middle class more.
> 
> The democrats table every budget put forth, further hurting the recovery. The Democratic Party and Obama have lied to the American people about being able to keep their insurance, they have done nothing to create jobs, they increase taxes during a bad economy. It looks like Obama, who bought GMC, lowered GE's taxes to nothing, that helped insurance companies to great profits, is more for the rich than anyone else. Looks like Democrats have sold their soul to the highest bidder.
> 
> Again, the Demmies have who's interests at heart, it doesn't seem that they like the hard working middle class at all.
> 
> Care to address the misinformation about Reagan, EIC that you try to spread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The misinformation essentially comes from FOX, which isn't new..and it's Saudi propaganda.
> 
> You conservatives have had nothing to do with forming this country and have been trying to destroy it ever since. Whether  that be through the loyalists, torries, whigs, confederates, dixiecrats, john birchers, neocons, pnac or tea party..the name changes but the goal doesn't.
Click to expand...





Today's liberals had nothing to do with forming this country.  Most of today's liberals couldn't do it.  Too dependent on the government.  Too fearful of stepping away from the safety net.  Most conservatives couldn't do it -- what the founders did would have been hard for anyone to do again.

The labels are useless.  It's not conservative or liberal to stand up for one's rights.  Rightwingers and leftwingers both curb rights in exchange for some ostensible gain. 

Who has a clue, left or right, about what JFK would think about what America looks like now?  Has anyone mentioned in this thread how he was opposed to immigration policy which resulted in significant demographic changes to the country?  And yet that's what people who claim to be carrying his banner support now.  

The labels (when used as an excuse to insult) do injustice to what I _believe_ liberals believe JFK stood for.


----------



## Papageorgio

Sallow said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The misinformation essentially comes from FOX, which isn't new..and it's Saudi propaganda.
> 
> You conservatives have had nothing to do with forming this country and have been trying to destroy it ever since. Whether  that be through the loyalists, torries, whigs, confederates, dixiecrats, john birchers, neocons, pnac or tea party..the name changes but the goal doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep watching FOXNews, I never watch it.
> 
> The rest of your post is more opinion based on your limited views.
> 
> Do you think dragon lady will address her lies, probably not huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth always hurts.
> 
> Conservatives have never been involved in anything positive.
> 
> It's always about tearing something  down.
Click to expand...



If you told the truth, yes, it would hurt, however you don't and you don't even expect other liberals to tell the truth or expect them to defend their statements. Which seems par for the course. 

I missed when you were positive, the last I read from you was about someone being vain and you cut their life down. So please let me know when you are not tearing people down.


----------



## Stephanie

Bfgrn said:


> JFK was a liberal. If you hated Teddy's politics, you would have hated Jack and Bobby's too. Ted dedicated his public life to carrying out his two brother's unfinished agenda.
> 
> The Great Society was based on our slain President's New Frontier. The following were President Kennedy's agenda and proposals:
> 
> Civil Rights Bill
> Medicare
> War on Poverty
> 
> And JFK did not believe in trickle down economics.
> 
> *JFK, The Demand-Side Tax Cutter*
> 
> *JFK lowered taxes, but supply-siders wrongly claim he's their patron saint.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.
> 
> This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.
> 
> When Kennedy ran for president in 1960 amid a sluggish economy, he vowed to "get the country moving again." After his election, his advisers, led by chief economist Walter Heller, urged a classically Keynesian solution: running a deficit to stimulate growth. (The $10 billion deficit Heller recommended, bold at the time, seems laughably small by today's standards.) In Keynesian theory, a tax cut aimed at consumers would have a "multiplier" effect, since each dollar that a taxpayer spent would go to another taxpayer, who would in effect spend it again&#8212;meaning the deficit would be short-lived.
> 
> At first Kennedy balked at Heller's Keynesianism. He even proposed a balanced budget in his first State of the Union address. But Heller and his team won over the president. By mid-1962 Kennedy had seen the Keynesian light, and in January 1963 he declared that "the enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic issues in this Congress."
> 
> The plan Kennedy's team drafted had many elements, including the closing of loopholes (the "tax reform" Kennedy spoke of).Ultimately, in the form that Lyndon Johnson signed into law, it reduced tax withholding rates, initiated a new standard deduction, and boosted the top deduction for child care expenses, among other provisions. It did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point than anything we've seen in recent years: 91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.
> 
> If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
> President John F. Kennedy



Nobody hated JfK......
and I've been helping the poor for 45 years of my working life
so you all can take this how only you liberals are the saints for the poor
JfK wasn't any more special than any other President..He just wasn't the RADICAL that you liberals support and are today


----------



## mudwhistle

Bfgrn said:


> JFK was a liberal. If you hated Teddy's politics, you would have hated Jack and Bobby's too. Ted dedicated his public life to carrying out his two brother's unfinished agenda.
> 
> The Great Society was based on our slain President's New Frontier. The following were President Kennedy's agenda and proposals:
> 
> Civil Rights Bill
> Medicare
> War on Poverty
> 
> And JFK did not believe in trickle down economics.
> 
> *JFK, The Demand-Side Tax Cutter*
> 
> *JFK lowered taxes, but supply-siders wrongly claim he's their patron saint.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.
> 
> This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.
> 
> When Kennedy ran for president in 1960 amid a sluggish economy, he vowed to "get the country moving again." After his election, his advisers, led by chief economist Walter Heller, urged a classically Keynesian solution: running a deficit to stimulate growth. (The $10 billion deficit Heller recommended, bold at the time, seems laughably small by today's standards.) In Keynesian theory, a tax cut aimed at consumers would have a "multiplier" effect, since each dollar that a taxpayer spent would go to another taxpayer, who would in effect spend it againmeaning the deficit would be short-lived.
> 
> At first Kennedy balked at Heller's Keynesianism. He even proposed a balanced budget in his first State of the Union address. But Heller and his team won over the president. By mid-1962 Kennedy had seen the Keynesian light, and in January 1963 he declared that "the enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic issues in this Congress."
> 
> The plan Kennedy's team drafted had many elements, including the closing of loopholes (the "tax reform" Kennedy spoke of).Ultimately, in the form that Lyndon Johnson signed into law, it reduced tax withholding rates, initiated a new standard deduction, and boosted the top deduction for child care expenses, among other provisions. It did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point than anything we've seen in recent years: 91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.
> 
> If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
> President John F. Kennedy



Comparing Teddy to John is like comparing apples to oranges......


----------



## LogikAndReazon

Jfk.  Bought election. Bay of pigs.  Cuban missile crisis. Vietnnam. Classless husband.  Another empty suit offering meaningless platitudes like hope. Still, heads above his drunken younger brother teddy, the fredo of the family.


----------



## Stephanie

LogikAndReazon said:


> Jfk.  Bought election. Bay of pigs.  Cuban missile crisis. Vietnnam. Classless husband.  Another empty suit offering meaningless platitudes like hope. Still, heads above his drunken younger brother teddy, the fredo of the family.



and the rest of those in that clan of rapist, murderers, drug addicts, drug overdoses, drunken car running off bridges drowning women and leaving them in their cars...

all that family has done all their lives is SUCK off taxpayers for their living...And they're hailed as heroes for it

something wrong with our society


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Sallow said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Okay..first off..
> 
> I was posting about vilifying Edward Kennedy.
> 
> That continues to this day.
> 
> Secondly? Romney had an accident in France killing his passenger. You can google it.
> 
> Laura Bush had an accident that killed her ex boyfriend.
> 
> You can google that too.
> 
> You not very good at "gotcha" or much else.
> 
> Dope.
> 
> And John F. Kennedy DESCRIBED HIMSELF as a LIBERAL.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Anywho, you can't stick to the topic of your own thread, which was about John F. Kennedy. Given the list I generated of policy decisions made by him, his staff or his party, I'd say that aligns him with more with conservatives than liberals.
> 
> The sad part here is that you consider the man an object, not a role model. "Our Kennedy." How pathetic.
> 
> Of course, Laura Bush ran a stop sign. In 1963. And of course, Ted Kennedy had his moment in the Chappaquiddick in 1969. Funny I don't see you vilifying him at all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait what?
> 
> The Topic of my thread is John Kennedy. A self described Liberal.
> 
> And no, most of the stuff he advocated for isn't within the realm of conservativism.
> 
> I didn't vilify either Laura Bush or Edward Kennedy. Neither have Liberals.
> 
> It's conservatives that seem to forget that both Laura Bush and Mitt Romney were involved in accidents that resulted in fatalities while labeling Edward Kennedy a criminal for his accident.
Click to expand...


 You do realize that Kennedy left the scene of the accident, right?


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Dragonlady said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's liberals like rdean, and sallow that keep lying and are not honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that's why those who use Fox as their news source know less about current events than people who don't watch TV at all.  Because Fox news is so full of misstatements, and outright lies that their viewers have no clue what's really going on in the world.  Of course, if they told the truth, more people would be voting for the Democratic party, because the facts are that the Republicans don't have the best interests of the people of the United States as their over-riding concern.  Their hearts and souls have been sold to the highest bidder.
Click to expand...


LOL! This is the verbal equivalent of eating your own boogers.


----------



## Stephanie

JohnL.Burke said:


> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's liberals like rdean, and sallow that keep lying and are not honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that's why those who use Fox as their news source know less about current events than people who don't watch TV at all.  Because Fox news is so full of misstatements, and outright lies that their viewers have no clue what's really going on in the world.  Of course, if they told the truth, more people would be voting for the Democratic party, because the facts are that the Republicans don't have the best interests of the people of the United States as their over-riding concern.  Their hearts and souls have been sold to the highest bidder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL! This is the verbal equivalent of eating your own boogers.
Click to expand...


or verbal diarrhea


----------



## Plasmaball

Stephanie said:


> LogikAndReazon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jfk.  Bought election. Bay of pigs.  Cuban missile crisis. Vietnnam. Classless husband.  Another empty suit offering meaningless platitudes like hope. Still, heads above his drunken younger brother teddy, the fredo of the family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the rest of those in that clan of rapist, murderers, drug addicts, drug overdoses, drunken car running off bridges drowning women and leaving them in their cars...
> 
> all that family has done all their lives is SUCK off taxpayers for their living...And they're hailed as heroes for it
> 
> something wrong with our society
Click to expand...


Yes the fact you are still here is one of them


----------



## Mertex

JohnL.Burke said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tinydancer said:
> 
> 
> 
> 'Surely you jest.
> 
> You have the most wealthy souls in America calling for public service. Tell me you realize this at the time.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what you tell yourself so as not to feel guilty that you begrudge children food?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? You're playing the You-must-hate-children card? What happened? Run out of race cards or did you misplace your you-must-hate-the-elderly cards? Perhaps you have some you-hate-clean-water cards under the sofa cushions that you can play every time your argument is too vacuous to stand on its own. Personally, if I were you I would stick some war-on-women cards up my sleeve just in case you get boxed in by facts and reality.
Click to expand...


Really?  You're trying to tell me there is some other excuse other than not giving a damn, to cut programs that provide food for children?  And, it's not my fault that the Republican party wants to hurt seniors, minorities, women and children, so, if you don't want those cards thrown at you, don't support such nonsense.


----------



## Papageorgio

Mertex said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what you tell yourself so as not to feel guilty that you begrudge children food?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You're playing the You-must-hate-children card? What happened? Run out of race cards or did you misplace your you-must-hate-the-elderly cards? Perhaps you have some you-hate-clean-water cards under the sofa cushions that you can play every time your argument is too vacuous to stand on its own. Personally, if I were you I would stick some war-on-women cards up my sleeve just in case you get boxed in by facts and reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  You're trying to tell me there is some other excuse other than not giving a damn, to cut programs that provide food for children?  And, it's not my fault that the Republican party wants to hurt seniors, minorities, women and children, so, if you don't want those cards thrown at you, don't support such nonsense.
Click to expand...


How many children have died of starvation due to Republican cuts? There are tons of resources for everyone to get food.


----------



## Oldstyle

Only someone with the limited intellect of Sallow would even CARE what Bill Maher thinks because most people realize that Maher is a Jon Stewart wannabe without the intelligence or the wit of Stewart.


----------



## Stephanie

Papageorgio said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You're playing the You-must-hate-children card? What happened? Run out of race cards or did you misplace your you-must-hate-the-elderly cards? Perhaps you have some you-hate-clean-water cards under the sofa cushions that you can play every time your argument is too vacuous to stand on its own. Personally, if I were you I would stick some war-on-women cards up my sleeve just in case you get boxed in by facts and reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You're trying to tell me there is some other excuse other than not giving a damn, to cut programs that provide food for children?  And, it's not my fault that the Republican party wants to hurt seniors, minorities, women and children, so, if you don't want those cards thrown at you, don't support such nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many children have died of starvation due to Republican cuts? There are tons of resources for everyone to get food.
Click to expand...


Yes there is...We fell on hard time's just recently and I looked up charities that give out food
tons of them out there...But the liberal ideology, if it's not from the government it isn't WORTHY and that make people not caring


----------



## Avatar4321

Who on earth has ever claimed that Reagan is our Kennedy?


----------



## Peterf

Stephanie said:


> LogikAndReazon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jfk.  Bought election. Bay of pigs.  Cuban missile crisis. Vietnnam. Classless husband.  Another empty suit offering meaningless platitudes like hope. Still, heads above his drunken younger brother teddy, the fredo of the family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the rest of those in that clan of rapist, murderers, drug addicts, drug overdoses, drunken car running off bridges drowning women and leaving them in their cars...
> 
> all that family has done all their lives is SUCK off taxpayers for their living...And they're hailed as heroes for it
> 
> something wrong with our society
Click to expand...


Well said Stephanie.

And I would add that JFK's Hitler-admiring daddy Joe, when US Ambassador in London in 1940 assured FDR that Britain would surrender to Germany like any  day now.

(As the historical knowledge possessed by some of you is - shall we say? - imperfect perhaps I should add that Britain did not surrender in 1940, or at any other time).


----------



## Peterf

Papageorgio said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You're playing the You-must-hate-children card? What happened? Run out of race cards or did you misplace your you-must-hate-the-elderly cards? Perhaps you have some you-hate-clean-water cards under the sofa cushions that you can play every time your argument is too vacuous to stand on its own. Personally, if I were you I would stick some war-on-women cards up my sleeve just in case you get boxed in by facts and reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You're trying to tell me there is some other excuse other than not giving a damn, to cut programs that provide food for children?  And, it's not my fault that the Republican party wants to hurt seniors, minorities, women and children, so, if you don't want those cards thrown at you, don't support such nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many children have died of starvation due to Republican cuts? There are tons of resources for everyone to get food.
Click to expand...


I am afraid you have not grasped to Marxist-Leninist concept of 'objective reality'.  Don't let your mind be clouded by those silly 'fact' things.

It goes like this.   Republicans are evil: check.    Evil people starve children: check.
Therefore:  Thousands of children have died because of Republican cuts!

It's quite easy.  I'm sure you will soon get the hang of it.


----------



## Bfgrn

Peterf said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LogikAndReazon said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jfk.  Bought election. Bay of pigs.  Cuban missile crisis. Vietnnam. Classless husband.  Another empty suit offering meaningless platitudes like hope. Still, heads above his drunken younger brother teddy, the fredo of the family.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and the rest of those in that clan of rapist, murderers, drug addicts, drug overdoses, drunken car running off bridges drowning women and leaving them in their cars...
> 
> all that family has done all their lives is SUCK off taxpayers for their living...And they're hailed as heroes for it
> 
> something wrong with our society
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well said Stephanie.
> 
> And I would add that JFK's Hitler-admiring daddy Joe, when US Ambassador in London in 1940 assured FDR that Britain would surrender to Germany like any  day now.
> 
> (As the historical knowledge possessed by some of you is - shall we say? - imperfect perhaps I should add that Britain did not surrender in 1940, or at any other time).
Click to expand...


Historical knowledge? You have the nerve to question someone's historical knowledge, then follow it up with ignorant right wing bullshit? Old man Kennedy was not admiring of Hitler, he was admiring of not getting the US into a war. He supported the Conservative Prime Minister Chamberlain's attempt to prevent war. Even though Hitler double crossed Chamberlain, it bought time for England to built arms and to form alliances that would be crucial to England and Europe's survival. If old man Kennedy had an ulterior motive, it was because he feared for the lives of his three eldest sons, Joe, Jack and Bobby, all of whom were or soon would be eligible to serve.


----------



## clevergirl

Maher doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground... Kennedy would be today's right of center moderate within the democrat party- hell. he'd probably have switched parties JUST LIKE Reagan did with the quip " I didn't leave the democrat part- the democrat party left me".


----------



## Bfgrn

Peterf said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You're trying to tell me there is some other excuse other than not giving a damn, to cut programs that provide food for children?  And, it's not my fault that the Republican party wants to hurt seniors, minorities, women and children, so, if you don't want those cards thrown at you, don't support such nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many children have died of starvation due to Republican cuts? There are tons of resources for everyone to get food.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am afraid you have not grasped to Marxist-Leninist concept of 'objective reality'.  Don't let your mind be clouded by those silly 'fact' things.
> 
> It goes like this.   Republicans are evil: check.    Evil people starve children: check.
> Therefore:  Thousands of children have died because of Republican cuts!
> 
> It's quite easy.  I'm sure you will soon get the hang of it.
Click to expand...


You know, old Harry S. Truman had you right wing cocksuckers nailed 65 years ago. And that was when Republicans were more centrist. 

"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
President Harry S. Truman - October 13, 1948


----------



## Lumpy 1

Mertex said:


> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what you tell yourself so as not to feel guilty that you begrudge children food?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You're playing the You-must-hate-children card? What happened? Run out of race cards or did you misplace your you-must-hate-the-elderly cards? Perhaps you have some you-hate-clean-water cards under the sofa cushions that you can play every time your argument is too vacuous to stand on its own. Personally, if I were you I would stick some war-on-women cards up my sleeve just in case you get boxed in by facts and reality.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really?  You're trying to tell me there is some other excuse other than not giving a damn, to cut programs that provide food for children?  And, it's not my fault that the Republican party wants to hurt seniors, minorities, women and children, so, if you don't want those cards thrown at you, don't support such nonsense.
Click to expand...


Where did Democrats get this feeling that it's up to Government to provide by stealing from those who take responsibility for their lives. Sure Democrats win elections and they get the chickenshit entitlement votes but people should Man-up or Lady-up to responsibility,

Some people do deserve or have earned the right to help so they can get back on track and they should be helped but making a life of dependance is no better than freeloading and civil slavery to the government.

Well..just sayin...


----------



## Plasmaball

Stephanie said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> JFK was a liberal. If you hated Teddy's politics, you would have hated Jack and Bobby's too. Ted dedicated his public life to carrying out his two brother's unfinished agenda.
> 
> The Great Society was based on our slain President's New Frontier. The following were President Kennedy's agenda and proposals:
> 
> Civil Rights Bill
> Medicare
> War on Poverty
> 
> And JFK did not believe in trickle down economics.
> 
> *JFK, The Demand-Side Tax Cutter*
> 
> *JFK lowered taxes, but supply-siders wrongly claim he's their patron saint.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.
> 
> This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.
> 
> When Kennedy ran for president in 1960 amid a sluggish economy, he vowed to "get the country moving again." After his election, his advisers, led by chief economist Walter Heller, urged a classically Keynesian solution: running a deficit to stimulate growth. (The $10 billion deficit Heller recommended, bold at the time, seems laughably small by today's standards.) In Keynesian theory, a tax cut aimed at consumers would have a "multiplier" effect, since each dollar that a taxpayer spent would go to another taxpayer, who would in effect spend it againmeaning the deficit would be short-lived.
> 
> At first Kennedy balked at Heller's Keynesianism. He even proposed a balanced budget in his first State of the Union address. But Heller and his team won over the president. By mid-1962 Kennedy had seen the Keynesian light, and in January 1963 he declared that "the enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic issues in this Congress."
> 
> The plan Kennedy's team drafted had many elements, including the closing of loopholes (the "tax reform" Kennedy spoke of).Ultimately, in the form that Lyndon Johnson signed into law, it reduced tax withholding rates, initiated a new standard deduction, and boosted the top deduction for child care expenses, among other provisions. It did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point than anything we've seen in recent years: 91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.
> 
> If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nobody hated JfK......
> and I've been helping the poor for 45 years of my working life
> so you all can take this how only you liberals are the saints for the poor
> JfK wasn't any more special than any other President..He just wasn't the RADICAL that you liberals support and are today
Click to expand...

Nobody hated jfk....um......he was murdered you fucking hag....someone hated him enough to remove him from the picture. Seriously just die off already you moronic piece of shit. You lying worthless troll. 

You are why our educational system is doing so poorly. They pump out retards like you to infest this world with your stupidity.


----------



## Plasmaball

Lumpy 1 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find the liberal ideology to be PHONY and just downright sick and evil
> 
> they can support abortion, then carry on about wanting to even the playing field, they care more for people...blah blah blah is all I hear
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are a talking point bot. You dont think for yourself period. Nothing about you I cant find someplace else, said by someone smarter.
> 
> You are not even a fart in history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sweet Nothings Plasma..
Click to expand...


Oh good cancer lump decided to chime in and show how stupid he is.


----------



## Bfgrn

clevergirl said:


> Maher doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground... Kennedy would be today's right of center moderate within the democrat party- hell. he'd probably have switched parties JUST LIKE Reagan did with the quip " I didn't leave the democrat part- the democrat party left me".








"We have all seen these circus elephants complete with tusks, ivory in their head and thick skins, who move around the circus ring and grab the tail of the elephant ahead of them.

I cannot believe that California or the Nation, on next Tuesday, in the most difficult and dangerous and revolutionary period in world history, can put the control of this country in the hands of those who have opposed progress for 25 years."
Senator John F. Kennedy - November 2, 1960


----------



## mudwhistle

Plasmaball said:


> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> I find the liberal ideology to be PHONY and just downright sick and evil
> 
> they can support abortion, then carry on about wanting to even the playing field, they care more for people...blah blah blah is all I hear
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are a talking point bot. You dont think for yourself period. Nothing about you I cant find someplace else, said by someone smarter.
> 
> You are not even a fart in history.
Click to expand...


*XXXXXXX*

You're an expert on farts...........


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> How many children have died of starvation due to Republican cuts? There are tons of resources for everyone to get food.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am afraid you have not grasped to Marxist-Leninist concept of 'objective reality'.  Don't let your mind be clouded by those silly 'fact' things.
> 
> It goes like this.   Republicans are evil: check.    Evil people starve children: check.
> Therefore:  Thousands of children have died because of Republican cuts!
> 
> It's quite easy.  I'm sure you will soon get the hang of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know, old Harry S. Truman had you right wing cocksuckers nailed 65 years ago. And that was when Republicans were more centrist.
> 
> "Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
> President Harry S. Truman - October 13, 1948
Click to expand...


You know what's REALLY funny, Bfgrn?  That you probably think that 'ole Harry "The Buck Stops Here" Truman would find Barack Obama admirable.  Truman was a man who put that sign on his desk in the Oval Office because he was willing to take the heat for doing the right thing even when it was politically unpopular.  Barack Obama's sign would read "The Buck Stops THERE!!!"

Harry was straight up Kansas honest...Barry is straight up Chicago *dishonest*.


----------



## Sallow

Lumpy 1 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You're playing the You-must-hate-children card? What happened? Run out of race cards or did you misplace your you-must-hate-the-elderly cards? Perhaps you have some you-hate-clean-water cards under the sofa cushions that you can play every time your argument is too vacuous to stand on its own. Personally, if I were you I would stick some war-on-women cards up my sleeve just in case you get boxed in by facts and reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You're trying to tell me there is some other excuse other than not giving a damn, to cut programs that provide food for children?  And, it's not my fault that the Republican party wants to hurt seniors, minorities, women and children, so, if you don't want those cards thrown at you, don't support such nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did Democrats get this feeling that it's up to Government to provide by stealing from those who take responsibility for their lives. Sure Democrats win elections and they get the chickenshit entitlement votes but people should Man-up or Lady-up to responsibility,
> 
> Some people do deserve or have earned the right to help so they can get back on track and they should be helped but making a life of dependance is no better than freeloading and civil slavery to the government.
> 
> Well..just sayin...
Click to expand...


Basically what you are protecting are those that steal from us all. Most of the rich, didn't "earn" their riches. They inherited it. They used guile and ruthlessness to con it out of people. Taxes do many things and some of those things are to add parity to an unfair system.

Otherwise there is a more "righteous" way to "redistribute" wealth. And it starts with guillotines.


----------



## Sallow

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am afraid you have not grasped to Marxist-Leninist concept of 'objective reality'.  Don't let your mind be clouded by those silly 'fact' things.
> 
> It goes like this.   Republicans are evil: check.    Evil people starve children: check.
> Therefore:  Thousands of children have died because of Republican cuts!
> 
> It's quite easy.  I'm sure you will soon get the hang of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, old Harry S. Truman had you right wing cocksuckers nailed 65 years ago. And that was when Republicans were more centrist.
> 
> "Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
> President Harry S. Truman - October 13, 1948
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You know what's REALLY funny, Bfgrn?  That you probably think that 'ole Harry "The Buck Stops Here" Truman would find Barack Obama admirable.  Truman was a man who put that sign on his desk in the Oval Office because he was willing to take the heat for doing the right thing even when it was politically unpopular.  Barack Obama's sign would read "The Buck Stops THERE!!!"
> 
> Harry was straight up Kansas honest...Barry is straight up Chicago *dishonest*.
Click to expand...


Truman had lower approval ratings than Obama.


----------



## Mertex

Papageorgio said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You're playing the You-must-hate-children card? What happened? Run out of race cards or did you misplace your you-must-hate-the-elderly cards? Perhaps you have some you-hate-clean-water cards under the sofa cushions that you can play every time your argument is too vacuous to stand on its own. Personally, if I were you I would stick some war-on-women cards up my sleeve just in case you get boxed in by facts and reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You're trying to tell me there is some other excuse other than not giving a damn, to cut programs that provide food for children?  And, it's not my fault that the Republican party wants to hurt seniors, minorities, women and children, so, if you don't want those cards thrown at you, don't support such nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How many children have died of starvation due to Republican cuts? There are tons of resources for everyone to get food.
Click to expand...


If there were tons of resources for everyone to get "adequate, nutritious" food,  we wouldn't have such a large number of people that are suffering from food insecurity.  And the statistics below are from before Republicans decided to cut even more. 

It is not okay for people to suffer from food insecurity just because they don't die, although it seems that some Republican/conservatives would prefer these people would just hurry up and die and release them of any further obligation to provide any kind of funding.

Feeding America's study, funded by ConAgra Foods, is based on 2009 statistics compiled by *the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which runs 15 food aid programs, *including the nationwide free and subsidized school lunch program and WIC, a supplemental food program that provides tailored food supplements to pregnant women and families with children under age 5 whose household income is less than 185 percent of the gross federal poverty limit. That's an annual gross income of $41,348 for a family of four.

The study also breaks down child food insecurity rates by congressional district, which could send a powerful message to Washington. *The proposed House budget for 2012 includes substantial cuts to food aid programs in the 2012 budget cycle.* The cuts could affect up to 350,000 recipients of the WIC program alone. *The Emergency Food Assistance Program, which provides agricultural products to food banks to pass on to the poor, is also facing a proposed $50 million cut,* representing one fifth of the budget for this program.
HUNGER HURTS: Millions of American Kids Go Hungry - ABC News


The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the legislation proposed by House Republicans would reduce spending on the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program by $39 billion over the next 10 years.
It also would reduce the number of Americans receiving food stamps by 14 million - from 48 million to 34 million - by 2023, CBO estimates. 
And it would cut funding for job training while imposing new work requirements, according to Stacy Dean, vice president for food assistance policy at the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
"This proposal is incredibly harsh,'' she said.
House Republicans Planning Cut to Food Aid - Bread for the World: Have Faith. End Hunger.


----------



## Lumpy 1

Plasmaball said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are a talking point bot. You dont think for yourself period. Nothing about you I cant find someplace else, said by someone smarter.
> 
> You are not even a fart in history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet Nothings Plasma..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh good cancer lump decided to chime in and show how stupid he is.
Click to expand...


So much hate.. I'm glad I don't have your life.


----------



## Lumpy 1

Sallow said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You're trying to tell me there is some other excuse other than not giving a damn, to cut programs that provide food for children?  And, it's not my fault that the Republican party wants to hurt seniors, minorities, women and children, so, if you don't want those cards thrown at you, don't support such nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did Democrats get this feeling that it's up to Government to provide by stealing from those who take responsibility for their lives. Sure Democrats win elections and they get the chickenshit entitlement votes but people should Man-up or Lady-up to responsibility,
> 
> Some people do deserve or have earned the right to help so they can get back on track and they should be helped but making a life of dependance is no better than freeloading and civil slavery to the government.
> 
> Well..just sayin...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Basically what you are protecting are those that steal from us all. Most of the rich, didn't "earn" their riches. They inherited it. They used guile and ruthlessness to con it out of people. Taxes do many things and some of those things are to add parity to an unfair system.
> 
> Otherwise there is a more "righteous" way to "redistribute" wealth. And it starts with guillotines.
Click to expand...


You are such an idiot.....moving on..


----------



## Sallow

Lumpy 1 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where did Democrats get this feeling that it's up to Government to provide by stealing from those who take responsibility for their lives. Sure Democrats win elections and they get the chickenshit entitlement votes but people should Man-up or Lady-up to responsibility,
> 
> Some people do deserve or have earned the right to help so they can get back on track and they should be helped but making a life of dependance is no better than freeloading and civil slavery to the government.
> 
> Well..just sayin...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Basically what you are protecting are those that steal from us all. Most of the rich, didn't "earn" their riches. They inherited it. They used guile and ruthlessness to con it out of people. Taxes do many things and some of those things are to add parity to an unfair system.
> 
> Otherwise there is a more "righteous" way to "redistribute" wealth. And it starts with guillotines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are such an idiot.....moving on..
Click to expand...


And you are a poopy pants Diaper head.

Wait a minute!

Ted Nugent are you Lumpy 1??????


----------



## Amelia

Sallow said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You're trying to tell me there is some other excuse other than not giving a damn, to cut programs that provide food for children?  And, it's not my fault that the Republican party wants to hurt seniors, minorities, women and children, so, if you don't want those cards thrown at you, don't support such nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did Democrats get this feeling that it's up to Government to provide by stealing from those who take responsibility for their lives. Sure Democrats win elections and they get the chickenshit entitlement votes but people should Man-up or Lady-up to responsibility,
> 
> Some people do deserve or have earned the right to help so they can get back on track and they should be helped but making a life of dependance is no better than freeloading and civil slavery to the government.
> 
> Well..just sayin...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Basically what you are protecting are those that steal from us all. Most of the rich, didn't "earn" their riches. They inherited it. They used guile and ruthlessness to con it out of people. Taxes do many things and some of those things are to add parity to an unfair system.
> 
> Otherwise there is a more "righteous" way to "redistribute" wealth. And it starts with guillotines.
Click to expand...



That's a compelling cartoon.

Unfortunately, it glosses over ways that blacks have been harmed by some of things which people of good intent actually did hope would help them.  And which may have helped to a large degree but which may need to be tweaked now.


----------



## Mertex

Stephanie said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You're trying to tell me there is some other excuse other than not giving a damn, to cut programs that provide food for children?  And, it's not my fault that the Republican party wants to hurt seniors, minorities, women and children, so, if you don't want those cards thrown at you, don't support such nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many children have died of starvation due to Republican cuts? There are tons of resources for everyone to get food.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes there is...We fell on hard time's just recently and I looked up charities that give out food
> tons of them out there...But the liberal ideology, if it's not from the government it isn't WORTHY and that make people not caring
Click to expand...


Sure there are many food pantries and charitable organizations handing out some food,  etc., but it is still not enough to take care of the masses of poor people.  And, the government is still providing the majority of the food that is being provided - but thanks to Republican/conservatives like you, you would like the government to leave it entirely to these church and charity organizations to feed all the hungry. 

Churches and charitable organizations do not have the volunteers, nor the resources or the money to do the certifying of who is needy and who isn't.  Most of the people coming to these places to get food are being recommended by churches or schools who are not equipped to figure out whether there are people that are able to work but don't in those families, and many times people that don't really need or deserve it are the ones getting most of it.  I've seen how some people will lie to get free stuff - and they are not all minorities, either, like you, for instance.  Some of these people don't have the luxury of a car to take them to a food pantry, like you, either.

But, what the hey, you really aren't concerned with the logistics, right, you just want your taxes to be lowered,  and if some of them happen to die, well, that's none of your concern.


----------



## Lumpy 1

Sallow said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Basically what you are protecting are those that steal from us all. Most of the rich, didn't "earn" their riches. They inherited it. They used guile and ruthlessness to con it out of people. Taxes do many things and some of those things are to add parity to an unfair system.
> 
> Otherwise there is a more "righteous" way to "redistribute" wealth. And it starts with guillotines.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are such an idiot.....moving on..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And you are a poopy pants Diaper head.
> 
> Wait a minute!
> 
> Ted Nugent are you Lumpy 1??????
Click to expand...


Try to think for a change ..The rich and the corporations end up passing their higher costs onto the price of their products and services, your question , who ends up paying?


----------



## Mertex

Peterf said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You're trying to tell me there is some other excuse other than not giving a damn, to cut programs that provide food for children?  And, it's not my fault that the Republican party wants to hurt seniors, minorities, women and children, so, if you don't want those cards thrown at you, don't support such nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many children have died of starvation due to Republican cuts? There are tons of resources for everyone to get food.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am afraid you have not grasped to Marxist-Leninist concept of 'objective reality'.  Don't let your mind be clouded by those silly 'fact' things.
> 
> *It goes like this.   Republicans are evil: check.    Evil people starve children: check.
> Therefore:  Thousands of children have died because of Republican cuts!
> *
> It's quite easy.  I'm sure you will soon get the hang of it.
Click to expand...


Pretty darn close, I must say.  At least you're not looking for other excuses, you realize what is.


----------



## Sallow

Lumpy 1 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are such an idiot.....moving on..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you are a poopy pants Diaper head.
> 
> Wait a minute!
> 
> Ted Nugent are you Lumpy 1??????
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Try to think for a change ..The rich and the corporations end up passing their higher costs onto the price of their products and services, your question , who ends up paying?
Click to expand...


There was a point when conservatives wanted to pay pirates, tribute, because they didn't want to anger them..or pay for warships to combat them. Jefferson, when he became President, got a better view about how a state functions.

You don't let anyone hold up progress for ransom. Jefferson bought the ships despite the cries from Conservatives not too.


----------



## Mertex

Lumpy 1 said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JohnL.Burke said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? You're playing the You-must-hate-children card? What happened? Run out of race cards or did you misplace your you-must-hate-the-elderly cards? Perhaps you have some you-hate-clean-water cards under the sofa cushions that you can play every time your argument is too vacuous to stand on its own. Personally, if I were you I would stick some war-on-women cards up my sleeve just in case you get boxed in by facts and reality.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You're trying to tell me there is some other excuse other than not giving a damn, to cut programs that provide food for children?  And, it's not my fault that the Republican party wants to hurt seniors, minorities, women and children, so, if you don't want those cards thrown at you, don't support such nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Where did Democrats get this feeling that it's up to Government to provide by stealing from those who take responsibility for their lives. Sure Democrats win elections and they get the chickenshit entitlement votes but people should *Man-up* or Lady-up to responsibility,
Click to expand...

Yep, well said, just like a true Republican/conservative, those 17 million children that are being fed by government programs need to man-up.  

According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), *15.9 million children under 18 in the United States live in households where they are unable to consistently access enough nutritious food necessary for a healthy life.*_  Although food insecurity is harmful to any individual, it can be particularly devastating among children due to their increased vulnerability and the potential for long-term consequences. __




			Some people do deserve or have earned the right to help so they can get back on track and they should be helped but making a life of dependance is no better than freeloading and civil slavery to the government.

Well..just sayin...

Click to expand...

And, you are of course willing to provide links to prove that the majority of people on welfare are dependent on it, have stayed on it longer than the time allowed, and are able to work but won't., or are you basing your comments on something you heard on Faux News? 

*I'll be waiting for the links!*

According to most state welfare systems, a person can only receive welfare benefits for two years with a five year lifetime maximum.   Of course, there are exceptions to this rule for families with children, disable individuals, the elderly and poor working families. Child care, vouchers for housing plus utilities, food stamps and medical care may continue after the cash benefits have stopped or employment has been obtained. However, there are no guarantees for continuing to receive any benefits. *Most states are now focused on getting people back to work, doing any type of job for any amount of pay, instead of giving welfare benefits.*
How Long should a Person Stay on Welfare by Rene Michael Browne | World Issues 360_


----------



## Harry Dresden

Dragonlady said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's liberals like rdean, and sallow that keep lying and are not honest.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that's why those who use Fox as their news source know less about current events than people who don't watch TV at all.  Because Fox news is so full of misstatements, and outright lies that their viewers have no clue what's really going on in the world.  Of course, if they told the truth, more people would be voting for the Democratic party, because the facts are that the Republicans don't have the best interests of the people of the United States as their over-riding concern.  Their hearts and souls have been sold to the highest bidder.
Click to expand...


* Because Fox news is so full of misstatements,*

so you are another that cant stand the station.....but yet watch it all the time?.....
*
 Republicans don't have the best interests of the people of the United States as their over-riding concern
*
i dont believe Democrats do either.....they tell you they do.....30 years ago i would have agreed with you....not today...
*
 Their hearts and souls have been sold to the highest bidder.*

like the Democrats are not?.....you have me fooled....


----------



## Harry Dresden

Sallow said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The misinformation essentially comes from FOX, which isn't new..and it's Saudi propaganda.
> 
> You conservatives have had nothing to do with forming this country and have been trying to destroy it ever since. Whether  that be through the loyalists, torries, whigs, confederates, dixiecrats, john birchers, neocons, pnac or tea party..the name changes but the goal doesn't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Keep watching FOXNews, I never watch it.
> 
> The rest of your post is more opinion based on your limited views.
> 
> Do you think dragon lady will address her lies, probably not huh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truth always hurts.
> 
> *Conservatives have never been involved in anything positive.*
> 
> It's always about tearing something  down.
Click to expand...


really?.....even Dean says they built the Inter-State Highway system....were behind NASA....the EPA...


----------



## Lumpy 1

Sallow said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you are a poopy pants Diaper head.
> 
> Wait a minute!
> 
> Ted Nugent are you Lumpy 1??????
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Try to think for a change ..The rich and the corporations end up passing their higher costs onto the price of their products and services, your question , who ends up paying?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There was a point when conservatives wanted to pay pirates, tribute, because they didn't want to anger them..or pay for warships to combat them. Jefferson, when he became President, got a better view about how a state functions.
> 
> You don't let anyone hold up progress for ransom. Jefferson bought the ships despite the cries from Conservatives not too.
Click to expand...


I get it, you would rather distract than answering the question..no problem


----------



## Harry Dresden

Sallow said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dragonlady said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah that's why those who use Fox as their news source know less about current events than people who don't watch TV at all.  Because Fox news is so full of misstatements, and outright lies that their viewers have no clue what's really going on in the world.  Of course, if they told the truth, more people would be voting for the Democratic party, because the facts are that the Republicans don't have the best interests of the people of the United States as their over-riding concern.  Their hearts and souls have been sold to the highest bidder.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know anything about FOXNews. I wonder why you watch it if you find it so bad?
> 
> So high unemployment, hurting the middle class with increased health insurance rates, hold off another year of Obamacare from business, so it hurts the working middle class more.
> 
> The democrats table every budget put forth, further hurting the recovery. The Democratic Party and Obama have lied to the American people about being able to keep their insurance, they have done nothing to create jobs, they increase taxes during a bad economy. It looks like Obama, who bought GMC, lowered GE's taxes to nothing, that helped insurance companies to great profits, is more for the rich than anyone else. Looks like Democrats have sold their soul to the highest bidder.
> 
> Again, the Demmies have who's interests at heart, it doesn't seem that they like the hard working middle class at all.
> 
> Care to address the misinformation about Reagan, EIC that you try to spread?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The misinformation essentially comes from FOX, which isn't new..and it's Saudi propaganda.
> 
> You conservatives have had nothing to do with forming this country and have been trying to destroy it ever since. Whether  that be through the loyalists, torries, whigs, confederates, dixiecrats, john birchers, neocons, pnac or tea party..the name changes but the goal doesn't.
Click to expand...


Sallow ...if the Liberals and Conservatives of today were suddenly transported back to the 1770's.....we would never have had a Revolution....both sides today only think of one thing.....what is in it for ME.....who cares about the Country.....the people of that time would have shot the people of today.....the British would have probably helped them....


----------



## Mertex

Lumpy 1 said:


> I get it, you would rather distract than answering the question..no problem




You haven't answered my question.......either...

And, you are of course willing to provide links to prove that the majority of people on welfare are dependent on it, have stayed on it longer than the time allowed, and are able to work but won't., or are you basing your comments on something you heard on Faux News?


----------



## Harry Dresden

mudwhistle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> JFK was a liberal. If you hated Teddy's politics, you would have hated Jack and Bobby's too. Ted dedicated his public life to carrying out his two brother's unfinished agenda.
> 
> The Great Society was based on our slain President's New Frontier. The following were President Kennedy's agenda and proposals:
> 
> Civil Rights Bill
> Medicare
> War on Poverty
> 
> And JFK did not believe in trickle down economics.
> 
> *JFK, The Demand-Side Tax Cutter*
> 
> *JFK lowered taxes, but supply-siders wrongly claim he's their patron saint.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.
> 
> This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.
> 
> When Kennedy ran for president in 1960 amid a sluggish economy, he vowed to "get the country moving again." After his election, his advisers, led by chief economist Walter Heller, urged a classically Keynesian solution: running a deficit to stimulate growth. (The $10 billion deficit Heller recommended, bold at the time, seems laughably small by today's standards.) In Keynesian theory, a tax cut aimed at consumers would have a "multiplier" effect, since each dollar that a taxpayer spent would go to another taxpayer, who would in effect spend it againmeaning the deficit would be short-lived.
> 
> At first Kennedy balked at Heller's Keynesianism. He even proposed a balanced budget in his first State of the Union address. But Heller and his team won over the president. By mid-1962 Kennedy had seen the Keynesian light, and in January 1963 he declared that "the enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic issues in this Congress."
> 
> The plan Kennedy's team drafted had many elements, including the closing of loopholes (the "tax reform" Kennedy spoke of).Ultimately, in the form that Lyndon Johnson signed into law, it reduced tax withholding rates, initiated a new standard deduction, and boosted the top deduction for child care expenses, among other provisions. It did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point than anything we've seen in recent years: 91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.
> 
> If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Comparing Teddy to John is like comparing apples to oranges......
Click to expand...


Comparing Teddy to either of his Brothers is a stretch....


----------



## starflight

WOW!!!!!!!


No wonder everybody loves him.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Avatar4321 said:


> Who on earth has ever claimed that Reagan is our Kennedy?



180+ posts and a few asking that.....no answers yet....not even from the guy who claimed it here.....


----------



## Lumpy 1

Mertex said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You're trying to tell me there is some other excuse other than not giving a damn, to cut programs that provide food for children?  And, it's not my fault that the Republican party wants to hurt seniors, minorities, women and children, so, if you don't want those cards thrown at you, don't support such nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Where did Democrats get this feeling that it's up to Government to provide by stealing from those who take responsibility for their lives. Sure Democrats win elections and they get the chickenshit entitlement votes but people should *Man-up* or Lady-up to responsibility,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yep, well said, just like a true Republican/conservative, those 17 million children that are being fed by government programs need to man-up.
> 
> According to the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), *15.9 million children under 18 in the United States live in households where they are unable to consistently access enough nutritious food necessary for a healthy life.*_  Although food insecurity is harmful to any individual, it can be particularly devastating among children due to their increased vulnerability and the potential for long-term consequences. __
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Some people do deserve or have earned the right to help so they can get back on track and they should be helped but making a life of dependance is no better than freeloading and civil slavery to the government.
> 
> Well..just sayin...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And, you are of course willing to provide links to prove that the majority of people on welfare are dependent on it, have stayed on it longer than the time allowed, and are able to work but won't., or are you basing your comments on something you heard on Faux News?
> 
> *I'll be waiting for the links!*
> 
> According to most state welfare systems, a person can only receive welfare benefits for two years with a five year lifetime maximum.   Of course, there are exceptions to this rule for families with children, disable individuals, the elderly and poor working families. Child care, vouchers for housing plus utilities, food stamps and medical care may continue after the cash benefits have stopped or employment has been obtained. However, there are no guarantees for continuing to receive any benefits. *Most states are now focused on getting people back to work, doing any type of job for any amount of pay, instead of giving welfare benefits.*
> How Long should a Person Stay on Welfare by Rene Michael Browne | World Issues 360_
Click to expand...

_

Jobs jobs jobs and opportunity is the answer...

The country is bankrupt, the government borrows a third more than they take in, the federal unfunded liabilities are completely out of control..

When people finally realize that the US can't pay the bills, what happens then Mertex..?_


----------



## clevergirl

Mertex said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get it, you would rather distract than answering the question..no problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't answered my question.......either...
> 
> And, you are of course willing to provide links to prove that the majority of people on welfare are dependent on it, have stayed on it longer than the time allowed, and are able to work but won't., or are you basing your comments on something you heard on Faux News?
Click to expand...


Just from one area in the US- Authorities: 16 Charged In NYC Food Stamp Fraud Scheme « CBS New York

These people are obviously not fucking starving- they trade their "food stamps" for cash! Your stupid "faux news" sniping shows your complete and utter inability to even fucking think. Try going outside of some parody from internet insipidness showcased as intellectual validity when in reality it's merely empty jargon!


----------



## NoTeaPartyPleez

Sallow said:


> Bill Maher nails it.
> 
> Bill Maher on JFK vs Reagan: 'Our Kennedy Is Kennedy' | Video Cafe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Maher had a few words for the Republicans who still "get a lump in their throat" for "their Kennedy" Ronald Reagan during his New Rules segment this Friday night.
> 
> 
> MAHER: Now, I don't know if all politics is local, but I do think all politics is tribal and just as some people are dog people and others are cat people, some have a chip in their brain to be Democrats and others to be Republicans. We have Kennedy, you have Reagan. We have marijuana, you have Metamucil.
> 
> We want gays in the military. You want them in the airport restroom. [...]
> 
> The one reason we looked uglier in the '80's, is because we were uglier. It was when the baby boomers, the generation that was supposed to be different, just gave up and sold out completely. Kennedy's time was the time of "Ask not what your country can do for you." Reagan's was the time of "Greed is good."
> 
> JFK was far from perfect, but he was a true wit and a sex machine and he knew how to wear a pair of shades. Reagan was an amiable square in a cowboy hat who had sex with a woman he called mommie.
> 
> *Kennedy was James Bond. Reagan was Matlock. Love him or hate him, we win. Republicans can call Reagan their Kennedy all they want, but it's like calling Miller High Life 'the champagne of beer. It's why calling someone your Kennedy will never really cut it, because our Kennedy, is Kennedy.*
Click to expand...

*
Yup, "New Rules".  Nobody does it better......Makes me feel sad for the reeesssttttt.....*


----------



## American Horse

Redfish said:


> JFK was closer to today's libertarians than to either the liberals or the conservatives.
> 
> He was for smaller government, strong military, and he cut taxes.
> 
> Kennedy would not be a democrat today.


He was for business being capitalized with their own money by leaving it in the private economy and of course, yes a strong military; neither of those is high on the popularity list of libertarians, who are suspicious of the corporate entity and the ideal of security through military strength because they are convinced US politicians the ruling elite are subservient to or tools of the "Military-Industrial-Complex"

JFK was more of a conservative than was RMN.


----------



## Lumpy 1

clevergirl said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get it, you would rather distract than answering the question..no problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't answered my question.......either...
> 
> And, you are of course willing to provide links to prove that the majority of people on welfare are dependent on it, have stayed on it longer than the time allowed, and are able to work but won't., or are you basing your comments on something you heard on Faux News?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just from one area in the US- Authorities: 16 Charged In NYC Food Stamp Fraud Scheme « CBS New York
> 
> These people are obviously not fucking starving- they trade their "food stamps" for cash! Your stupid "faux news" sniping shows your complete and utter inability to even fucking think. Try going outside of some parody from internet insipidness showcased as intellectual validity when in reality it's merely empty jargon!
Click to expand...


Chubby poor people and a skinny middle-class...what's that all about?


----------



## Papageorgio

Mertex said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really?  You're trying to tell me there is some other excuse other than not giving a damn, to cut programs that provide food for children?  And, it's not my fault that the Republican party wants to hurt seniors, minorities, women and children, so, if you don't want those cards thrown at you, don't support such nonsense.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> How many children have died of starvation due to Republican cuts? There are tons of resources for everyone to get food.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If there were tons of resources for everyone to get "adequate, nutritious" food,  we wouldn't have such a large number of people that are suffering from food insecurity.  And the statistics below are from before Republicans decided to cut even more.
> 
> It is not okay for people to suffer from food insecurity just because they don't die, although it seems that some Republican/conservatives would prefer these people would just hurry up and die and release them of any further obligation to provide any kind of funding.
> 
> Feeding America's study, funded by ConAgra Foods, is based on 2009 statistics compiled by *the U.S. Department of Agriculture, which runs 15 food aid programs, *including the nationwide free and subsidized school lunch program and WIC, a supplemental food program that provides tailored food supplements to pregnant women and families with children under age 5 whose household income is less than 185 percent of the gross federal poverty limit. That's an annual gross income of $41,348 for a family of four.
> 
> The study also breaks down child food insecurity rates by congressional district, which could send a powerful message to Washington. *The proposed House budget for 2012 includes substantial cuts to food aid programs in the 2012 budget cycle.* The cuts could affect up to 350,000 recipients of the WIC program alone. *The Emergency Food Assistance Program, which provides agricultural products to food banks to pass on to the poor, is also facing a proposed $50 million cut,* representing one fifth of the budget for this program.
> HUNGER HURTS: Millions of American Kids Go Hungry - ABC News
> 
> 
> The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimates the legislation proposed by House Republicans would reduce spending on the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program by $39 billion over the next 10 years.
> It also would reduce the number of Americans receiving food stamps by 14 million - from 48 million to 34 million - by 2023, CBO estimates.
> And it would cut funding for job training while imposing new work requirements, according to Stacy Dean, vice president for food assistance policy at the liberal-leaning Center on Budget and Policy Priorities.
> "This proposal is incredibly harsh,'' she said.
> House Republicans Planning Cut to Food Aid - Bread for the World: Have Faith. End Hunger.
Click to expand...


Please get off that republicans and Conservatives don't care. I believe their are tons of agencies that get food to you. I was poor and never worried about myself or my family getting food through a variety of sources. Back in the 80's we heard all the BS from Democrats about the GOP taking food out of school programs, all they did was give it back to the states no starving, no food insecurity.

We have record numbers on the SNAP program, and as the economy improves as the liberal democrats keep claiming, then we should have lower need for food stamps. We are also paying more of those on food stamps, their health care. The only ones getting hurt will be the middle class and they will shut up and take it like always. 

There are lots of alternatives for food and a lot better way for the government to get food into the hands of those who need it.


----------



## Jroc

Sallow said:


> Bill Maher nails it.
> 
> Bill Maher on JFK vs Reagan: 'Our Kennedy Is Kennedy' | Video Cafe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Maher had a few words for the Republicans who still "get a lump in their throat" for "their Kennedy" Ronald Reagan during his New Rules segment this Friday night.
> 
> 
> MAHER: Now, I don't know if all politics is local, but I do think all politics is tribal and just as some people are dog people and others are cat people, some have a chip in their brain to be Democrats and others to be Republicans. We have Kennedy, you have Reagan. We have marijuana, you have Metamucil.
> 
> We want gays in the military. You want them in the airport restroom. [...]
> 
> The one reason we looked uglier in the '80's, is because we were uglier. It was when the baby boomers, the generation that was supposed to be different, just gave up and sold out completely. Kennedy's time was the time of "Ask not what your country can do for you." Reagan's was the time of "Greed is good."
> 
> JFK was far from perfect, but he was a true wit and a sex machine and he knew how to wear a pair of shades. Reagan was an amiable square in a cowboy hat who had sex with a woman he called mommie.
> 
> *Kennedy was James Bond. Reagan was Matlock. Love him or hate him, we win. Republicans can call Reagan their Kennedy all they want, but it's like calling Miller High Life 'the champagne of beer. It's why calling someone your Kennedy will never really cut it, because our Kennedy, is Kennedy.*
Click to expand...

it's almost laughable to me how some of you people idealize JFK. He is adored because he was assassinated, and because of a good propaganda campaign by Jackie. As far as accomplishments? not much there really, as he was only president for less than 3 yrs but of course he was one of the greatest presidents of all time 

"Our Kennedy" Jackie would be proud 



> *How Jackie Kennedy Invented the Camelot Legend After JFKs Death*
> *
> While the nation was still grieving JFKs assassination, she used an influential magazine profile to rewrite her husbands legacy and spawn Camelot.*
> 
> 
> Few events in the postwar era have cast such a long shadow over our national life as the assassination of President John F. Kennedy fifty years ago this month. The murder of a handsome and vigorous president shocked the nation to its core and shook the faith of many Americans in their institutions and way of life.
> 
> Those who were living at the time would never forget the moving scenes associated with President Kennedys death: the Zapruder film depicting the assassination in a frame-by-frame sequence; the courageous widow arriving with the coffin at Andrews Air Force Base still wearing her bloodstained dress; the throng of mourners lined up for blocks outside the Capitol to pay respects to the fallen president; the accused assassin gunned down two days later while in police custody and in full view of a national television audience; the little boy saluting the coffin of his slain father; the somber march to Arlington National Cemetery; the eternal flame affixed to the gravesite. These scenes were repeated endlessly on television at the time and then reproduced in popular magazines and, still later, in documentary films. They came to be viewed as defining events of the era.
> 
> In their grief, Americans were inclined to take to heart the various myths and legends that grew up around President Kennedy within days of the assassination. Though the assassin was a communist and an admirer of Fidel Castro, many insisted that President Kennedy was a martyr to the cause of civil rights who deserved a place of honor next to Abraham Lincoln as a champion of racial justice. Others held him up as a great statesman who labored for international peace


.

How Jackie Kennedy Invented the Camelot Legend After JFK?s Death


----------



## Plasmaball

Lumpy 1 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sweet Nothings Plasma..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh good cancer lump decided to chime in and show how stupid he is.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So much hate.. I'm glad I don't have your life.
Click to expand...


My life is fine..hating someone takes zero energy. Dont think so highly of yourself.


----------



## Plasmaball

clevergirl said:


> Mertex said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I get it, you would rather distract than answering the question..no problem
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You haven't answered my question.......either...
> 
> And, you are of course willing to provide links to prove that the majority of people on welfare are dependent on it, have stayed on it longer than the time allowed, and are able to work but won't., or are you basing your comments on something you heard on Faux News?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just from one area in the US- Authorities: 16 Charged In NYC Food Stamp Fraud Scheme « CBS New York
> 
> These people are obviously not fucking starving- they trade their "food stamps" for cash! Your stupid "faux news" sniping shows your complete and utter inability to even fucking think. Try going outside of some parody from internet insipidness showcased as intellectual validity when in reality it's merely empty jargon!
Click to expand...


All teatards are racist....


----------



## Lumpy 1

Plasmaball said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh good cancer lump decided to chime in and show how stupid he is.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So much hate.. I'm glad I don't have your life.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My life is fine..hating someone takes zero energy. Dont think so highly of yourself.
Click to expand...


So much stress in hating, laughing is far better for you..you should try it..

I'd rather not have to pay for your heart operations and trust me, there no fun.


----------



## Papageorgio

Lumpy 1 said:


> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> So much hate.. I'm glad I don't have your life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My life is fine..hating someone takes zero energy. Dont think so highly of yourself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So much stress in hating, laughing is far better for you..you should try it..
> 
> I'd rather not have to pay for your heart operations and trust me, there no fun.
Click to expand...


No kidding, that guy is one angry guy. The anger in his posts make me laugh. A lot of hate for such a small mind.


----------



## LogikAndReazon

Reparations must certainly be needed to right the scales of justice......lol


----------



## Oldstyle

Sallow said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, old Harry S. Truman had you right wing cocksuckers nailed 65 years ago. And that was when Republicans were more centrist.
> 
> "Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
> President Harry S. Truman - October 13, 1948
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know what's REALLY funny, Bfgrn?  That you probably think that 'ole Harry "The Buck Stops Here" Truman would find Barack Obama admirable.  Truman was a man who put that sign on his desk in the Oval Office because he was willing to take the heat for doing the right thing even when it was politically unpopular.  Barack Obama's sign would read "The Buck Stops THERE!!!"
> 
> Harry was straight up Kansas honest...Barry is straight up Chicago *dishonest*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Truman had lower approval ratings than Obama.
Click to expand...


And yet Truman is one of our most respected Presidents!  Why?  Because he took doing the JOB of being President seriously.  There isn't a prayer of that happening with Barack Obama because five years into his being President he STILL hasn't grasped how it's all supposed to work.  He's still campaigning because that's all he knows how to do.


----------



## Harry Dresden

Papageorgio said:


> Lumpy 1 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Plasmaball said:
> 
> 
> 
> My life is fine..hating someone takes zero energy. Dont think so highly of yourself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So much stress in hating, laughing is far better for you..you should try it..
> 
> I'd rather not have to pay for your heart operations and trust me, there no fun.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No kidding, that guy is one angry guy. The anger in his posts make me laugh. A lot of hate for such a small mind.
Click to expand...


hey even he says he is a Dick.....what do expect?....


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

Liberal reassurance thread.

Pretty pathetic


----------



## Political Junky

Sallow said:


> Bill Maher nails it.
> 
> Bill Maher on JFK vs Reagan: 'Our Kennedy Is Kennedy' | Video Cafe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Maher had a few words for the Republicans who still "get a lump in their throat" for "their Kennedy" Ronald Reagan during his New Rules segment this Friday night.
> 
> 
> MAHER: Now, I don't know if all politics is local, but I do think all politics is tribal and just as some people are dog people and others are cat people, some have a chip in their brain to be Democrats and others to be Republicans. We have Kennedy, you have Reagan. We have marijuana, you have Metamucil.
> 
> We want gays in the military. You want them in the airport restroom. [...]
> 
> The one reason we looked uglier in the '80's, is because we were uglier. It was when the baby boomers, the generation that was supposed to be different, just gave up and sold out completely. Kennedy's time was the time of "Ask not what your country can do for you." Reagan's was the time of "Greed is good."
> 
> JFK was far from perfect, but he was a true wit and a sex machine and he knew how to wear a pair of shades. Reagan was an amiable square in a cowboy hat who had sex with a woman he called mommie.
> 
> *Kennedy was James Bond. Reagan was Matlock. Love him or hate him, we win. Republicans can call Reagan their Kennedy all they want, but it's like calling Miller High Life 'the champagne of beer. It's why calling someone your Kennedy will never really cut it, because our Kennedy, is Kennedy.*
Click to expand...

Damn, Maher does have a way with words.


----------



## JohnL.Burke

The irony of course is that Kennedy was killed by what would be considered todays liberal. Lee Harvey Oswald has more in common with Bill Ayers than differences. On the bright side, Bill Maher is an idiot.


----------



## Peterf

Bfgrn said:


> Peterf said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Stephanie said:
> 
> 
> 
> and the rest of those in that clan of rapist, murderers, drug addicts, drug overdoses, drunken car running off bridges drowning women and leaving them in their cars...
> 
> all that family has done all their lives is SUCK off taxpayers for their living...And they're hailed as heroes for it
> 
> something wrong with our society
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well said Stephanie.
> 
> And I would add that JFK's Hitler-admiring daddy Joe, when US Ambassador in London in 1940 assured FDR that Britain would surrender to Germany like any  day now.
> 
> (As the historical knowledge possessed by some of you is - shall we say? - imperfect perhaps I should add that Britain did not surrender in 1940, or at any other time).
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Historical knowledge? You have the nerve to question someone's historical knowledge, then follow it up with ignorant right wing bullshit? Old man Kennedy was not admiring of Hitler, he was admiring of not getting the US into a war. He supported the Conservative Prime Minister Chamberlain's attempt to prevent war. Even though Hitler double crossed Chamberlain, it bought time for England to built arms and to form alliances that would be crucial to England and Europe's survival. If old man Kennedy had an ulterior motive, it was because he feared for the lives of his three eldest sons, Joe, Jack and Bobby, all of whom were or soon would be eligible to serve.
Click to expand...


Kennedy was still telling his boss FDR that Britain was about to surrender after Chamberlain's resignation and Churchill succeeding to the Prime Ministership.

Yes England bought time to build arms.   But 'form alliances'? - I can't think of any.   One with the US would have been nice but that wasn't going to happen.   The US only being interested in selling war materiel cash on the nail.    The UK had to wait until Hitler declared war on the US before it had the USA as an ally.

That Joe Kennedy admired Hitler is a matter of historical fact, which no amount of bluster about 'right-wing (?) bullshit' can expunge.


----------



## Peterf

Oldstyle said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know what's REALLY funny, Bfgrn?  That you probably think that 'ole Harry "The Buck Stops Here" Truman would find Barack Obama admirable.  Truman was a man who put that sign on his desk in the Oval Office because he was willing to take the heat for doing the right thing even when it was politically unpopular.  Barack Obama's sign would read "The Buck Stops THERE!!!"
> 
> Harry was straight up Kansas honest...Barry is straight up Chicago *dishonest*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Truman had lower approval ratings than Obama.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And yet Truman is one of our most respected Presidents!  Why?  Because he took doing the JOB of being President seriously.  There isn't a prayer of that happening with Barack Obama because five years into his being President he STILL hasn't grasped how it's all supposed to work.  He's still campaigning because that's all he knows how to do.
Click to expand...


Excellent post Oldstyle.


----------



## Sallow

Jroc said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Maher nails it.
> 
> Bill Maher on JFK vs Reagan: 'Our Kennedy Is Kennedy' | Video Cafe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Maher had a few words for the Republicans who still "get a lump in their throat" for "their Kennedy" Ronald Reagan during his New Rules segment this Friday night.
> 
> 
> MAHER: Now, I don't know if all politics is local, but I do think all politics is tribal and just as some people are dog people and others are cat people, some have a chip in their brain to be Democrats and others to be Republicans. We have Kennedy, you have Reagan. We have marijuana, you have Metamucil.
> 
> We want gays in the military. You want them in the airport restroom. [...]
> 
> The one reason we looked uglier in the '80's, is because we were uglier. It was when the baby boomers, the generation that was supposed to be different, just gave up and sold out completely. Kennedy's time was the time of "Ask not what your country can do for you." Reagan's was the time of "Greed is good."
> 
> JFK was far from perfect, but he was a true wit and a sex machine and he knew how to wear a pair of shades. Reagan was an amiable square in a cowboy hat who had sex with a woman he called mommie.
> 
> *Kennedy was James Bond. Reagan was Matlock. Love him or hate him, we win. Republicans can call Reagan their Kennedy all they want, but it's like calling Miller High Life 'the champagne of beer. It's why calling someone your Kennedy will never really cut it, because our Kennedy, is Kennedy.*
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> it's almost laughable to me how some of you people idealize JFK. He is adored because he was assassinated, and because of a good propaganda campaign by Jackie. As far as accomplishments? not much there really, as he was only president for less than 3 yrs but of course he was one of the greatest presidents of all time
> 
> "Our Kennedy" Jackie would be proud
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *How Jackie Kennedy Invented the Camelot Legend After JFKs Death*
> *
> While the nation was still grieving JFKs assassination, she used an influential magazine profile to rewrite her husbands legacy and spawn Camelot.*
> 
> 
> Few events in the postwar era have cast such a long shadow over our national life as the assassination of President John F. Kennedy fifty years ago this month. The murder of a handsome and vigorous president shocked the nation to its core and shook the faith of many Americans in their institutions and way of life.
> 
> Those who were living at the time would never forget the moving scenes associated with President Kennedys death: the Zapruder film depicting the assassination in a frame-by-frame sequence; the courageous widow arriving with the coffin at Andrews Air Force Base still wearing her bloodstained dress; the throng of mourners lined up for blocks outside the Capitol to pay respects to the fallen president; the accused assassin gunned down two days later while in police custody and in full view of a national television audience; the little boy saluting the coffin of his slain father; the somber march to Arlington National Cemetery; the eternal flame affixed to the gravesite. These scenes were repeated endlessly on television at the time and then reproduced in popular magazines and, still later, in documentary films. They came to be viewed as defining events of the era.
> 
> In their grief, Americans were inclined to take to heart the various myths and legends that grew up around President Kennedy within days of the assassination. Though the assassin was a communist and an admirer of Fidel Castro, many insisted that President Kennedy was a martyr to the cause of civil rights who deserved a place of honor next to Abraham Lincoln as a champion of racial justice. Others held him up as a great statesman who labored for international peace
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> How Jackie Kennedy Invented the Camelot Legend After JFK?s Death
Click to expand...


Ya mad bro?


----------



## Jroc

Sallow said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Maher nails it.
> 
> Bill Maher on JFK vs Reagan: 'Our Kennedy Is Kennedy' | Video Cafe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> it's almost laughable to me how some of you people idealize JFK. He is adored because he was assassinated, and because of a good propaganda campaign by Jackie. As far as accomplishments? not much there really, as he was only president for less than 3 yrs but of course he was one of the greatest presidents of all time
> 
> "Our Kennedy" Jackie would be proud
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *How Jackie Kennedy Invented the Camelot Legend After JFK&#8217;s Death*
> *
> While the nation was still grieving JFK&#8217;s assassination, she used an influential magazine profile to rewrite her husband&#8217;s legacy and spawn Camelot.*
> 
> 
> Few events in the postwar era have cast such a long shadow over our national life as the assassination of President John F. Kennedy fifty years ago this month. The murder of a handsome and vigorous president shocked the nation to its core and shook the faith of many Americans in their institutions and way of life.
> 
> Those who were living at the time would never forget the moving scenes associated with President Kennedy&#8217;s death: the Zapruder film depicting the assassination in a frame-by-frame sequence; the courageous widow arriving with the coffin at Andrews Air Force Base still wearing her bloodstained dress; the throng of mourners lined up for blocks outside the Capitol to pay respects to the fallen president; the accused assassin gunned down two days later while in police custody and in full view of a national television audience; the little boy saluting the coffin of his slain father; the somber march to Arlington National Cemetery; the eternal flame affixed to the gravesite. These scenes were repeated endlessly on television at the time and then reproduced in popular magazines and, still later, in documentary films. They came to be viewed as defining events of the era.
> 
> In their grief, Americans were inclined to take to heart the various myths and legends that grew up around President Kennedy within days of the assassination. Though the assassin was a communist and an admirer of Fidel Castro, many insisted that President Kennedy was a martyr to the cause of civil rights who deserved a place of honor next to Abraham Lincoln as a champion of racial justice. Others held him up as a great statesman who labored for international peace
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> .
> 
> How Jackie Kennedy Invented the Camelot Legend After JFK?s Death
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ya mad bro?
Click to expand...



Why would i be mad? Reagan stands on his own and Kennedy?  Not much there really.


----------



## Sallow

Jroc said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> it's almost laughable to me how some of you people idealize JFK. He is adored because he was assassinated, and because of a good propaganda campaign by Jackie. As far as accomplishments? not much there really, as he was only president for less than 3 yrs but of course he was one of the greatest presidents of all time
> 
> "Our Kennedy" Jackie would be proud
> 
> .
> 
> How Jackie Kennedy Invented the Camelot Legend After JFK?s Death
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Ya mad bro?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Why would i be mad? Reagan stands on his own and Kennedy?  Not much there really.
Click to expand...


Reagan stands on his own as a lying treacherous traitor that lead this country into financial cataclysm.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHXq8TRejow]Telling Lies - YouTube[/ame]

He was a fucking embarrassment.


----------



## Claudette

Kennedy would never make it past the media today. Not the way he and his brothers bed hopped. 

Back when he ran the media would never have put his womanizing on the front page. Different story today though. Hell. He'd be front page 24/7.

Wonder how much of an embarrassment Kennedy would have been to the DNC if the media had publicized his womanizing??


----------



## JohnL.Burke

Sallow said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya mad bro?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would i be mad? Reagan stands on his own and Kennedy?  Not much there really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagan stands on his own as a lying treacherous traitor that lead this country into financial cataclysm.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHXq8TRejow]Telling Lies - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> He was a fucking embarrassment.
Click to expand...


 As long as the majority of Americans think Reagan was an excellent president (according to every poll I've read) and according to most polls, most people thought he was better than Kennedy, then I guess you are entitled to place yourself in the tiny far left inconsequential I-hate-Reagan niche. More power to you.


----------



## Sallow

JohnL.Burke said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would i be mad? Reagan stands on his own and Kennedy?  Not much there really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan stands on his own as a lying treacherous traitor that lead this country into financial cataclysm.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHXq8TRejow]Telling Lies - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> He was a fucking embarrassment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as the majority of Americans think Reagan was an excellent president (according to every poll I've read) and according to most polls, most people thought he was better than Kennedy, then I guess you are entitled to place yourself in the tiny far left inconsequential I-hate-Reagan niche. More power to you.
Click to expand...



I get that.

Reagan was much like the drug he promoted, cocaine.

He made the country feel good, but in reality? He was terrible to the health of the country.

Osama Bin Laden, trained and financed mostly by the Reagan administration went on to kill several thousand Americans and destroy some pretty expensive real estate.

That's in addition to every other fucking Reagan screw up.


----------



## Oldstyle

LOL...and what drug is Barry like, Sallow?  Just a hint...you might want to stay away from the drug analogies when YOUR guy was a charter member of the "Choom Gang"!  Just saying...


----------



## Political Junky

Claudette said:


> Kennedy would never make it past the media today. Not the way he and his brothers bed hopped.
> 
> Back when he ran the media would never have put his womanizing on the front page. Different story today though. Hell. He'd be front page 24/7.
> 
> Wonder how much of an embarrassment Kennedy would have been to the DNC if the media had publicized his womanizing??


Reagan mentioned Kennedy often.


----------



## Mertex

Claudette said:


> Kennedy would never make it past the media today. Not the way he and his brothers bed hopped.
> 
> Back when he ran the media would never have put his womanizing on the front page. Different story today though. Hell. He'd be front page 24/7.
> 
> Wonder how much of an embarrassment Kennedy would have been to the DNC if the media had publicized his womanizing??




Probably not any more than Eisenhower's affair would have.

Seems you have a one-sided view of skanky.


----------



## Mertex

JohnL.Burke said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why would i be mad? Reagan stands on his own and Kennedy?  Not much there really.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan stands on his own as a lying treacherous traitor that lead this country into financial cataclysm.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHXq8TRejow]Telling Lies - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> He was a fucking embarrassment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As long as the majority of Americans think Reagan was an excellent president (according to every poll I've read) and according to most polls, most people thought he was better than Kennedy, then I guess you are entitled to place yourself in the tiny far left inconsequential I-hate-Reagan niche. More power to you.
Click to expand...


Goes to show that taste is in the mouth.  You all's hero Clint Eastwood, didn't think Reagan was so great.....that's funny.

Clint Eastwood: Reagan wasn?t a ?great president? | The Raw Story


----------



## ScienceRocks

I wish kennedy would of lived 

1. Moon base
2. asteroid mining
3. Mars outpost
4. NO Vietnam war with tens of thousands of dead troops...

= better world


----------



## oreo

I am old enough to remember JFK.  *He was a conservative*--and he would have killed his younger brother Teddy Kennedy for his statements and polices.  Yes--The Democrat party of those years where the hawks when it came to defense of this country--and they really didn't like welfare, or government handouts.


----------



## Jroc

Sallow said:


> Jroc said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ya mad bro?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why would i be mad? Reagan stands on his own and Kennedy?  Not much there really.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Reagan stands on his own as a lying treacherous traitor that lead this country into financial cataclysm.
> 
> [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHXq8TRejow]Telling Lies - YouTube[/ame]
> 
> He was a fucking embarrassment.
Click to expand...


"You mad bro" calm down man "take a Pill" or something. Like i said Reagan's record Stands on it's own. Reagan made us strong again after the debacle of Jimmi Carter also couple of 100 million people freed from Soviet Tyranny also love Reagan


----------



## Bfgrn

Claudette said:


> Kennedy would never make it past the media today. Not the way he and his brothers bed hopped.
> 
> Back when he ran the media would never have put his womanizing on the front page. Different story today though. Hell. He'd be front page 24/7.
> 
> Wonder how much of an embarrassment Kennedy would have been to the DNC if the media had publicized his womanizing??



I will let JFK's good friend answer that one...

"If everybody in this town connected with politics had to leave town because of chasing women and drinking, you would have no government."
Barry Goldwater


----------



## Bfgrn

oreo said:


> I am old enough to remember JFK.  *He was a conservative*--and he would have killed his younger brother Teddy Kennedy for his statements and polices.  Yes--The Democrat party of those years where the hawks when it came to defense of this country--and they really didn't like welfare, or government handouts.



You are totally wrong. The irony is you quote the father of the British welfare state, Winston Churchill.


----------



## Jroc

oreo said:


> I am old enough to remember JFK.  *He was a conservative*--and he would have killed his younger brother Teddy Kennedy for his statements and polices.  Yes--The Democrat party of those years where the hawks when it came to defense of this country--and they really didn't like welfare, or government handouts.



One thing i can say is JFK was a patriot his brother a traitor





> *Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit*
> 
> Picking his way through the Soviet archives that Boris Yeltsin had just thrown open, in 1991 Tim Sebastian, a reporter for the London Times, came across an arresting memorandum. Composed in 1983 by Victor Chebrikov, the top man at the KGB, the memorandum was addressed to Yuri Andropov, the top man in the entire USSR. The subject: Sen. Edward Kennedy.
> 
> On 9-10 May of this year, the May 14 memorandum explained, Sen. Edward Kennedys close friend and trusted confidant [John] Tunney was in Moscow. (Tunney was Kennedys law school roommate and a former Democratic senator from California.) The senator charged Tunney to convey the following message, through confidential contacts, to the General Secretary of the Central Committee of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union, Y. Andropov.
> 
> Kennedys message was simple. He proposed an unabashed quid pro quo. Kennedy would lend Andropov a hand in dealing with President Reagan. In return, the Soviet leader would lend the Democratic Party a hand in challenging Reagan in the 1984 presidential election. The only real potential threats to Reagan are problems of war and peace and Soviet-American relations, the memorandum stated. These issues, according to the senator, will without a doubt become the most important of the election campaign.
> 
> Kennedy made Andropov a couple of specific offers.
> 
> First he offered to visit Moscow. The main purpose of the meeting, according to the senator, would be to arm Soviet officials with explanations regarding problems of nuclear disarmament so they may be better prepared and more convincing during appearances in the USA. Kennedy would help the Soviets deal with Reagan by telling them how to brush up their propaganda.
> 
> Then he offered to make it possible for Andropov to sit down for a few interviews on American television. A direct appeal  to the American people will, without a doubt, attract a great deal of attention and interest in the country.  If the proposal is recognized as worthy, then Kennedy and his friends will bring about suitable steps to have representatives of the largest television companies in the USA contact Y.V. Andropov for an invitation to Moscow for the interviews.  The senator underlined the importance that this initiative should be seen as coming from the American side


. 

Ted Kennedy's Soviet Gambit - Forbes


----------



## Amelia

JFK is idolized because he died.  

If he hadn't died he would be just another past president.


----------



## ScienceRocks

JFK is great because he led America to do something great.

Something you morons would scream and bitch about today...


----------



## Jroc

Matthew said:


> JFK is great because he led America to do something great.
> 
> Something you morons would scream and bitch about today...



Another difference between Kennedy and Obama. Moon mission ,muslim outreach


----------



## clevergirl

Matthew said:


> I wish kennedy would of lived
> 
> 1. Moon base
> 2. asteroid mining
> 3. Mars outpost
> 4. NO Vietnam war with tens of thousands of dead troops...
> 
> = better world



Kennedy was an anti communist- HE is the one who became engaged in Vietnam. HE is the one who encouraged what eventually became the Vietnam War. How do you justify saying there would have been "no Vietnam War" had he lived?


----------



## Amelia

Matthew said:


> JFK is great because he led America to do something great.
> 
> Something you morons would scream and bitch about today...





JFK is "great" because he died.

LBJ took up his mantle and made things happen.  If JFK hadn't died, could what LBJ accomplished have happened?  

Maybe JFK had to die to get done what got done.  




Now who the heck took over Matthew's USMB account?


----------



## Peterf

Matthew said:


> JFK is great because he led America to do something great.
> 
> Something you morons would scream and bitch about today...



The "something great" being the Bay of Pigs invasion of Cuba?  Or maybe the massive build up of US forces in Vietnam?.


----------



## Peterf

clevergirl said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish kennedy would of lived
> 
> 1. Moon base
> 2. asteroid mining
> 3. Mars outpost
> 4. NO Vietnam war with tens of thousands of dead troops...
> 
> = better world
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy was an anti communist- HE is the one who became engaged in Vietnam. HE is the one who encouraged what eventually became the Vietnam War. How do you justify saying there would have been "no Vietnam War" had he lived?
Click to expand...



True believers  should never be asked to 'justify' the wonders wrought by saints.    The left has sanctified JFK, just as they did FDR and will, in the fullness of time, BHO.


----------



## Claudette

Mertex said:


> Claudette said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy would never make it past the media today. Not the way he and his brothers bed hopped.
> 
> Back when he ran the media would never have put his womanizing on the front page. Different story today though. Hell. He'd be front page 24/7.
> 
> Wonder how much of an embarrassment Kennedy would have been to the DNC if the media had publicized his womanizing??
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Probably not any more than Eisenhower's affair would have.
> 
> Seems you have a one-sided view of skanky.
Click to expand...


I agree.  FDR would never have made it either. In fact no one, from either party, would have made it to the WH if they were bed hoppers and if the media back then did what the media of today does. 

Party don't matter when it comes to skanky.

The media of the 30's thru the 60's and mayby even the 70's would never have spoken or reported about a President or someone running for POTUS's extramarital affairs. Just wasn't done. 

Today, however, the media would be salivating over such a story and taking every opportunity to air that story 24/7 over cable news.

As for JFK as a POTUS?

He did do some good things. Our space program thrived under him but mostly because he wanted to beat the Russians to the moon. The Space Program was a big competition. Apple pie and the American way vs. Communism. Communism the big boogie man back then. I remember it well. 

He really didn't have time to do much as POTUS. Once he was assasinated they put him on a pedestal like he was God. He wasn't.


----------



## thanatos144

JFK is a fraud brought to you by the media. Reality of how he governed doesn't match the myth being told to you.


----------



## Sallow

clevergirl said:


> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish kennedy would of lived
> 
> 1. Moon base
> 2. asteroid mining
> 3. Mars outpost
> 4. NO Vietnam war with tens of thousands of dead troops...
> 
> = better world
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy was an anti communist- HE is the one who became engaged in Vietnam. HE is the one who encouraged what eventually became the Vietnam War. How do you justify saying there would have been "no Vietnam War" had he lived?
Click to expand...


Because after coming to the brink of Nuclear War with Russia over Cuba, Kennedy got a stark lesson in how things like these confrontations can spin out of control.

It's pretty clear Kennedy viewed Vietnam as a dead end. And he probably would have scaled down our involvement.


----------



## Oldstyle

Sallow said:


> clevergirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matthew said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wish kennedy would of lived
> 
> 1. Moon base
> 2. asteroid mining
> 3. Mars outpost
> 4. NO Vietnam war with tens of thousands of dead troops...
> 
> = better world
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy was an anti communist- HE is the one who became engaged in Vietnam. HE is the one who encouraged what eventually became the Vietnam War. How do you justify saying there would have been "no Vietnam War" had he lived?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because after coming to the brink of Nuclear War with Russia over Cuba, Kennedy got a stark lesson in how things like these confrontations can spin out of control.
> 
> It's pretty clear Kennedy viewed Vietnam as a dead end. And he probably would have scaled down our involvement.
Click to expand...


There is absolutely no historic proof that Kennedy viewed Vietnam in that way.  Nor is there any indication that he was planning to scale down our involvement.  John Kennedy was *actively* resisting Communism's spread around the globe.


----------



## thanatos144

Oldstyle said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> clevergirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy was an anti communist- HE is the one who became engaged in Vietnam. HE is the one who encouraged what eventually became the Vietnam War. How do you justify saying there would have been "no Vietnam War" had he lived?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because after coming to the brink of Nuclear War with Russia over Cuba, Kennedy got a stark lesson in how things like these confrontations can spin out of control.
> 
> It's pretty clear Kennedy viewed Vietnam as a dead end. And he probably would have scaled down our involvement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no historic proof that Kennedy viewed Vietnam in that way.  Nor is there any indication that he was planning to scale down our involvement.  John Kennedy was *actively* resisting Communism's spread around the globe.
Click to expand...


Funny that his brother Teddy seemed to embrace them......


----------



## Sallow

Oldstyle said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> clevergirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy was an anti communist- HE is the one who became engaged in Vietnam. HE is the one who encouraged what eventually became the Vietnam War. How do you justify saying there would have been "no Vietnam War" had he lived?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because after coming to the brink of Nuclear War with Russia over Cuba, Kennedy got a stark lesson in how things like these confrontations can spin out of control.
> 
> It's pretty clear Kennedy viewed Vietnam as a dead end. And he probably would have scaled down our involvement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no historic proof that Kennedy viewed Vietnam in that way.  Nor is there any indication that he was planning to scale down our involvement.  John Kennedy was *actively* resisting Communism's spread around the globe.
Click to expand...


Yeah..never mind the fact that we'd been in Vietnam since Eisenhower and there was only a very limited escalation until Johnson came into office.

Never mind the fact that Kennedy asked McNamara to draft a withdrawal plan.

Never mind that multiple reports were submitted to Kennedy illustrating what a mess the South Vietnamese government truly was..

There's no "historic" proof..


----------



## OldUSAFSniper

I was alive when John Kennedy was President.  He was NOT loved by every person in this country at the time as he was seen as soft on communism by allowing Cuba to remain under Castro.  But he was a good President.  He was a good President because he was a LEADER and he had an American vision.  The only time that John Kennedy did not lead was during the Bay of Pigs invasion.  And if you read what he wrote about it, he regretted not standing up to kill the entire thing from the beginning even though he thought it was a really bad idea.  He let his 'advisors' push him into the thing and he swore he would never let it happen again.  When he stood up to Kruschev, he told his advisers what they would do and by any measure, he won out.  Yes, he gave up the missles in Turkey, but they were going away anyway and actually because of advancements in technology would have been redundant within a year.

Ronald Reagan was a good President because of the same thing.  He was a LEADER and he had an American vision.  Ronald Reagan stood up to Gorbachov and by any stretch of the imagination, he forced the former Soviet Union to its knees.  So badly that they eventually disintegrated.  Despite those that wanted to capitulate to the Soviets, he introduced missles into NATO to counter the SS-20's that the Soviets had deployed in the Warsaw Pact.

Bill Maher is pond scum.  Goat piss is more valuable than his opinions and the goat is more intelligent.  Both of those President's are to be honored, revered and respected.  What we desperately NEED right now is another Democrat like Kennedy or another Republican like Reagan.  I would work for and vote for either.

Bill Maher's thoughts are as vapid and as laughable as if they had come from an Angolan warlord.  I put both in the same basket...


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> clevergirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy was an anti communist- HE is the one who became engaged in Vietnam. HE is the one who encouraged what eventually became the Vietnam War. How do you justify saying there would have been "no Vietnam War" had he lived?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because after coming to the brink of Nuclear War with Russia over Cuba, Kennedy got a stark lesson in how things like these confrontations can spin out of control.
> 
> It's pretty clear Kennedy viewed Vietnam as a dead end. And he probably would have scaled down our involvement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no historic proof that Kennedy viewed Vietnam in that way.  Nor is there any indication that he was planning to scale down our involvement.  John Kennedy was *actively* resisting Communism's spread around the globe.
Click to expand...


There IS proof...

NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION MEMORANDUM NO. 263

TO:      Secretary of State
         Secretary of Defense
         Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff


SUBJECT: South Vietnam

At a meeting on October 5, 1963, the President considered the recommendations contained in the report of Secretary McNamara and General Taylor on their mission to South Vietnam.

The President approved the military recommendations contained in Section I B (1 -3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made of the *implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963. 
*
...

2. The objectives of the United States with respect to the withdrawal of U.S. military personnel remain as stated in the White House statement of October 2, 1963. 

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

U.S. POLICY ON VIET-NAM: WHITE HOUSE STATEMENT, OCTOBER 2, 1963

Secretary [of Defense Robert S.] McNamara and General [Maxwell D.] Taylor reported to the President this morning and to the National Security Council this afternoon. Their report included a number of classified findings and recommendations which will be the subject of further review and action. Their basic presentation was endorsed by all members of the Security Council and the following statement of United States policy was approved by the President on the basis of recommendations received from them and from Ambassador [Henry Cabot] Lodge.

1. The security of South Viet-Nam is a major interest of the United States as other free nations. We will adhere to our policy of working with the people and Government of South Viet-Nam to deny this country to communism and to suppress the externally stimulated and supported insurgency of the Viet Cong as promptly as possible. Effective performance in this undertaking is the central objective of our policy in South Viet-Nam.

2. The military program in South Viet-Nam has made progress and is sound in principle, though improvements are being energetically sought.

3. *Major U.S. assistance in support of this military effort is needed only until the insurgency has been suppressed or until the national security forces of the Government of South Viet-Nam are capable of suppressing it.
*
*Secretary McNamara and General Taylor reported their judgment that the major part of the U.S. military task can be completed by the end of 1965*, although there may be a continuing requirement for a limited number of U.S. training personnel. They reported that by the end of this year, the U.S. program for training Vietnamese should have progressed to the point where 1,000 U.S. military personnel assigned to South Viet-Nam can be withdrawn.

4. The political situation in South Viet-Nam remains deeply serious. The United States has made clear its continuing opposition to any repressive actions in South Viet-Nam. While such actions have not yet significantly affected the military effort, they could do so in the future.

5. It remains the policy of the United States, in South Viet-Nam as in other parts of the world, to support the efforts of the people of that country to defeat aggression and to build a peaceful and free society.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because after coming to the brink of Nuclear War with Russia over Cuba, Kennedy got a stark lesson in how things like these confrontations can spin out of control.
> 
> It's pretty clear Kennedy viewed Vietnam as a dead end. And he probably would have scaled down our involvement.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no historic proof that Kennedy viewed Vietnam in that way.  Nor is there any indication that he was planning to scale down our involvement.  John Kennedy was *actively* resisting Communism's spread around the globe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There IS proof...
> 
> NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION MEMORANDUM NO. 263
> 
> TO:      Secretary of State
> Secretary of Defense
> Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
> 
> 
> SUBJECT: South Vietnam
> 
> At a meeting on October 5, 1963, the President considered the recommendations contained in the report of Secretary McNamara and General Taylor on their mission to South Vietnam.
> 
> The President approved the military recommendations contained in Section I B (1 -3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made of the *implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.
> *
> ...
> 
> 2. The objectives of the United States with respect to the withdrawal of U.S. military personnel remain as stated in the White House statement of October 2, 1963.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> U.S. POLICY ON VIET-NAM: WHITE HOUSE STATEMENT, OCTOBER 2, 1963
> 
> Secretary [of Defense Robert S.] McNamara and General [Maxwell D.] Taylor reported to the President this morning and to the National Security Council this afternoon. Their report included a number of classified findings and recommendations which will be the subject of further review and action. Their basic presentation was endorsed by all members of the Security Council and the following statement of United States policy was approved by the President on the basis of recommendations received from them and from Ambassador [Henry Cabot] Lodge.
> 
> 1. The security of South Viet-Nam is a major interest of the United States as other free nations. We will adhere to our policy of working with the people and Government of South Viet-Nam to deny this country to communism and to suppress the externally stimulated and supported insurgency of the Viet Cong as promptly as possible. Effective performance in this undertaking is the central objective of our policy in South Viet-Nam.
> 
> 2. The military program in South Viet-Nam has made progress and is sound in principle, though improvements are being energetically sought.
> 
> 3. *Major U.S. assistance in support of this military effort is needed only until the insurgency has been suppressed or until the national security forces of the Government of South Viet-Nam are capable of suppressing it.
> *
> *Secretary McNamara and General Taylor reported their judgment that the major part of the U.S. military task can be completed by the end of 1965*, although there may be a continuing requirement for a limited number of U.S. training personnel. They reported that by the end of this year, the U.S. program for training Vietnamese should have progressed to the point where 1,000 U.S. military personnel assigned to South Viet-Nam can be withdrawn.
> 
> 4. The political situation in South Viet-Nam remains deeply serious. The United States has made clear its continuing opposition to any repressive actions in South Viet-Nam. While such actions have not yet significantly affected the military effort, they could do so in the future.
> 
> 5. It remains the policy of the United States, in South Viet-Nam as in other parts of the world, to support the efforts of the people of that country to defeat aggression and to build a peaceful and free society.
Click to expand...


You've provided "proof" that the Kennedy Administration *looked into* a plan to scale down troops in Vietnam when it was believed that the South Vietnamese were capable of taking over the fight by themselves but you've completely ignored what Kennedy subsequently decided after being informed that the South Vietnamese were NOT ready.  It's a kind of "selective" memory that liberals have used to try and clean up Kennedy's actual actions so that they match the myth of Kennedy that has been constructed after his death.  The facts are that when Kennedy was told that the Diem regime was not ready to go it alone he authorized MORE advisers be sent to Vietnam.  I know you JFK lovers don't WANT to believe that but it's what took place.


----------



## Sallow

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no historic proof that Kennedy viewed Vietnam in that way.  Nor is there any indication that he was planning to scale down our involvement.  John Kennedy was *actively* resisting Communism's spread around the globe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There IS proof...
> 
> NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION MEMORANDUM NO. 263
> 
> TO:      Secretary of State
> Secretary of Defense
> Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
> 
> 
> SUBJECT: South Vietnam
> 
> At a meeting on October 5, 1963, the President considered the recommendations contained in the report of Secretary McNamara and General Taylor on their mission to South Vietnam.
> 
> The President approved the military recommendations contained in Section I B (1 -3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made of the *implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.
> *
> ...
> 
> 2. The objectives of the United States with respect to the withdrawal of U.S. military personnel remain as stated in the White House statement of October 2, 1963.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> U.S. POLICY ON VIET-NAM: WHITE HOUSE STATEMENT, OCTOBER 2, 1963
> 
> Secretary [of Defense Robert S.] McNamara and General [Maxwell D.] Taylor reported to the President this morning and to the National Security Council this afternoon. Their report included a number of classified findings and recommendations which will be the subject of further review and action. Their basic presentation was endorsed by all members of the Security Council and the following statement of United States policy was approved by the President on the basis of recommendations received from them and from Ambassador [Henry Cabot] Lodge.
> 
> 1. The security of South Viet-Nam is a major interest of the United States as other free nations. We will adhere to our policy of working with the people and Government of South Viet-Nam to deny this country to communism and to suppress the externally stimulated and supported insurgency of the Viet Cong as promptly as possible. Effective performance in this undertaking is the central objective of our policy in South Viet-Nam.
> 
> 2. The military program in South Viet-Nam has made progress and is sound in principle, though improvements are being energetically sought.
> 
> 3. *Major U.S. assistance in support of this military effort is needed only until the insurgency has been suppressed or until the national security forces of the Government of South Viet-Nam are capable of suppressing it.
> *
> *Secretary McNamara and General Taylor reported their judgment that the major part of the U.S. military task can be completed by the end of 1965*, although there may be a continuing requirement for a limited number of U.S. training personnel. They reported that by the end of this year, the U.S. program for training Vietnamese should have progressed to the point where 1,000 U.S. military personnel assigned to South Viet-Nam can be withdrawn.
> 
> 4. The political situation in South Viet-Nam remains deeply serious. The United States has made clear its continuing opposition to any repressive actions in South Viet-Nam. While such actions have not yet significantly affected the military effort, they could do so in the future.
> 
> 5. It remains the policy of the United States, in South Viet-Nam as in other parts of the world, to support the efforts of the people of that country to defeat aggression and to build a peaceful and free society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've provided "proof" that the Kennedy Administration *looked into* a plan to scale down troops in Vietnam when it was believed that the South Vietnamese were capable of taking over the fight by themselves but you've completely ignored what Kennedy subsequently decided after being informed that the South Vietnamese were NOT ready.  It's a kind of "selective" memory that liberals have used to try and clean up Kennedy's actual actions so that they match the myth of Kennedy that has been constructed after his death.  The facts are that when Kennedy was told that the Diem regime was not ready to go it alone he authorized MORE advisers be sent to Vietnam.  I know you JFK lovers don't WANT to believe that but it's what took place.
Click to expand...


This is why you guys aren't taken seriously.

You said there was "no historic" proof then when confronted with "historic" proof, you qualify it.

Seriously.

There's no right answer with you guys.

And you never admit fault.

Being "perfect" makes you a reptile.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Sallow said:


> Bill Maher nails it.
> 
> Bill Maher on JFK vs Reagan: 'Our Kennedy Is Kennedy' | Video Cafe
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bill Maher had a few words for the Republicans who still "get a lump in their throat" for "their Kennedy" Ronald Reagan during his New Rules segment this Friday night.
> 
> 
> MAHER: Now, I don't know if all politics is local, but I do think all politics is tribal and just as some people are dog people and others are cat people, some have a chip in their brain to be Democrats and others to be Republicans. We have Kennedy, you have Reagan. We have marijuana, you have Metamucil.
> 
> We want gays in the military. You want them in the airport restroom. [...]
> 
> The one reason we looked uglier in the '80's, is because we were uglier. It was when the baby boomers, the generation that was supposed to be different, just gave up and sold out completely. Kennedy's time was the time of "Ask not what your country can do for you." Reagan's was the time of "Greed is good."
> 
> JFK was far from perfect, but he was a true wit and a sex machine and he knew how to wear a pair of shades. Reagan was an amiable square in a cowboy hat who had sex with a woman he called mommie.
> 
> *Kennedy was James Bond. Reagan was Matlock. Love him or hate him, we win. Republicans can call Reagan their Kennedy all they want, but it's like calling Miller High Life 'the champagne of beer. It's why calling someone your Kennedy will never really cut it, because our Kennedy, is Kennedy.*
Click to expand...


Kennedy would not be a democrat today sorry but this thread is a BIG FAIL.


----------



## Amelia

Actually, I think Kennedy would be a Democrat today.  Democrats brought him to power.  I don't think he would change his label.   The question is -- what might the Democratic party look like had Kennedy survived?


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is absolutely no historic proof that Kennedy viewed Vietnam in that way.  Nor is there any indication that he was planning to scale down our involvement.  John Kennedy was *actively* resisting Communism's spread around the globe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There IS proof...
> 
> NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION MEMORANDUM NO. 263
> 
> TO:      Secretary of State
> Secretary of Defense
> Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
> 
> 
> SUBJECT: South Vietnam
> 
> At a meeting on October 5, 1963, the President considered the recommendations contained in the report of Secretary McNamara and General Taylor on their mission to South Vietnam.
> 
> The President approved the military recommendations contained in Section I B (1 -3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made of the *implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.
> *
> ...
> 
> 2. The objectives of the United States with respect to the withdrawal of U.S. military personnel remain as stated in the White House statement of October 2, 1963.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> U.S. POLICY ON VIET-NAM: WHITE HOUSE STATEMENT, OCTOBER 2, 1963
> 
> Secretary [of Defense Robert S.] McNamara and General [Maxwell D.] Taylor reported to the President this morning and to the National Security Council this afternoon. Their report included a number of classified findings and recommendations which will be the subject of further review and action. Their basic presentation was endorsed by all members of the Security Council and the following statement of United States policy was approved by the President on the basis of recommendations received from them and from Ambassador [Henry Cabot] Lodge.
> 
> 1. The security of South Viet-Nam is a major interest of the United States as other free nations. We will adhere to our policy of working with the people and Government of South Viet-Nam to deny this country to communism and to suppress the externally stimulated and supported insurgency of the Viet Cong as promptly as possible. Effective performance in this undertaking is the central objective of our policy in South Viet-Nam.
> 
> 2. The military program in South Viet-Nam has made progress and is sound in principle, though improvements are being energetically sought.
> 
> 3. *Major U.S. assistance in support of this military effort is needed only until the insurgency has been suppressed or until the national security forces of the Government of South Viet-Nam are capable of suppressing it.
> *
> *Secretary McNamara and General Taylor reported their judgment that the major part of the U.S. military task can be completed by the end of 1965*, although there may be a continuing requirement for a limited number of U.S. training personnel. They reported that by the end of this year, the U.S. program for training Vietnamese should have progressed to the point where 1,000 U.S. military personnel assigned to South Viet-Nam can be withdrawn.
> 
> 4. The political situation in South Viet-Nam remains deeply serious. The United States has made clear its continuing opposition to any repressive actions in South Viet-Nam. While such actions have not yet significantly affected the military effort, they could do so in the future.
> 
> 5. It remains the policy of the United States, in South Viet-Nam as in other parts of the world, to support the efforts of the people of that country to defeat aggression and to build a peaceful and free society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You've provided "proof" that the Kennedy Administration *looked into* a plan to scale down troops in Vietnam when it was believed that the South Vietnamese were capable of taking over the fight by themselves but you've completely ignored what Kennedy subsequently decided after being informed that the South Vietnamese were NOT ready.  It's a kind of "selective" memory that liberals have used to try and clean up Kennedy's actual actions so that they match the myth of Kennedy that has been constructed after his death.  The facts are that when Kennedy was told that the Diem regime was not ready to go it alone he authorized MORE advisers be sent to Vietnam.  I know you JFK lovers don't WANT to believe that but it's what took place.
Click to expand...


False...

 Vietnam was another growing source of tension within the Kennedy Administration. Once again, Washington hard-liners pushed for an escalation of the war, seeking the full-scale military confrontation with the communist enemy that J.F.K. had denied them in Cuba and other cold war battlegrounds. But Kennedy's troop commitment topped out at only 16,000 servicemen. And, as he confided to trusted advisers like McNamara and White House aide O'Donnell, he intended to withdraw completely from Vietnam after he was safely re-elected in 1964. "So we had better make damned sure that I am re-elected," he told O'Donnell.

Fearing a backlash from his generals and the right&#8212;under the feisty leadership of Barry Goldwater, his likely opponent in the upcoming presidential race&#8212;Kennedy never made his Vietnam plans public. And, in true Kennedy fashion, his statements on the Southeast Asian conflict were a blur of ambiguity. Surrounded by national-security advisers bent on escalation and trying to prevent a public split within his Administration, Kennedy operated on "multiple levels of deception" in his Vietnam decision making, in the words of historian Gareth Porter.

Kennedy never made it to the 1964 election, and since he left behind such a vaporous paper trail, the man who succeeded him, Lyndon Johnson, was able to portray his own deeper Vietnam intervention as a logical progression of J.F.K.'s policies. But McNamara knows the truth. The man who helped L.B.J. widen the war into a colossal tragedy knows Kennedy would have done no such thing. And McNamara acknowledges this, though it highlights his own blame. In the end, McNamara says today, Kennedy would have withdrawn, realizing "that it was South Vietnam's war and the people there had to win it... We couldn't win the war for them."

Read more: Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME

And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.&#8221; 
President John F. Kennedy


----------



## OldUSAFSniper

Amelia said:


> Actually, I think Kennedy would be a Democrat today.  Democrats brought him to power.  I don't think he would change his label.   The question is -- what might the Democratic party look like had Kennedy survived?



There is a now ex-Democratic Congressman from Oklahoma by the name of Dan Boren.  He represented District #1 and every time he ran, he absolutely killed any opponent that thought they would challenge him.  Why?  Because I knew Dan Boren, I voted for Dan Boren (when I was from that district) and I gave money to Dan Boren's campaign.  The man was a Democrat and I am a registered Republican.  

But Dan Boren, son of ex-Senator David Boren of Oklahoma, was a blue dog Democrat.  When he told a group of us that he would no longer run for Representative, I asked him why?  He said that the Democratic party had left him.  They had passed Obamacare and was doing things that he no longer could even remotely justify.  I made the suggestion that he become Republican.  He said that his grandfather and father were Democrats and he was a Democrat.  He would be a Democrat until the day he died, even though he no longer knew the Democratic party.

John Kennedy would be a Democrat to this day.  In the vein of Dan Boren he would be publicly silent about the disgraceful depths to which that party has sunk, but he would be a Democrat.  John Kennedy, like Dan Boren and his father David, would privately shake their heads at what Barry and his cronies are doing, but they would be Democrats.  Of that I am sure.


----------



## Oldstyle

Sallow said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> There IS proof...
> 
> NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION MEMORANDUM NO. 263
> 
> TO:      Secretary of State
> Secretary of Defense
> Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
> 
> 
> SUBJECT: South Vietnam
> 
> At a meeting on October 5, 1963, the President considered the recommendations contained in the report of Secretary McNamara and General Taylor on their mission to South Vietnam.
> 
> The President approved the military recommendations contained in Section I B (1 -3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made of the *implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.
> *
> ...
> 
> 2. The objectives of the United States with respect to the withdrawal of U.S. military personnel remain as stated in the White House statement of October 2, 1963.
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> U.S. POLICY ON VIET-NAM: WHITE HOUSE STATEMENT, OCTOBER 2, 1963
> 
> Secretary [of Defense Robert S.] McNamara and General [Maxwell D.] Taylor reported to the President this morning and to the National Security Council this afternoon. Their report included a number of classified findings and recommendations which will be the subject of further review and action. Their basic presentation was endorsed by all members of the Security Council and the following statement of United States policy was approved by the President on the basis of recommendations received from them and from Ambassador [Henry Cabot] Lodge.
> 
> 1. The security of South Viet-Nam is a major interest of the United States as other free nations. We will adhere to our policy of working with the people and Government of South Viet-Nam to deny this country to communism and to suppress the externally stimulated and supported insurgency of the Viet Cong as promptly as possible. Effective performance in this undertaking is the central objective of our policy in South Viet-Nam.
> 
> 2. The military program in South Viet-Nam has made progress and is sound in principle, though improvements are being energetically sought.
> 
> 3. *Major U.S. assistance in support of this military effort is needed only until the insurgency has been suppressed or until the national security forces of the Government of South Viet-Nam are capable of suppressing it.
> *
> *Secretary McNamara and General Taylor reported their judgment that the major part of the U.S. military task can be completed by the end of 1965*, although there may be a continuing requirement for a limited number of U.S. training personnel. They reported that by the end of this year, the U.S. program for training Vietnamese should have progressed to the point where 1,000 U.S. military personnel assigned to South Viet-Nam can be withdrawn.
> 
> 4. The political situation in South Viet-Nam remains deeply serious. The United States has made clear its continuing opposition to any repressive actions in South Viet-Nam. While such actions have not yet significantly affected the military effort, they could do so in the future.
> 
> 5. It remains the policy of the United States, in South Viet-Nam as in other parts of the world, to support the efforts of the people of that country to defeat aggression and to build a peaceful and free society.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've provided "proof" that the Kennedy Administration *looked into* a plan to scale down troops in Vietnam when it was believed that the South Vietnamese were capable of taking over the fight by themselves but you've completely ignored what Kennedy subsequently decided after being informed that the South Vietnamese were NOT ready.  It's a kind of "selective" memory that liberals have used to try and clean up Kennedy's actual actions so that they match the myth of Kennedy that has been constructed after his death.  The facts are that when Kennedy was told that the Diem regime was not ready to go it alone he authorized MORE advisers be sent to Vietnam.  I know you JFK lovers don't WANT to believe that but it's what took place.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is why you guys aren't taken seriously.
> 
> You said there was "no historic" proof then when confronted with "historic" proof, you qualify it.
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> There's no right answer with you guys.
> 
> And you never admit fault.
> 
> Being "perfect" makes you a reptile.
Click to expand...


What can I say, Sallow...I'm a history major.   We're taught to look at source material *in context*.  It doesn't always mean what you THINK it does.  In this case you've cherry picked a report from a time when the Kennedy Administration *did* believe reports that the South Vietnamese were capable of handling the war against the North on their own.  Subsequent to that however they realized that was not the case and that a withdraw from South Vietnam would almost certainly result in a takeover by the communists.  JFK was adamant that he would not allow that to happen...a position that he made clear numerous times FOLLOWING when what you provided came out.

Governments conduct studies and draw up contingency plans for many things.  Some of them come to fruition.  Most however do not.  *Your* plan is one of the ones that didn't.  It was wishful thinking on Kennedy's part and he very quickly determined that it wasn't something he could do.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've provided "proof" that the Kennedy Administration *looked into* a plan to scale down troops in Vietnam when it was believed that the South Vietnamese were capable of taking over the fight by themselves but you've completely ignored what Kennedy subsequently decided after being informed that the South Vietnamese were NOT ready.  It's a kind of "selective" memory that liberals have used to try and clean up Kennedy's actual actions so that they match the myth of Kennedy that has been constructed after his death.  The facts are that when Kennedy was told that the Diem regime was not ready to go it alone he authorized MORE advisers be sent to Vietnam.  I know you JFK lovers don't WANT to believe that but it's what took place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why you guys aren't taken seriously.
> 
> You said there was "no historic" proof then when confronted with "historic" proof, you qualify it.
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> There's no right answer with you guys.
> 
> And you never admit fault.
> 
> Being "perfect" makes you a reptile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What can I say, Sallow...I'm a history major.   We're taught to look at source material *in context*.  It doesn't always mean what you THINK it does.  In this case you've cherry picked a report from a time when the Kennedy Administration *did* believe reports that the South Vietnamese were capable of handling the war against the North on their own.  Subsequent to that however they realized that was not the case and that a withdraw from South Vietnam would almost certainly result in a takeover by the communists.  JFK was adamant that he would not allow that to happen...a position that he made clear numerous times FOLLOWING when what you provided came out.
> 
> Governments conduct studies and draw up contingency plans for many things.  Some of them come to fruition.  Most however do not.  *Your* plan is one of the ones that didn't.  It was wishful thinking on Kennedy's part and he very quickly determined that it wasn't something he could do.
Click to expand...


JFK made it clear to his advisers and his Secretary of Defense that he planned to withdraw from Vietnam by the end of 1965. He was also not going to make that plan public before he secured a second term. He was not going to give the hawks in the GOP anything to run against.

If you are a student of history, then you would know that JFK faced 3 crisis where he was urged by the Pentagon, the Chiefs of Staff, many of his own advisers and members of Congress to use military action...on ALL THREE occasions he refused.

Bay of Pigs...REFUSED
Berlin Wall...REFUSED
Cuban Missile Crisis...REFUSED

There is nothing in JFK's DNA that would lead anyone to conclude that he would have Americanized the Vietnam war. 

His solution to Cuba? He wanted to normalize relations with that country.

In the final months of his Administration, J.F.K. even opened a secret peace channel to Castro, led by U.N. diplomat William Attwood. "He would have recognized Cuba," Milt Ebbins, a Hollywood crony of J.F.K.'s, says today. "He told me that if we recognize Cuba, they'll buy our refrigerators and toasters, and they'll end up kicking Castro out."

Kennedy often said he wanted his epitaph to be "He kept the peace." Even Khrushchev and Castro, Kennedy's toughest foreign adversaries, came to appreciate J.F.K.'s commitment to that goal. The roly-poly Soviet leader, clowning and growling, had thrown the young President off his game when they met at the Vienna summit in 1961. But after weathering storms like the Cuban missile crisis, the two leaders had settled into a mutually respectful quest for détente. When Khrushchev got the news from Dallas in November 1963, he broke down and sobbed in the Kremlin, unable to perform his duties for days. Despite his youth, Kennedy was a "real statesman," Khrushchev later wrote in his memoir, after he was pushed from power less than a year following J.F.K.'s death. If Kennedy had lived, he wrote, the two men could have brought peace to the world.

Read more: Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is why you guys aren't taken seriously.
> 
> You said there was "no historic" proof then when confronted with "historic" proof, you qualify it.
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> There's no right answer with you guys.
> 
> And you never admit fault.
> 
> Being "perfect" makes you a reptile.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What can I say, Sallow...I'm a history major.   We're taught to look at source material *in context*.  It doesn't always mean what you THINK it does.  In this case you've cherry picked a report from a time when the Kennedy Administration *did* believe reports that the South Vietnamese were capable of handling the war against the North on their own.  Subsequent to that however they realized that was not the case and that a withdraw from South Vietnam would almost certainly result in a takeover by the communists.  JFK was adamant that he would not allow that to happen...a position that he made clear numerous times FOLLOWING when what you provided came out.
> 
> Governments conduct studies and draw up contingency plans for many things.  Some of them come to fruition.  Most however do not.  *Your* plan is one of the ones that didn't.  It was wishful thinking on Kennedy's part and he very quickly determined that it wasn't something he could do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> JFK made it clear to his advisers and his Secretary of Defense that he planned to withdraw from Vietnam by the end of 1965. He was also not going to make that plan public before he secured a second term. He was not going to give the hawks in the GOP anything to run against.
> 
> If you are a student of history, then you would know that JFK faced 3 crisis where he was urged by the Pentagon, the Chiefs of Staff, many of his own advisers and members of Congress to use military action...on ALL THREE occasions he refused.
> 
> Bay of Pigs...REFUSED
> Berlin Wall...REFUSED
> Cuban Missile Crisis...REFUSED
> 
> There is nothing in JFK's DNA that would lead anyone to conclude that he would have Americanized the Vietnam war.
> 
> His solution to Cuba? He wanted to normalize relations with that country.
> 
> In the final months of his Administration, J.F.K. even opened a secret peace channel to Castro, led by U.N. diplomat William Attwood. "He would have recognized Cuba," Milt Ebbins, a Hollywood crony of J.F.K.'s, says today. "He told me that if we recognize Cuba, they'll buy our refrigerators and toasters, and they'll end up kicking Castro out."
> 
> Kennedy often said he wanted his epitaph to be "He kept the peace." Even Khrushchev and Castro, Kennedy's toughest foreign adversaries, came to appreciate J.F.K.'s commitment to that goal. The roly-poly Soviet leader, clowning and growling, had thrown the young President off his game when they met at the Vienna summit in 1961. But after weathering storms like the Cuban missile crisis, the two leaders had settled into a mutually respectful quest for détente. When Khrushchev got the news from Dallas in November 1963, he broke down and sobbed in the Kremlin, unable to perform his duties for days. Despite his youth, Kennedy was a "real statesman," Khrushchev later wrote in his memoir, after he was pushed from power less than a year following J.F.K.'s death. If Kennedy had lived, he wrote, the two men could have brought peace to the world.
> 
> Read more: Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME
Click to expand...


I'm sorry, Bfgrn but your reciting fifty years of attempts by liberals to rehabilitate the Kennedy persona into what they WANT him to be doesn't change what he WAS.  Kennedy was not a dove.  That was an *armed embargo* of Soviet ships on the high seas during the Cuban missile crisis.  If Kennedy was such a "Warrior for Peace" then kindly explain why he put Jupiter missiles in Turkey prompting the Cuban missile crisis in the first place?


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What can I say, Sallow...I'm a history major.   We're taught to look at source material *in context*.  It doesn't always mean what you THINK it does.  In this case you've cherry picked a report from a time when the Kennedy Administration *did* believe reports that the South Vietnamese were capable of handling the war against the North on their own.  Subsequent to that however they realized that was not the case and that a withdraw from South Vietnam would almost certainly result in a takeover by the communists.  JFK was adamant that he would not allow that to happen...a position that he made clear numerous times FOLLOWING when what you provided came out.
> 
> Governments conduct studies and draw up contingency plans for many things.  Some of them come to fruition.  Most however do not.  *Your* plan is one of the ones that didn't.  It was wishful thinking on Kennedy's part and he very quickly determined that it wasn't something he could do.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFK made it clear to his advisers and his Secretary of Defense that he planned to withdraw from Vietnam by the end of 1965. He was also not going to make that plan public before he secured a second term. He was not going to give the hawks in the GOP anything to run against.
> 
> If you are a student of history, then you would know that JFK faced 3 crisis where he was urged by the Pentagon, the Chiefs of Staff, many of his own advisers and members of Congress to use military action...on ALL THREE occasions he refused.
> 
> Bay of Pigs...REFUSED
> Berlin Wall...REFUSED
> Cuban Missile Crisis...REFUSED
> 
> There is nothing in JFK's DNA that would lead anyone to conclude that he would have Americanized the Vietnam war.
> 
> His solution to Cuba? He wanted to normalize relations with that country.
> 
> In the final months of his Administration, J.F.K. even opened a secret peace channel to Castro, led by U.N. diplomat William Attwood. "He would have recognized Cuba," Milt Ebbins, a Hollywood crony of J.F.K.'s, says today. "He told me that if we recognize Cuba, they'll buy our refrigerators and toasters, and they'll end up kicking Castro out."
> 
> Kennedy often said he wanted his epitaph to be "He kept the peace." Even Khrushchev and Castro, Kennedy's toughest foreign adversaries, came to appreciate J.F.K.'s commitment to that goal. The roly-poly Soviet leader, clowning and growling, had thrown the young President off his game when they met at the Vienna summit in 1961. But after weathering storms like the Cuban missile crisis, the two leaders had settled into a mutually respectful quest for détente. When Khrushchev got the news from Dallas in November 1963, he broke down and sobbed in the Kremlin, unable to perform his duties for days. Despite his youth, Kennedy was a "real statesman," Khrushchev later wrote in his memoir, after he was pushed from power less than a year following J.F.K.'s death. If Kennedy had lived, he wrote, the two men could have brought peace to the world.
> 
> Read more: Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, Bfgrn but your reciting fifty years of attempts by liberals to rehabilitate the Kennedy persona into what they WANT him to be doesn't change what he WAS.  Kennedy was not a dove.  That was an *armed embargo* of Soviet ships on the high seas during the Cuban missile crisis.  If Kennedy was such a "Warrior for Peace" then kindly explain why he put Jupiter missiles in Turkey prompting the Cuban missile crisis in the first place?
Click to expand...


AGAIN, you are ignoring 'history' and relying on emotions.

Kennedy ordered their removal BEFORE the Cuban Missile Crisis.

President Kennedy had been anxious to remove those missiles from Italy and Turkey for a long period of time. He had ordered their removal some time ago, and it was our judgment that, within a short time after this crisis was over, those missiles would be gone. 

In October 1959, the location of the third and final Jupiter MRBM squadron was settled when a government-to-government agreement was signed with Turkey. 

Do you know history? WHO was President in 1959?


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> JFK made it clear to his advisers and his Secretary of Defense that he planned to withdraw from Vietnam by the end of 1965. He was also not going to make that plan public before he secured a second term. He was not going to give the hawks in the GOP anything to run against.
> 
> If you are a student of history, then you would know that JFK faced 3 crisis where he was urged by the Pentagon, the Chiefs of Staff, many of his own advisers and members of Congress to use military action...on ALL THREE occasions he refused.
> 
> Bay of Pigs...REFUSED
> Berlin Wall...REFUSED
> Cuban Missile Crisis...REFUSED
> 
> There is nothing in JFK's DNA that would lead anyone to conclude that he would have Americanized the Vietnam war.
> 
> His solution to Cuba? He wanted to normalize relations with that country.
> 
> In the final months of his Administration, J.F.K. even opened a secret peace channel to Castro, led by U.N. diplomat William Attwood. "He would have recognized Cuba," Milt Ebbins, a Hollywood crony of J.F.K.'s, says today. "He told me that if we recognize Cuba, they'll buy our refrigerators and toasters, and they'll end up kicking Castro out."
> 
> Kennedy often said he wanted his epitaph to be "He kept the peace." Even Khrushchev and Castro, Kennedy's toughest foreign adversaries, came to appreciate J.F.K.'s commitment to that goal. The roly-poly Soviet leader, clowning and growling, had thrown the young President off his game when they met at the Vienna summit in 1961. But after weathering storms like the Cuban missile crisis, the two leaders had settled into a mutually respectful quest for détente. When Khrushchev got the news from Dallas in November 1963, he broke down and sobbed in the Kremlin, unable to perform his duties for days. Despite his youth, Kennedy was a "real statesman," Khrushchev later wrote in his memoir, after he was pushed from power less than a year following J.F.K.'s death. If Kennedy had lived, he wrote, the two men could have brought peace to the world.
> 
> Read more: Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, Bfgrn but your reciting fifty years of attempts by liberals to rehabilitate the Kennedy persona into what they WANT him to be doesn't change what he WAS.  Kennedy was not a dove.  That was an *armed embargo* of Soviet ships on the high seas during the Cuban missile crisis.  If Kennedy was such a "Warrior for Peace" then kindly explain why he put Jupiter missiles in Turkey prompting the Cuban missile crisis in the first place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AGAIN, you are ignoring 'history' and relying on emotions.
> 
> Kennedy ordered their removal BEFORE the Cuban Missile Crisis.
> 
> President Kennedy had been anxious to remove those missiles from Italy and Turkey for a long period of time. He had ordered their removal some time ago, and it was our judgment that, within a short time after this crisis was over, those missiles would be gone.
> 
> In October 1959, the location of the third and final Jupiter MRBM squadron was settled when a government-to-government agreement was signed with Turkey.
> 
> Do you know history? WHO was President in 1959?
Click to expand...


Do you not know that part of the resolution of the Cuban missile crisis was our agreement to remove Jupiter missiles from Turkey?  Do you also not know that it was our attempt at an armed coup to remove Castro that took place under Kennedy that led Castro to ask the Soviets to place nuclear missiles in Cuba in the first place?


----------



## Oldstyle

As for your claim that Kennedy had wanted to remove the Jupiter missiles from Turkey "for a long time"?  What you don't seem to understand is how THAT part of the resolution of the Cuban missile crisis was only agreed to by Kennedy if it was done in secret.  Removing the Jupiter missiles was what we did in return for the Soviets removing nukes from Cuba but Kennedy didn't want to it to be seen as a quid pro quo deal with the Soviets.  The notion that Kennedy had always wanted the Jupiter missiles removed from Turkey was simply the spin his Administration put on that secret deal.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, Bfgrn but your reciting fifty years of attempts by liberals to rehabilitate the Kennedy persona into what they WANT him to be doesn't change what he WAS.  Kennedy was not a dove.  That was an *armed embargo* of Soviet ships on the high seas during the Cuban missile crisis.  If Kennedy was such a "Warrior for Peace" then kindly explain why he put Jupiter missiles in Turkey prompting the Cuban missile crisis in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN, you are ignoring 'history' and relying on emotions.
> 
> Kennedy ordered their removal BEFORE the Cuban Missile Crisis.
> 
> President Kennedy had been anxious to remove those missiles from Italy and Turkey for a long period of time. He had ordered their removal some time ago, and it was our judgment that, within a short time after this crisis was over, those missiles would be gone.
> 
> In October 1959, the location of the third and final Jupiter MRBM squadron was settled when a government-to-government agreement was signed with Turkey.
> 
> Do you know history? WHO was President in 1959?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you not know that part of the resolution of the Cuban missile crisis was our agreement to remove Jupiter missiles from Turkey?  Do you also not know that it was our attempt at an armed coup to remove Castro that took place under Kennedy that led Castro to ask the Soviets to place nuclear missiles in Cuba in the first place?
Click to expand...


I am completely aware that removal of the missiles in Turkey was part of the deal, but under the agreement that it was not to be made public. Kennedy was pissed that those missiles led to the crisis.

AGAIN, the Bay of Pigs invasion was planned under Eisenhower. Kennedy told Dulles and the CIA that he wouldn't provide an invasion force. We now know through declassified documents that the CIA KNEW the invasion stood no chance, and they lied to the President.

It led to Dulles and Bissell being fired, and JFK threatened to to "shatter [the agency] into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds."

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Washington's national-security apparatus had decided there was no living with Castro. During the final months of the Eisenhower Administration, the CIA started planning an invasion of the island, recruiting Cuban exiles who had fled the new regime. Agency officials assured the young President who inherited the invasion plan that it was a "slam dunk," in the words of a future CIA director contemplating another ill-fated U.S. invasion. J.F.K. had deep misgivings, but unwilling to overrule his senior intelligence officials so early in his Administration, he went fatefully ahead with the plan. The doomed Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961 became the Kennedy Administration's first great trauma.

We now knowfrom the CIA's internal history of the Bay of Pigs, which was declassified in 2005that agency officials realized their motley crew of invaders had no chance of victory unless they were reinforced by the U.S. military. But Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell, the top CIA officials, never disclosed this to J.F.K. They clearly thought the young President would cave in the heat of battle, that he would be forced to send in the Marines and Air Force to rescue the beleaguered exiles brigade after it was pinned down on the beaches by Castro's forces. But Kennedywho was concerned about aggravating the U.S. image in Latin America as a Yanqui bully and also feared a Soviet countermove against West Berlinhad warned agency officials that he would not fully intervene. As the invasion quickly bogged down at the swampy landing site, J.F.K. stunned Dulles and Bissell by standing his ground and refusing to escalate the assault.

From that point on, the Kennedy presidency became a government at war with itself.

A bitter Dulles thought Kennedy had suffered a failure of nerve and observed that he was "surrounded by doubting Thomases and admirers of Castro." The Joint Chiefs also muttered darkly about the new President. General Lyman Lemnitzer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said "pulling out the rug [on the invaders ]was... absolutely reprehensible, almost criminal." Admiral Arleigh Burke, the Navy chief, later fumed, "Mr. Kennedy was a very bad President... He permitted himself to jeopardize the nation."

Kennedy was equally outraged at his national-security advisers. While he famously took responsibility for the Bay of Pigs debacle in public, privately he lashed out at the Joint Chiefs and especially at the cia, threatening to "shatter [the agency] into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds." J.F.K. never followed through on this threat, but he did eventually fire Dulles, despite his stature as a legendary spymaster, as well as Bissell.

Weeks after the Cuba fiasco, J.F.K. was still steaming, recalled his friend Assistant Navy Secretary Paul (Red) Fay years later in his memoir, The Pleasure of His Company. "Nobody is going to force me to do anything I don't think is in the best interest of the country," the President told his friend, over a game of checkers at the Kennedy-family compound in Hyannis Port, Mass. "We're not going to plunge into an irresponsible action just because a fanatical fringe in this country puts so-called national pride above national reason. Do you think I'm going to carry on my conscience the responsibility for the wanton maiming and killing of children like our children we saw [playing] here this evening? Do you think I'm going to cause a nuclear exchangefor what? Because I was forced into doing something that I didn't think was proper and right? Well, if you or anybody else thinks I am, he's crazy."

This would become the major theme of the Kennedy presidencyJ.F.K.'s strenuous efforts to keep the country at peace in the face of equally ardent pressures from Washington's warrior caste to go to war.

Read more: Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN, you are ignoring 'history' and relying on emotions.
> 
> Kennedy ordered their removal BEFORE the Cuban Missile Crisis.
> 
> President Kennedy had been anxious to remove those missiles from Italy and Turkey for a long period of time. He had ordered their removal some time ago, and it was our judgment that, within a short time after this crisis was over, those missiles would be gone.
> 
> In October 1959, the location of the third and final Jupiter MRBM squadron was settled when a government-to-government agreement was signed with Turkey.
> 
> Do you know history? WHO was President in 1959?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not know that part of the resolution of the Cuban missile crisis was our agreement to remove Jupiter missiles from Turkey?  Do you also not know that it was our attempt at an armed coup to remove Castro that took place under Kennedy that led Castro to ask the Soviets to place nuclear missiles in Cuba in the first place?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am completely aware that removal of the missiles in Turkey was part of the deal, but under the agreement that it was not to be made public. Kennedy was pissed that those missiles led to the crisis.
> 
> AGAIN, the Bay of Pigs invasion was planned under Eisenhower. Kennedy told Dulles and the CIA that he wouldn't provide an invasion force. We now know through declassified documents that the CIA KNEW the invasion stood no chance, and they lied to the President.
> 
> It led to Dulles and Bissell being fired, and JFK threatened to to "shatter [the agency] into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds."
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Washington's national-security apparatus had decided there was no living with Castro. During the final months of the Eisenhower Administration, the CIA started planning an invasion of the island, recruiting Cuban exiles who had fled the new regime. Agency officials assured the young President who inherited the invasion plan that it was a "slam dunk," in the words of a future CIA director contemplating another ill-fated U.S. invasion. J.F.K. had deep misgivings, but unwilling to overrule his senior intelligence officials so early in his Administration, he went fatefully ahead with the plan. The doomed Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961 became the Kennedy Administration's first great trauma.
> 
> We now know&#8212;from the CIA's internal history of the Bay of Pigs, which was declassified in 2005&#8212;that agency officials realized their motley crew of invaders had no chance of victory unless they were reinforced by the U.S. military. But Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell, the top CIA officials, never disclosed this to J.F.K. They clearly thought the young President would cave in the heat of battle, that he would be forced to send in the Marines and Air Force to rescue the beleaguered exiles brigade after it was pinned down on the beaches by Castro's forces. But Kennedy&#8212;who was concerned about aggravating the U.S. image in Latin America as a Yanqui bully and also feared a Soviet countermove against West Berlin&#8212;had warned agency officials that he would not fully intervene. As the invasion quickly bogged down at the swampy landing site, J.F.K. stunned Dulles and Bissell by standing his ground and refusing to escalate the assault.
> 
> From that point on, the Kennedy presidency became a government at war with itself.
> 
> A bitter Dulles thought Kennedy had suffered a failure of nerve and observed that he was "surrounded by doubting Thomases and admirers of Castro." The Joint Chiefs also muttered darkly about the new President. General Lyman Lemnitzer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said "pulling out the rug [on the invaders ]was... absolutely reprehensible, almost criminal." Admiral Arleigh Burke, the Navy chief, later fumed, "Mr. Kennedy was a very bad President... He permitted himself to jeopardize the nation."
> 
> Kennedy was equally outraged at his national-security advisers. While he famously took responsibility for the Bay of Pigs debacle in public, privately he lashed out at the Joint Chiefs and especially at the cia, threatening to "shatter [the agency] into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds." J.F.K. never followed through on this threat, but he did eventually fire Dulles, despite his stature as a legendary spymaster, as well as Bissell.
> 
> Weeks after the Cuba fiasco, J.F.K. was still steaming, recalled his friend Assistant Navy Secretary Paul (Red) Fay years later in his memoir, The Pleasure of His Company. "Nobody is going to force me to do anything I don't think is in the best interest of the country," the President told his friend, over a game of checkers at the Kennedy-family compound in Hyannis Port, Mass. "We're not going to plunge into an irresponsible action just because a fanatical fringe in this country puts so-called national pride above national reason. Do you think I'm going to carry on my conscience the responsibility for the wanton maiming and killing of children like our children we saw [playing] here this evening? Do you think I'm going to cause a nuclear exchange&#8212;for what? Because I was forced into doing something that I didn't think was proper and right? Well, if you or anybody else thinks I am, he's crazy."
> 
> This would become the major theme of the Kennedy presidency&#8212;J.F.K.'s strenuous efforts to keep the country at peace in the face of equally ardent pressures from Washington's warrior caste to go to war.
> 
> Read more: Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME
Click to expand...


Once again you are repeating the "narrative" that has been constructed since JFK's death by his family and supporters that contradicts what Kennedy actually DID while President.  The truth is this...JFK inherited a plan hatched by the CIA and approved by Eisenhower to back the invasion of Cuba by a force of Cuban nationals with air support by the US that would take out Cuba's air force.  Kennedy however, made the decision to down size that US air support sending only 8 bombers to attack Cuban airfields instead of the 16 assigned to that task in the original plan, saying that he wanted the US involvement to be as low key as possible.  The US bombers failed to take out the Cuban air force which then pinned down the invading force on the beaches and swamps of the Bay of Pigs where they subsequently surrendered two days later.  It's not that Kennedy didn't approve military action against Cuba...it's that he didn't approve enough of it to do the job as planned and HE is in large part responsible for the failure of the invasion.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Do you not know that part of the resolution of the Cuban missile crisis was our agreement to remove Jupiter missiles from Turkey?  Do you also not know that it was our attempt at an armed coup to remove Castro that took place under Kennedy that led Castro to ask the Soviets to place nuclear missiles in Cuba in the first place?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am completely aware that removal of the missiles in Turkey was part of the deal, but under the agreement that it was not to be made public. Kennedy was pissed that those missiles led to the crisis.
> 
> AGAIN, the Bay of Pigs invasion was planned under Eisenhower. Kennedy told Dulles and the CIA that he wouldn't provide an invasion force. We now know through declassified documents that the CIA KNEW the invasion stood no chance, and they lied to the President.
> 
> It led to Dulles and Bissell being fired, and JFK threatened to to "shatter [the agency] into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds."
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Washington's national-security apparatus had decided there was no living with Castro. During the final months of the Eisenhower Administration, the CIA started planning an invasion of the island, recruiting Cuban exiles who had fled the new regime. Agency officials assured the young President who inherited the invasion plan that it was a "slam dunk," in the words of a future CIA director contemplating another ill-fated U.S. invasion. J.F.K. had deep misgivings, but unwilling to overrule his senior intelligence officials so early in his Administration, he went fatefully ahead with the plan. The doomed Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961 became the Kennedy Administration's first great trauma.
> 
> We now knowfrom the CIA's internal history of the Bay of Pigs, which was declassified in 2005that agency officials realized their motley crew of invaders had no chance of victory unless they were reinforced by the U.S. military. But Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell, the top CIA officials, never disclosed this to J.F.K. They clearly thought the young President would cave in the heat of battle, that he would be forced to send in the Marines and Air Force to rescue the beleaguered exiles brigade after it was pinned down on the beaches by Castro's forces. But Kennedywho was concerned about aggravating the U.S. image in Latin America as a Yanqui bully and also feared a Soviet countermove against West Berlinhad warned agency officials that he would not fully intervene. As the invasion quickly bogged down at the swampy landing site, J.F.K. stunned Dulles and Bissell by standing his ground and refusing to escalate the assault.
> 
> From that point on, the Kennedy presidency became a government at war with itself.
> 
> A bitter Dulles thought Kennedy had suffered a failure of nerve and observed that he was "surrounded by doubting Thomases and admirers of Castro." The Joint Chiefs also muttered darkly about the new President. General Lyman Lemnitzer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said "pulling out the rug [on the invaders ]was... absolutely reprehensible, almost criminal." Admiral Arleigh Burke, the Navy chief, later fumed, "Mr. Kennedy was a very bad President... He permitted himself to jeopardize the nation."
> 
> Kennedy was equally outraged at his national-security advisers. While he famously took responsibility for the Bay of Pigs debacle in public, privately he lashed out at the Joint Chiefs and especially at the cia, threatening to "shatter [the agency] into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds." J.F.K. never followed through on this threat, but he did eventually fire Dulles, despite his stature as a legendary spymaster, as well as Bissell.
> 
> Weeks after the Cuba fiasco, J.F.K. was still steaming, recalled his friend Assistant Navy Secretary Paul (Red) Fay years later in his memoir, The Pleasure of His Company. "Nobody is going to force me to do anything I don't think is in the best interest of the country," the President told his friend, over a game of checkers at the Kennedy-family compound in Hyannis Port, Mass. "We're not going to plunge into an irresponsible action just because a fanatical fringe in this country puts so-called national pride above national reason. Do you think I'm going to carry on my conscience the responsibility for the wanton maiming and killing of children like our children we saw [playing] here this evening? Do you think I'm going to cause a nuclear exchangefor what? Because I was forced into doing something that I didn't think was proper and right? Well, if you or anybody else thinks I am, he's crazy."
> 
> This would become the major theme of the Kennedy presidencyJ.F.K.'s strenuous efforts to keep the country at peace in the face of equally ardent pressures from Washington's warrior caste to go to war.
> 
> Read more: Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again you are repeating the "narrative" that has been constructed since JFK's death by his family and supporters that contradicts what Kennedy actually DID while President.  The truth is this...JFK inherited a plan hatched by the CIA and approved by Eisenhower to back the invasion of Cuba by a force of Cuban nationals with air support by the US that would take out Cuba's air force.  Kennedy however, made the decision to down size that US air support sending only 8 bombers to attack Cuban airfields instead of the 16 assigned to that task in the original plan, saying that he wanted the US involvement to be as low key as possible.  The US bombers failed to take out the Cuban air force which then pinned down the invading force on the beaches and swamps of the Bay of Pigs where they subsequently surrendered two days later.  It's not that Kennedy didn't approve military action against Cuba...it's that he didn't approve enough of it to do the job as planned and HE is in large part responsible for the failure of the invasion.
Click to expand...


"Once again you are repeating the "narrative" that has been constructed since JFK's death"

It is called FACTS...

We now knowfrom the *CIA's internal history of the Bay of Pigs, which was declassified in 2005*that agency officials realized their motley crew of invaders had no chance of victory unless they were reinforced by the U.S. military. But Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell, the top CIA officials, never disclosed this to J.F.K. 

It is just more proof JFK was not a 'hawk'

"War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."
John F. Kennedy


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am completely aware that removal of the missiles in Turkey was part of the deal, but under the agreement that it was not to be made public. Kennedy was pissed that those missiles led to the crisis.
> 
> AGAIN, the Bay of Pigs invasion was planned under Eisenhower. Kennedy told Dulles and the CIA that he wouldn't provide an invasion force. We now know through declassified documents that the CIA KNEW the invasion stood no chance, and they lied to the President.
> 
> It led to Dulles and Bissell being fired, and JFK threatened to to "shatter [the agency] into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds."
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Washington's national-security apparatus had decided there was no living with Castro. During the final months of the Eisenhower Administration, the CIA started planning an invasion of the island, recruiting Cuban exiles who had fled the new regime. Agency officials assured the young President who inherited the invasion plan that it was a "slam dunk," in the words of a future CIA director contemplating another ill-fated U.S. invasion. J.F.K. had deep misgivings, but unwilling to overrule his senior intelligence officials so early in his Administration, he went fatefully ahead with the plan. The doomed Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961 became the Kennedy Administration's first great trauma.
> 
> We now knowfrom the CIA's internal history of the Bay of Pigs, which was declassified in 2005that agency officials realized their motley crew of invaders had no chance of victory unless they were reinforced by the U.S. military. But Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell, the top CIA officials, never disclosed this to J.F.K. They clearly thought the young President would cave in the heat of battle, that he would be forced to send in the Marines and Air Force to rescue the beleaguered exiles brigade after it was pinned down on the beaches by Castro's forces. But Kennedywho was concerned about aggravating the U.S. image in Latin America as a Yanqui bully and also feared a Soviet countermove against West Berlinhad warned agency officials that he would not fully intervene. As the invasion quickly bogged down at the swampy landing site, J.F.K. stunned Dulles and Bissell by standing his ground and refusing to escalate the assault.
> 
> From that point on, the Kennedy presidency became a government at war with itself.
> 
> A bitter Dulles thought Kennedy had suffered a failure of nerve and observed that he was "surrounded by doubting Thomases and admirers of Castro." The Joint Chiefs also muttered darkly about the new President. General Lyman Lemnitzer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said "pulling out the rug [on the invaders ]was... absolutely reprehensible, almost criminal." Admiral Arleigh Burke, the Navy chief, later fumed, "Mr. Kennedy was a very bad President... He permitted himself to jeopardize the nation."
> 
> Kennedy was equally outraged at his national-security advisers. While he famously took responsibility for the Bay of Pigs debacle in public, privately he lashed out at the Joint Chiefs and especially at the cia, threatening to "shatter [the agency] into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds." J.F.K. never followed through on this threat, but he did eventually fire Dulles, despite his stature as a legendary spymaster, as well as Bissell.
> 
> Weeks after the Cuba fiasco, J.F.K. was still steaming, recalled his friend Assistant Navy Secretary Paul (Red) Fay years later in his memoir, The Pleasure of His Company. "Nobody is going to force me to do anything I don't think is in the best interest of the country," the President told his friend, over a game of checkers at the Kennedy-family compound in Hyannis Port, Mass. "We're not going to plunge into an irresponsible action just because a fanatical fringe in this country puts so-called national pride above national reason. Do you think I'm going to carry on my conscience the responsibility for the wanton maiming and killing of children like our children we saw [playing] here this evening? Do you think I'm going to cause a nuclear exchangefor what? Because I was forced into doing something that I didn't think was proper and right? Well, if you or anybody else thinks I am, he's crazy."
> 
> This would become the major theme of the Kennedy presidencyJ.F.K.'s strenuous efforts to keep the country at peace in the face of equally ardent pressures from Washington's warrior caste to go to war.
> 
> Read more: Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you are repeating the "narrative" that has been constructed since JFK's death by his family and supporters that contradicts what Kennedy actually DID while President.  The truth is this...JFK inherited a plan hatched by the CIA and approved by Eisenhower to back the invasion of Cuba by a force of Cuban nationals with air support by the US that would take out Cuba's air force.  Kennedy however, made the decision to down size that US air support sending only 8 bombers to attack Cuban airfields instead of the 16 assigned to that task in the original plan, saying that he wanted the US involvement to be as low key as possible.  The US bombers failed to take out the Cuban air force which then pinned down the invading force on the beaches and swamps of the Bay of Pigs where they subsequently surrendered two days later.  It's not that Kennedy didn't approve military action against Cuba...it's that he didn't approve enough of it to do the job as planned and HE is in large part responsible for the failure of the invasion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Once again you are repeating the "narrative" that has been constructed since JFK's death"
> 
> It is called FACTS...
> 
> We now knowfrom the *CIA's internal history of the Bay of Pigs, which was declassified in 2005*that agency officials realized their motley crew of invaders had no chance of victory unless they were reinforced by the U.S. military. But Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell, the top CIA officials, never disclosed this to J.F.K.
> 
> It is just more proof JFK was not a 'hawk'
> 
> "War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."
> John F. Kennedy
Click to expand...


Since it was Kennedy's last minute call to send only half the bombers that the planners had designated to take out Cuban fighters how can you make the claim that Dulles and Bissell never "disclosed" to Kennedy that the Anti Castro forces had no chance of victory unless they were reinforced by the US military?  They WERE in fact reinforced by the US military but under Kennedy's orders that support was halved at the last moment which resulted in an inability to destroy Castro's fighters.  Then Kennedy withdrew the support of the eight US bombers and left those 1,200 men high and dry.  Kennedy's last minute waffling is what doomed the Bay of Pigs invasion.


----------



## Oldstyle

And what's REALLY ironic is that Kennedy did what he did because he was worried that the world would figure out that the US was behind the invasion!  Duh?  Like the world DIDN'T know that?  Totally idiotic.

THAT stupidity is what led Nikita K. to believe that he could intimidate Kennedy by building the Berlin wall and putting missiles into Cuba.


----------



## thanatos144

Oldstyle said:


> And what's REALLY ironic is that Kennedy did what he did because he was worried that the world would figure out that the US was behind the invasion!  Duh?  Like the world DIDN'T know that?  Totally idiotic.
> 
> THAT stupidity is what led Nikita K. to believe that he could intimidate Kennedy by building the Berlin wall and putting missiles into Cuba.



And he was right.  JFK folded like a lawn chair and gave up US strategic advantage 

tapatalk post


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again you are repeating the "narrative" that has been constructed since JFK's death by his family and supporters that contradicts what Kennedy actually DID while President.  The truth is this...JFK inherited a plan hatched by the CIA and approved by Eisenhower to back the invasion of Cuba by a force of Cuban nationals with air support by the US that would take out Cuba's air force.  Kennedy however, made the decision to down size that US air support sending only 8 bombers to attack Cuban airfields instead of the 16 assigned to that task in the original plan, saying that he wanted the US involvement to be as low key as possible.  The US bombers failed to take out the Cuban air force which then pinned down the invading force on the beaches and swamps of the Bay of Pigs where they subsequently surrendered two days later.  It's not that Kennedy didn't approve military action against Cuba...it's that he didn't approve enough of it to do the job as planned and HE is in large part responsible for the failure of the invasion.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Once again you are repeating the "narrative" that has been constructed since JFK's death"
> 
> It is called FACTS...
> 
> We now knowfrom the *CIA's internal history of the Bay of Pigs, which was declassified in 2005*that agency officials realized their motley crew of invaders had no chance of victory unless they were reinforced by the U.S. military. But Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell, the top CIA officials, never disclosed this to J.F.K.
> 
> It is just more proof JFK was not a 'hawk'
> 
> "War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."
> John F. Kennedy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since it was Kennedy's last minute call to send only half the bombers that the planners had designated to take out Cuban fighters how can you make the claim that Dulles and Bissell never "disclosed" to Kennedy that the Anti Castro forces had no chance of victory unless they were reinforced by the US military?  They WERE in fact reinforced by the US military but under Kennedy's orders that support was halved at the last moment which resulted in an inability to destroy Castro's fighters.  Then Kennedy withdrew the support of the eight US bombers and left those 1,200 men high and dry.  Kennedy's last minute waffling is what doomed the Bay of Pigs invasion.
Click to expand...


So far I have let you slide on postings emotes...now you need LINKS for your claims.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> And what's REALLY ironic is that Kennedy did what he did because he was worried that the world would figure out that the US was behind the invasion!  Duh?  Like the world DIDN'T know that?  Totally idiotic.
> 
> THAT stupidity is what led Nikita K. to believe that he could intimidate Kennedy by building the Berlin wall and putting missiles into Cuba.



The Bay of Pigs was truly a blessing for President Kennedy, the United States and the world. It taught him a valuable lesson that prevented WWIII a year later.

Here is what we NOW know about the missiles that were in Cuba in 1962---They were ARMED with nuclear warheads and personnel on the island had orders to launch if the US invaded.

AGAIN, Kennedy was lied to. But he had learned not to trust the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs, the CIA and the war hawks in this country.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kennedy was particularly alarmed by his trigger-happy Air Force chief, cigar-chomping General Curtis LeMay, who firmly believed the U.S. should unleash a pre-emptive nuclear broadside against Russia while America still enjoyed massive arms superiority. Throughout the 13-day Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy was under relentless pressure from LeMay and nearly his entire national-security circle to "fry" Cuba, in the Air Force chief's memorable language. But J.F.K., whose only key support in the increasingly tense Cabinet Room meetings came from his brother Bobby and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, kept searching for a nonmilitary solution. When Kennedy, assiduously working the back channels to the Kremlin, finally succeeded in cutting a deal with Khrushchev, the world survived "the most dangerous moment in human history," in Schlesinger's words. But no one at the time knew just how dangerous. Years later, attending the 40th anniversary of the crisis at a conference in Havana, Schlesinger, Sorensen and McNamara were stunned to learn that if U.S. forces had attacked Cuba, Russian commanders on the island were authorized to respond with tactical and strategic nuclear missiles. The Joint Chiefs had assured Kennedy during the crisis that "no nuclear warheads were in Cuba at the time," Sorensen grimly noted. "They were wrong." If Kennedy had bowed to his military advisers' pressure, a vast swath of the urban U.S. within missile range of the Soviet installations in Cuba could have been reduced to radioactive rubble.

Read more: Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME

And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem. 
President John F. Kennedy


----------



## Sallow

Oldstyle said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've provided "proof" that the Kennedy Administration *looked into* a plan to scale down troops in Vietnam when it was believed that the South Vietnamese were capable of taking over the fight by themselves but you've completely ignored what Kennedy subsequently decided after being informed that the South Vietnamese were NOT ready.  It's a kind of "selective" memory that liberals have used to try and clean up Kennedy's actual actions so that they match the myth of Kennedy that has been constructed after his death.  The facts are that when Kennedy was told that the Diem regime was not ready to go it alone he authorized MORE advisers be sent to Vietnam.  I know you JFK lovers don't WANT to believe that but it's what took place.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is why you guys aren't taken seriously.
> 
> You said there was "no historic" proof then when confronted with "historic" proof, you qualify it.
> 
> Seriously.
> 
> There's no right answer with you guys.
> 
> And you never admit fault.
> 
> Being "perfect" makes you a reptile.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What can I say, Sallow...I'm a history major.   We're taught to look at source material *in context*.  It doesn't always mean what you THINK it does.  In this case you've cherry picked a report from a time when the Kennedy Administration *did* believe reports that the South Vietnamese were capable of handling the war against the North on their own.  Subsequent to that however they realized that was not the case and that a withdraw from South Vietnam would almost certainly result in a takeover by the communists.  JFK was adamant that he would not allow that to happen...a position that he made clear numerous times FOLLOWING when what you provided came out.
> 
> Governments conduct studies and draw up contingency plans for many things.  Some of them come to fruition.  Most however do not.  *Your* plan is one of the ones that didn't.  It was wishful thinking on Kennedy's part and he very quickly determined that it wasn't something he could do.
Click to expand...


What you "can" say is that you were wrong. But that didn't happen.

Which is the case with most of you folks.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what's REALLY ironic is that Kennedy did what he did because he was worried that the world would figure out that the US was behind the invasion!  Duh?  Like the world DIDN'T know that?  Totally idiotic.
> 
> THAT stupidity is what led Nikita K. to believe that he could intimidate Kennedy by building the Berlin wall and putting missiles into Cuba.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bay of Pigs was truly a blessing for President Kennedy, the United States and the world. It taught him a valuable lesson that prevented WWIII a year later.
> 
> Here is what we NOW know about the missiles that were in Cuba in 1962---They were ARMED with nuclear warheads and personnel on the island had orders to launch if the US invaded.
> 
> AGAIN, Kennedy was lied to. But he had learned not to trust the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs, the CIA and the war hawks in this country.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Kennedy was particularly alarmed by his trigger-happy Air Force chief, cigar-chomping General Curtis LeMay, who firmly believed the U.S. should unleash a pre-emptive nuclear broadside against Russia while America still enjoyed massive arms superiority. Throughout the 13-day Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy was under relentless pressure from LeMay and nearly his entire national-security circle to "fry" Cuba, in the Air Force chief's memorable language. But J.F.K., whose only key support in the increasingly tense Cabinet Room meetings came from his brother Bobby and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, kept searching for a nonmilitary solution. When Kennedy, assiduously working the back channels to the Kremlin, finally succeeded in cutting a deal with Khrushchev, the world survived "the most dangerous moment in human history," in Schlesinger's words. But no one at the time knew just how dangerous. Years later, attending the 40th anniversary of the crisis at a conference in Havana, Schlesinger, Sorensen and McNamara were stunned to learn that if U.S. forces had attacked Cuba, Russian commanders on the island were authorized to respond with tactical and strategic nuclear missiles. The Joint Chiefs had assured Kennedy during the crisis that "no nuclear warheads were in Cuba at the time," Sorensen grimly noted. "They were wrong." If Kennedy had bowed to his military advisers' pressure, a vast swath of the urban U.S. within missile range of the Soviet installations in Cuba could have been reduced to radioactive rubble.
> 
> Read more: Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME
> 
> And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.
> President John F. Kennedy
Click to expand...


The more you quote "Warrior For Peace"...the more I'm amazed by their ability to get the facts wrong.  

The Real Cuban Missile Crisis - Benjamin Schwarz - The Atlantic

Try reading an account of the Cuban Missile Crisis from a source a little less involved in the "deification" of JFK.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And what's REALLY ironic is that Kennedy did what he did because he was worried that the world would figure out that the US was behind the invasion!  Duh?  Like the world DIDN'T know that?  Totally idiotic.
> 
> THAT stupidity is what led Nikita K. to believe that he could intimidate Kennedy by building the Berlin wall and putting missiles into Cuba.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Bay of Pigs was truly a blessing for President Kennedy, the United States and the world. It taught him a valuable lesson that prevented WWIII a year later.
> 
> Here is what we NOW know about the missiles that were in Cuba in 1962---They were ARMED with nuclear warheads and personnel on the island had orders to launch if the US invaded.
> 
> AGAIN, Kennedy was lied to. But he had learned not to trust the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs, the CIA and the war hawks in this country.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Kennedy was particularly alarmed by his trigger-happy Air Force chief, cigar-chomping General Curtis LeMay, who firmly believed the U.S. should unleash a pre-emptive nuclear broadside against Russia while America still enjoyed massive arms superiority. Throughout the 13-day Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy was under relentless pressure from LeMay and nearly his entire national-security circle to "fry" Cuba, in the Air Force chief's memorable language. But J.F.K., whose only key support in the increasingly tense Cabinet Room meetings came from his brother Bobby and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, kept searching for a nonmilitary solution. When Kennedy, assiduously working the back channels to the Kremlin, finally succeeded in cutting a deal with Khrushchev, the world survived "the most dangerous moment in human history," in Schlesinger's words. But no one at the time knew just how dangerous. Years later, attending the 40th anniversary of the crisis at a conference in Havana, Schlesinger, Sorensen and McNamara were stunned to learn that if U.S. forces had attacked Cuba, Russian commanders on the island were authorized to respond with tactical and strategic nuclear missiles. The Joint Chiefs had assured Kennedy during the crisis that "no nuclear warheads were in Cuba at the time," Sorensen grimly noted. "They were wrong." If Kennedy had bowed to his military advisers' pressure, a vast swath of the urban U.S. within missile range of the Soviet installations in Cuba could have been reduced to radioactive rubble.
> 
> Read more: Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME
> 
> And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The more you quote "Warrior For Peace"...the more I'm amazed by their ability to get the facts wrong.
> 
> The Real Cuban Missile Crisis - Benjamin Schwarz - The Atlantic
> 
> Try reading an account of the Cuban Missile Crisis from a source a little less involved in the "deification" of JFK.
Click to expand...


I read the whole article. BTW, did you read the one I provided? There isn't anything that I find in real conflict with what I said. 

JFK was not a hawk.

From your article:
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Although Stern and other scholars have upended the panegyrical version of events advanced by Schlesinger and other Kennedy acolytes, the revised chronicle shows that JFKs actions in resolving the crisisagain, a crisis he had largely createdwere reasonable, responsible, and courageous. Plainly shaken by the apocalyptic potentialities of the situation, Kennedy advocated, in the face of the bellicose and near-unanimous opposition of his pseudo-tough-guy advisers, accepting the missile swap that Khrushchev had proposed.

He clearly understood that history and world opinion would condemn him and his country for going to wara war almost certain to escalate to a nuclear exchangeafter the U.S.S.R. had publicly offered such a reasonable quid pro quo.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Presidents come and go every 4 to 8 years, but the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs, the CIA and the military DON'T. They are often lifetime positions. 

I suggest if you really care to be a student of history, investigate what provoked Eisenhower to give his dire 'military/industrial complex' warning in his farewell address. Look into the U-2 incident on Mayday 1960. Ask why pilot, Francis Gary Powers was captured wearing a US Air Force flight suit carrying his Air Force ID. A gross violation of U-2 program protocol. The CIA and the Department of Defense (DOD) had spent millions of dollars sterilizing aircraft and equipment used in clandestine operations, so that anyone who might uncover an operation would be unable, under reasonable circumstances, to trace it positively to its true origin.

THE SABOTAGING OF THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY

"War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."
John F. Kennedy


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bay of Pigs was truly a blessing for President Kennedy, the United States and the world. It taught him a valuable lesson that prevented WWIII a year later.
> 
> Here is what we NOW know about the missiles that were in Cuba in 1962---They were ARMED with nuclear warheads and personnel on the island had orders to launch if the US invaded.
> 
> AGAIN, Kennedy was lied to. But he had learned not to trust the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs, the CIA and the war hawks in this country.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Kennedy was particularly alarmed by his trigger-happy Air Force chief, cigar-chomping General Curtis LeMay, who firmly believed the U.S. should unleash a pre-emptive nuclear broadside against Russia while America still enjoyed massive arms superiority. Throughout the 13-day Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy was under relentless pressure from LeMay and nearly his entire national-security circle to "fry" Cuba, in the Air Force chief's memorable language. But J.F.K., whose only key support in the increasingly tense Cabinet Room meetings came from his brother Bobby and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, kept searching for a nonmilitary solution. When Kennedy, assiduously working the back channels to the Kremlin, finally succeeded in cutting a deal with Khrushchev, the world survived "the most dangerous moment in human history," in Schlesinger's words. But no one at the time knew just how dangerous. Years later, attending the 40th anniversary of the crisis at a conference in Havana, Schlesinger, Sorensen and McNamara were stunned to learn that if U.S. forces had attacked Cuba, Russian commanders on the island were authorized to respond with tactical and strategic nuclear missiles. The Joint Chiefs had assured Kennedy during the crisis that "no nuclear warheads were in Cuba at the time," Sorensen grimly noted. "They were wrong." If Kennedy had bowed to his military advisers' pressure, a vast swath of the urban U.S. within missile range of the Soviet installations in Cuba could have been reduced to radioactive rubble.
> 
> Read more: Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME
> 
> And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more you quote "Warrior For Peace"...the more I'm amazed by their ability to get the facts wrong.
> 
> The Real Cuban Missile Crisis - Benjamin Schwarz - The Atlantic
> 
> Try reading an account of the Cuban Missile Crisis from a source a little less involved in the "deification" of JFK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read the whole article. BTW, did you read the one I provided? There isn't anything that I find in real conflict with what I said.
> 
> JFK was not a hawk.
> 
> From your article:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Although Stern and other scholars have upended the panegyrical version of events advanced by Schlesinger and other Kennedy acolytes, the revised chronicle shows that JFKs actions in resolving the crisisagain, a crisis he had largely createdwere reasonable, responsible, and courageous. Plainly shaken by the apocalyptic potentialities of the situation, Kennedy advocated, in the face of the bellicose and near-unanimous opposition of his pseudo-tough-guy advisers, accepting the missile swap that Khrushchev had proposed.
> 
> He clearly understood that history and world opinion would condemn him and his country for going to wara war almost certain to escalate to a nuclear exchangeafter the U.S.S.R. had publicly offered such a reasonable quid pro quo.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Presidents come and go every 4 to 8 years, but the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs, the CIA and the military DON'T. They are often lifetime positions.
> 
> I suggest if you really care to be a student of history, investigate what provoked Eisenhower to give his dire 'military/industrial complex' warning in his farewell address. Look into the U-2 incident on Mayday 1960. Ask why pilot, Francis Gary Powers was captured wearing a US Air Force flight suit carrying his Air Force ID. A gross violation of U-2 program protocol. The CIA and the Department of Defense (DOD) had spent millions of dollars sterilizing aircraft and equipment used in clandestine operations, so that anyone who might uncover an operation would be unable, under reasonable circumstances, to trace it positively to its true origin.
> 
> THE SABOTAGING OF THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY
> 
> "War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."
> John F. Kennedy
Click to expand...


The truth of the matter is that Kennedy ran for office in the guise of a hawk, accusing Eisenhower and Nixon of allowing the Soviets to create a "missile gap" with the US behind and allowing communism to take root just 90 miles off the US coast in Cuba.  Kennedy's hand was more or less forced by his OWN campaign rhetoric.  He did in fact put missiles in Turkey aimed at the Soviets...something that prompted the Soviets to return the favor by putting nukes in Cuba.  Your (and so many of the later Kennedy "myth makers") attempts to paint him as a dove simply aren't supported by Kennedy's words or his actions.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Bay of Pigs was truly a blessing for President Kennedy, the United States and the world. It taught him a valuable lesson that prevented WWIII a year later.
> 
> Here is what we NOW know about the missiles that were in Cuba in 1962---They were ARMED with nuclear warheads and personnel on the island had orders to launch if the US invaded.
> 
> AGAIN, Kennedy was lied to. But he had learned not to trust the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs, the CIA and the war hawks in this country.
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Kennedy was particularly alarmed by his trigger-happy Air Force chief, cigar-chomping General Curtis LeMay, who firmly believed the U.S. should unleash a pre-emptive nuclear broadside against Russia while America still enjoyed massive arms superiority. Throughout the 13-day Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy was under relentless pressure from LeMay and nearly his entire national-security circle to "fry" Cuba, in the Air Force chief's memorable language. But J.F.K., whose only key support in the increasingly tense Cabinet Room meetings came from his brother Bobby and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, kept searching for a nonmilitary solution. When Kennedy, assiduously working the back channels to the Kremlin, finally succeeded in cutting a deal with Khrushchev, the world survived "the most dangerous moment in human history," in Schlesinger's words. But no one at the time knew just how dangerous. Years later, attending the 40th anniversary of the crisis at a conference in Havana, Schlesinger, Sorensen and McNamara were stunned to learn that if U.S. forces had attacked Cuba, Russian commanders on the island were authorized to respond with tactical and strategic nuclear missiles. The Joint Chiefs had assured Kennedy during the crisis that "no nuclear warheads were in Cuba at the time," Sorensen grimly noted. "They were wrong." If Kennedy had bowed to his military advisers' pressure, a vast swath of the urban U.S. within missile range of the Soviet installations in Cuba could have been reduced to radioactive rubble.
> 
> Read more: Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME
> 
> And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more you quote "Warrior For Peace"...the more I'm amazed by their ability to get the facts wrong.
> 
> The Real Cuban Missile Crisis - Benjamin Schwarz - The Atlantic
> 
> Try reading an account of the Cuban Missile Crisis from a source a little less involved in the "deification" of JFK.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I read the whole article. BTW, did you read the one I provided? There isn't anything that I find in real conflict with what I said.
> 
> JFK was not a hawk.
> 
> From your article:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Although Stern and other scholars have upended the panegyrical version of events advanced by Schlesinger and other Kennedy acolytes, the revised chronicle shows that JFKs actions in resolving the crisisagain, a crisis he had largely createdwere reasonable, responsible, and courageous. Plainly shaken by the apocalyptic potentialities of the situation, Kennedy advocated, in the face of the bellicose and near-unanimous opposition of his pseudo-tough-guy advisers, accepting the missile swap that Khrushchev had proposed.
> 
> He clearly understood that history and world opinion would condemn him and his country for going to wara war almost certain to escalate to a nuclear exchangeafter the U.S.S.R. had publicly offered such a reasonable quid pro quo.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Presidents come and go every 4 to 8 years, but the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs, the CIA and the military DON'T. They are often lifetime positions.
> 
> I suggest if you really care to be a student of history, investigate what provoked Eisenhower to give his dire 'military/industrial complex' warning in his farewell address. Look into the U-2 incident on Mayday 1960. Ask why pilot, Francis Gary Powers was captured wearing a US Air Force flight suit carrying his Air Force ID. A gross violation of U-2 program protocol. The CIA and the Department of Defense (DOD) had spent millions of dollars sterilizing aircraft and equipment used in clandestine operations, so that anyone who might uncover an operation would be unable, under reasonable circumstances, to trace it positively to its true origin.
> 
> THE SABOTAGING OF THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY
> 
> "War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."
> John F. Kennedy
Click to expand...


Like anyone with half a brain wouldn't know that a U-2 belonged to the US despite all the "sterilizing" in the world, Bfgrn!  Don't go getting all "tin foil hat" on me now!


----------



## Sallow

That was post was so good, Old(Never wrong)style had to respond twice.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more you quote "Warrior For Peace"...the more I'm amazed by their ability to get the facts wrong.
> 
> The Real Cuban Missile Crisis - Benjamin Schwarz - The Atlantic
> 
> Try reading an account of the Cuban Missile Crisis from a source a little less involved in the "deification" of JFK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read the whole article. BTW, did you read the one I provided? There isn't anything that I find in real conflict with what I said.
> 
> JFK was not a hawk.
> 
> From your article:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Although Stern and other scholars have upended the panegyrical version of events advanced by Schlesinger and other Kennedy acolytes, the revised chronicle shows that JFKs actions in resolving the crisisagain, a crisis he had largely createdwere reasonable, responsible, and courageous. Plainly shaken by the apocalyptic potentialities of the situation, Kennedy advocated, in the face of the bellicose and near-unanimous opposition of his pseudo-tough-guy advisers, accepting the missile swap that Khrushchev had proposed.
> 
> He clearly understood that history and world opinion would condemn him and his country for going to wara war almost certain to escalate to a nuclear exchangeafter the U.S.S.R. had publicly offered such a reasonable quid pro quo.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Presidents come and go every 4 to 8 years, but the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs, the CIA and the military DON'T. They are often lifetime positions.
> 
> I suggest if you really care to be a student of history, investigate what provoked Eisenhower to give his dire 'military/industrial complex' warning in his farewell address. Look into the U-2 incident on Mayday 1960. Ask why pilot, Francis Gary Powers was captured wearing a US Air Force flight suit carrying his Air Force ID. A gross violation of U-2 program protocol. The CIA and the Department of Defense (DOD) had spent millions of dollars sterilizing aircraft and equipment used in clandestine operations, so that anyone who might uncover an operation would be unable, under reasonable circumstances, to trace it positively to its true origin.
> 
> THE SABOTAGING OF THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY
> 
> "War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."
> John F. Kennedy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The truth of the matter is that Kennedy ran for office in the guise of a hawk, accusing Eisenhower and Nixon of allowing the Soviets to create a "missile gap" with the US behind and allowing communism to take root just 90 miles off the US coast in Cuba.  Kennedy's hand was more or less forced by his OWN campaign rhetoric.  He did in fact put missiles in Turkey aimed at the Soviets...something that prompted the Soviets to return the favor by putting nukes in Cuba.  Your (and so many of the later Kennedy "myth makers") attempts to paint him as a dove simply aren't supported by Kennedy's words or his actions.
Click to expand...


Yes, but it WAS merely a 'guise'. The right and ignorant neocons like Richard "Prince of Darkness" Perle HEARD only the words and rhetoric they wanted to hear. And yes, JFK outflanked Nixon and the right on national security and cold war rhetoric. But as I pointed out before, none of his actions were hawkish...NONE.

AGAIN, the missile agreement with Turkey was signed in 1959.

So, PLEASE point out what ACTIONS President Kennedy initiated would make him a hawk? Was it refusing to use the military to invade Cuba during the Bay of Pigs invasion? Was it refusing to use the military to invade Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis?? Was it refusing to use the military to retaliate when the Berlin Wall went up???

I will be waiting............

The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough  more than enough  of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success. 
President John F. Kennedy  - Address at The American University, Washington D.C. (10 June 1963)


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more you quote "Warrior For Peace"...the more I'm amazed by their ability to get the facts wrong.
> 
> The Real Cuban Missile Crisis - Benjamin Schwarz - The Atlantic
> 
> Try reading an account of the Cuban Missile Crisis from a source a little less involved in the "deification" of JFK.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I read the whole article. BTW, did you read the one I provided? There isn't anything that I find in real conflict with what I said.
> 
> JFK was not a hawk.
> 
> From your article:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Although Stern and other scholars have upended the panegyrical version of events advanced by Schlesinger and other Kennedy acolytes, the revised chronicle shows that JFKs actions in resolving the crisisagain, a crisis he had largely createdwere reasonable, responsible, and courageous. Plainly shaken by the apocalyptic potentialities of the situation, Kennedy advocated, in the face of the bellicose and near-unanimous opposition of his pseudo-tough-guy advisers, accepting the missile swap that Khrushchev had proposed.
> 
> He clearly understood that history and world opinion would condemn him and his country for going to wara war almost certain to escalate to a nuclear exchangeafter the U.S.S.R. had publicly offered such a reasonable quid pro quo.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Presidents come and go every 4 to 8 years, but the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs, the CIA and the military DON'T. They are often lifetime positions.
> 
> I suggest if you really care to be a student of history, investigate what provoked Eisenhower to give his dire 'military/industrial complex' warning in his farewell address. Look into the U-2 incident on Mayday 1960. Ask why pilot, Francis Gary Powers was captured wearing a US Air Force flight suit carrying his Air Force ID. A gross violation of U-2 program protocol. The CIA and the Department of Defense (DOD) had spent millions of dollars sterilizing aircraft and equipment used in clandestine operations, so that anyone who might uncover an operation would be unable, under reasonable circumstances, to trace it positively to its true origin.
> 
> THE SABOTAGING OF THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY
> 
> "War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."
> John F. Kennedy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like anyone with half a brain wouldn't know that a U-2 belonged to the US despite all the "sterilizing" in the world, Bfgrn!  Don't go getting all "tin foil hat" on me now!
Click to expand...


There is a lot more to the U-2 incident. What it boils down to is two weeks before a peace talk summit scheduled in Paris between Eisenhower and Khruschev the CIA sabotaged our nation.

The U2 Files: Mayday, 1960


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I read the whole article. BTW, did you read the one I provided? There isn't anything that I find in real conflict with what I said.
> 
> JFK was not a hawk.
> 
> From your article:
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Although Stern and other scholars have upended the panegyrical version of events advanced by Schlesinger and other Kennedy acolytes, the revised chronicle shows that JFKs actions in resolving the crisisagain, a crisis he had largely createdwere reasonable, responsible, and courageous. Plainly shaken by the apocalyptic potentialities of the situation, Kennedy advocated, in the face of the bellicose and near-unanimous opposition of his pseudo-tough-guy advisers, accepting the missile swap that Khrushchev had proposed.
> 
> He clearly understood that history and world opinion would condemn him and his country for going to wara war almost certain to escalate to a nuclear exchangeafter the U.S.S.R. had publicly offered such a reasonable quid pro quo.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> Presidents come and go every 4 to 8 years, but the Pentagon, the Joint Chiefs, the CIA and the military DON'T. They are often lifetime positions.
> 
> I suggest if you really care to be a student of history, investigate what provoked Eisenhower to give his dire 'military/industrial complex' warning in his farewell address. Look into the U-2 incident on Mayday 1960. Ask why pilot, Francis Gary Powers was captured wearing a US Air Force flight suit carrying his Air Force ID. A gross violation of U-2 program protocol. The CIA and the Department of Defense (DOD) had spent millions of dollars sterilizing aircraft and equipment used in clandestine operations, so that anyone who might uncover an operation would be unable, under reasonable circumstances, to trace it positively to its true origin.
> 
> THE SABOTAGING OF THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY
> 
> "War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."
> John F. Kennedy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The truth of the matter is that Kennedy ran for office in the guise of a hawk, accusing Eisenhower and Nixon of allowing the Soviets to create a "missile gap" with the US behind and allowing communism to take root just 90 miles off the US coast in Cuba.  Kennedy's hand was more or less forced by his OWN campaign rhetoric.  He did in fact put missiles in Turkey aimed at the Soviets...something that prompted the Soviets to return the favor by putting nukes in Cuba.  Your (and so many of the later Kennedy "myth makers") attempts to paint him as a dove simply aren't supported by Kennedy's words or his actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, but it WAS merely a 'guise'. The right and ignorant neocons like Richard "Prince of Darkness" Perle HEARD only the words and rhetoric they wanted to hear. And yes, JFK outflanked Nixon and the right on national security and cold war rhetoric. But as I pointed out before, none of his actions were hawkish...NONE.
> 
> AGAIN, the missile agreement with Turkey was signed in 1959.
> 
> So, PLEASE point out what ACTIONS President Kennedy initiated would make him a hawk? Was it refusing to use the military to invade Cuba during the Bay of Pigs invasion? Was it refusing to use the military to invade Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis?? Was it refusing to use the military to retaliate when the Berlin Wall went up???
> 
> I will be waiting............
> 
> The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough  more than enough  of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success.
> President John F. Kennedy  - Address at The American University, Washington D.C. (10 June 1963)
Click to expand...


Kennedy DID use the military during the Bay of Pigs...the main reason the operation turned into the fiasco that it did was that he only used HALF the air power that was originally allotted to take out Castro's fighter aircraft AND THAT DIDN'T DO THE JOB!  Remember those scathing comments made about Kennedy by high ranking military officials you provided earlier?  The REASON they disliked Kennedy was because he changed his mind at the last moment and only allowed 8 bombers to be used instead of the 16 that the military thought would be needed.  The reason they didn't like Kennedy was that they found him to be indecisive.

Kennedy DID use the military during the Cuban Missile Crisis...he did so when he imposed an armed blockade of shipping in International Waters.  Not only did he USE the military...he used them in a totally illegal action.

As for using the military to retaliate for the Berlin Wall?  What pray tell COULD Kennedy have done militarily to halt the construction of a wall inside of communist controlled Eastern Europe?  Your contention that non action on THAT proves that Kennedy was a dove is amusing.


----------



## Oldstyle

What I find even more amusing is the narrative that Kennedy would have stopped the Vietnam War.

Kennedy escalated the war.  It was Nixon (the liberal's Anti-Christ!) who stopped the war.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth of the matter is that Kennedy ran for office in the guise of a hawk, accusing Eisenhower and Nixon of allowing the Soviets to create a "missile gap" with the US behind and allowing communism to take root just 90 miles off the US coast in Cuba.  Kennedy's hand was more or less forced by his OWN campaign rhetoric.  He did in fact put missiles in Turkey aimed at the Soviets...something that prompted the Soviets to return the favor by putting nukes in Cuba.  Your (and so many of the later Kennedy "myth makers") attempts to paint him as a dove simply aren't supported by Kennedy's words or his actions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but it WAS merely a 'guise'. The right and ignorant neocons like Richard "Prince of Darkness" Perle HEARD only the words and rhetoric they wanted to hear. And yes, JFK outflanked Nixon and the right on national security and cold war rhetoric. But as I pointed out before, none of his actions were hawkish...NONE.
> 
> AGAIN, the missile agreement with Turkey was signed in 1959.
> 
> So, PLEASE point out what ACTIONS President Kennedy initiated would make him a hawk? Was it refusing to use the military to invade Cuba during the Bay of Pigs invasion? Was it refusing to use the military to invade Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis?? Was it refusing to use the military to retaliate when the Berlin Wall went up???
> 
> I will be waiting............
> 
> The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough  more than enough  of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success.
> President John F. Kennedy  - Address at The American University, Washington D.C. (10 June 1963)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kennedy DID use the military during the Bay of Pigs...the main reason the operation turned into the fiasco that it did was that *he only used HALF the air power that was originally allotted to take out Castro's fighter aircraft* AND THAT DIDN'T DO THE JOB!  Remember those scathing comments made about Kennedy by high ranking military officials you provided earlier?  The REASON they disliked Kennedy was because he changed his mind at the last moment and only allowed 8 bombers to be used instead of the 16 that the military thought would be needed.  The reason they didn't like Kennedy was that they found him to be indecisive.
> 
> Kennedy DID use the military during the Cuban Missile Crisis...he did so when he imposed an armed blockade of shipping in International Waters.  Not only did he USE the military...he used them in a totally illegal action.
> 
> As for using the military to retaliate for the Berlin Wall?  What pray tell COULD Kennedy have done militarily to halt the construction of a wall inside of communist controlled Eastern Europe?  Your contention that non action on THAT proves that Kennedy was a dove is amusing.
Click to expand...


AGAIN, I told you I have let you slide. Not anymore...*link* up buster...

Your argument has failed. Admit it. Hawks, don't send less, they send MORE. Hawks don't opt for a blockade when all the military advisers wanted to 'fry' Cuba, AND...A 'hawk' is not indecisive.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> What I find even more amusing is the narrative that Kennedy would have stopped the Vietnam War.
> 
> Kennedy escalated the war.  It was Nixon (the liberal's Anti-Christ!) who stopped the war.



And you said you were a student of history...you LIED. Johnson escalated the Vietnam War and Nixon escalated the bombings.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I find even more amusing is the narrative that Kennedy would have stopped the Vietnam War.
> 
> Kennedy escalated the war.  It was Nixon (the liberal's Anti-Christ!) who stopped the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you said you were a student of history...you LIED. Johnson escalated the Vietnam War and Nixon escalated the bombings.
Click to expand...


Yes, Johnson escalated the war and Nixon escalated the bombings.  Kennedy ALSO escalated the war and Nixon ALSO ended the war.  So where was it that I lied?


----------



## Sallow

Oldstyle said:


> What I find even more amusing is the narrative that Kennedy would have stopped the Vietnam War.
> 
> Kennedy escalated the war.  It was Nixon (the liberal's Anti-Christ!) who stopped the war.



Nixon "stopped" the war after escalating it way passed Johnson and secretly bombing Cambodia and Laos and helping the Khmer Rouge come to power.

His actions likely caused the deaths of over 2 million people.

Seriously..do you actually think about this stuff before you post?


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, but it WAS merely a 'guise'. The right and ignorant neocons like Richard "Prince of Darkness" Perle HEARD only the words and rhetoric they wanted to hear. And yes, JFK outflanked Nixon and the right on national security and cold war rhetoric. But as I pointed out before, none of his actions were hawkish...NONE.
> 
> AGAIN, the missile agreement with Turkey was signed in 1959.
> 
> So, PLEASE point out what ACTIONS President Kennedy initiated would make him a hawk? Was it refusing to use the military to invade Cuba during the Bay of Pigs invasion? Was it refusing to use the military to invade Cuba during the Cuban missile crisis?? Was it refusing to use the military to retaliate when the Berlin Wall went up???
> 
> I will be waiting............
> 
> The United States, as the world knows, will never start a war. We do not want a war. We do not now expect a war. This generation of Americans has already had enough  more than enough  of war and hate and oppression. We shall be prepared if others wish it. We shall be alert to try to stop it. But we shall also do our part to build a world of peace where the weak are safe and the strong are just. We are not helpless before that task or hopeless of its success.
> President John F. Kennedy  - Address at The American University, Washington D.C. (10 June 1963)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy DID use the military during the Bay of Pigs...the main reason the operation turned into the fiasco that it did was that *he only used HALF the air power that was originally allotted to take out Castro's fighter aircraft* AND THAT DIDN'T DO THE JOB!  Remember those scathing comments made about Kennedy by high ranking military officials you provided earlier?  The REASON they disliked Kennedy was because he changed his mind at the last moment and only allowed 8 bombers to be used instead of the 16 that the military thought would be needed.  The reason they didn't like Kennedy was that they found him to be indecisive.
> 
> Kennedy DID use the military during the Cuban Missile Crisis...he did so when he imposed an armed blockade of shipping in International Waters.  Not only did he USE the military...he used them in a totally illegal action.
> 
> As for using the military to retaliate for the Berlin Wall?  What pray tell COULD Kennedy have done militarily to halt the construction of a wall inside of communist controlled Eastern Europe?  Your contention that non action on THAT proves that Kennedy was a dove is amusing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> AGAIN, I told you I have let you slide. Not anymore...*link* up buster...
> 
> Your argument has failed. Admit it. Hawks, don't send less, they send MORE. Hawks don't opt for a blockade when all the military advisers wanted to 'fry' Cuba, AND...A 'hawk' is not indecisive.
Click to expand...


http://ibdogs.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/bayofpigs7.pdf

The Bay of Pigs - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

#4: Kennedy?s Failure at the Bay of Pigs (Top 10 Mistakes by U.S. Presidents) | Britannica Blog

Cuba: The Bay of Pigs Invasion

History News Network | Failures of the Presidents: JFK's Bay of Pigs Disaster

Your problem, Bfgrn...is that you've chosen to believe the Kennedy "myth" that was created posthumously by people like Arthur Schlesinger, who painted JFK in an absurdly flattering manner.


----------



## Oldstyle

Sallow said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I find even more amusing is the narrative that Kennedy would have stopped the Vietnam War.
> 
> Kennedy escalated the war.  It was Nixon (the liberal's Anti-Christ!) who stopped the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nixon "stopped" the war after escalating it way passed Johnson and secretly bombing Cambodia and Laos and helping the Khmer Rouge come to power.
> 
> His actions likely caused the deaths of over 2 million people.
> 
> Seriously..do you actually think about this stuff before you post?
Click to expand...


Nixon helped the Khmer Rouge come to power and is thus responsible for the millions of deaths that occurred subsequently?  REALLY?  LOL   Gotta love you liberals when it comes to excusing the "excesses" of Communists!  The Khmer Rouge were backed by the North Vietnamese.  Communists are responsible for Pol Pot and the millions of murders he committed.

Nixon ended the Vietnam war.  Not Kennedy...not Johnson.  I know that's "inconvenient" for you uber libs to deal with but it's what happened.


----------



## Sallow

Oldstyle said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I find even more amusing is the narrative that Kennedy would have stopped the Vietnam War.
> 
> Kennedy escalated the war.  It was Nixon (the liberal's Anti-Christ!) who stopped the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nixon "stopped" the war after escalating it way passed Johnson and secretly bombing Cambodia and Laos and helping the Khmer Rouge come to power.
> 
> His actions likely caused the deaths of over 2 million people.
> 
> Seriously..do you actually think about this stuff before you post?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nixon helped the Khmer Rouge come to power and is thus responsible for the millions of deaths that occurred subsequently?  REALLY?  LOL   Gotta love you liberals when it comes to excusing the "excesses" of Communists!  The Khmer Rouge were backed by the North Vietnamese.  Communists are responsible for Pol Pot and the millions of murders he committed.
> 
> Nixon ended the Vietnam war.  Not Kennedy...not Johnson.  I know that's "inconvenient" for you uber libs to deal with but it's what happened.
Click to expand...


Even without including the Khmer Rouge, Nixon is responsible for about a million or so deaths.

That's ALOT of people.

The US dropped more bombs on Vietnam than it dropped in all conflicts prior, combined.

It's just amazing how batshit crazy this nation went.


----------



## Sallow

Additionally, yeah..Nixon initially SUPPORTED the Khmer Rouge.


----------



## Oldstyle

Sallow said:


> Additionally, yeah..Nixon initially SUPPORTED the Khmer Rouge.



Nixon supported the Khmer Rouge?  When did this take place?  I'd give up on this string if I were you, Sallow.  Your lack of knowledge is getting embarrassing.


----------



## Oldstyle

Nixon inherited a war from Johnson that he subsequently ended.  So does he get credit for saving lives at that point forward or only held responsible for the deaths that happened BEFORE he ended the war?  I know this is tough stuff for a liberal to deal with, Sallow...the guys who SHOULD have ended the war DIDN'T and the guy who SHOULDN'T have ended the war...DID!


----------



## Sallow

Oldstyle said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Additionally, yeah..Nixon initially SUPPORTED the Khmer Rouge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nixon supported the Khmer Rouge?  When did this take place?  I'd give up on this string if I were you, Sallow.  Your lack of knowledge is getting embarrassing.
Click to expand...


Initially?

He sure did.

It was part of the reason for bombing Cambodia.

He knew that it would cause them to come into power and they fight the North Vietnamese.

It took Vietnam to oust the Khmer Rouge.

What's embarrassing is YOUR lack of knowledge.


----------



## Sallow

Oldstyle said:


> Nixon inherited a war from Johnson that he subsequently ended.  So does he get credit for saving lives at that point forward or only held responsible for the deaths that happened BEFORE he ended the war?  I know this is tough stuff for a liberal to deal with, Sallow...the guys who SHOULD have ended the war DIDN'T and the guy who SHOULDN'T have ended the war...DID!



Not "tough" at all.

I hold that Johnson was one of America's worst Presidents because of his escalation of the Vietnamese war.


----------



## Oldstyle

Sallow said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Additionally, yeah..Nixon initially SUPPORTED the Khmer Rouge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nixon supported the Khmer Rouge?  When did this take place?  I'd give up on this string if I were you, Sallow.  Your lack of knowledge is getting embarrassing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Initially?
> 
> He sure did.
> 
> It was part of the reason for bombing Cambodia.
> 
> He knew that it would cause them to come into power and they fight the North Vietnamese.
> 
> It took Vietnam to oust the Khmer Rouge.
> 
> What's embarrassing is YOUR lack of knowledge.
Click to expand...


Since the Khmer Rouge were backed by the North Vietnamese...why would you think that they would "fight" them?


----------



## Sallow

And Nixon would have never ended the war without the protests.

Remember? When he was shooting kids at Kent State?


----------



## Sallow

Oldstyle said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nixon supported the Khmer Rouge?  When did this take place?  I'd give up on this string if I were you, Sallow.  Your lack of knowledge is getting embarrassing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Initially?
> 
> He sure did.
> 
> It was part of the reason for bombing Cambodia.
> 
> He knew that it would cause them to come into power and they fight the North Vietnamese.
> 
> It took Vietnam to oust the Khmer Rouge.
> 
> What's embarrassing is YOUR lack of knowledge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Since the Khmer Rouge were backed by the North Vietnamese...why would you think that they would "fight" them?
Click to expand...


They weren't backed by the North Vietnamese. They were enemies.

Khmer Rouge jailer says U.S. contributed to Pol Pot rise | Reuters
History News Network | Wrestling with the Khmer Rouge Legacy



> This landmark decision came only days after the U.S. Embassy in Phnom Penh celebrated the sixtieth anniversary of the restoration of U.S.-Cambodian relations.  U.S. officials made no mention of their critical role in helping Pol Pots forces come to power.  Nor did the trio of former U.S. ambassadorsCharles Ray, Kent Wiedemann, and Joseph Mussomeliissue any apologies during the two-day celebration for the Nixon administrations secret B-52 bombings that inflicted massive destruction on the Cambodian countryside or for U.S. diplomatic support for the Khmer Rouge from 1979 to 1990.
> 
> During his trial, Duch testified that the Khmer Rouge would have likely died out if the United States had not promoted a military coup d'état in 1970 against the non-aligned government led by Prince Norodom Sihanouk.  "I think the Khmer Rouge would already have been demolished," he said of their status by 1970,"But Mr. Kissinger [then U.S. secretary of state] and Richard Nixon were quick [to back coup leader] Gen. Lon Nol, and then the Khmer Rouge noted the golden opportunity."
> 
> Because of this alliance, the Khmer Rouge was able to build up its power over the course of their 1970-75 war against the Lon Nol regime, Duch told the tribunal.



You guys are something else.

Any other fucked up history you wanna re-write?


----------



## Sallow

Here's another FY fucking I for you Oldstyle.



> 1979 - Vietnam invades Cambodia and ousts the Khmer Rouge regime of Pol Pot. In response, Chinese troops cross Vietnam's northern border. They are pushed back by Vietnamese forces. The number of "boat people" trying to leave Vietnam causes international concern.


BBC News - Vietnam profile - Timeline


----------



## Oldstyle

Sallow said:


> And Nixon would have never ended the war without the protests.
> 
> Remember? When he was shooting kids at Kent State?



I'm pretty sure Tricky Dick wasn't at Kent State, Sallow...that was some freaked out National Guardsmen pulling those triggers.  

You can argue WHY Nixon ended the war but it won't change the fact that he DID end the war that Kennedy and Johnson escalated.


----------



## Oldstyle

Sallow said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Initially?
> 
> He sure did.
> 
> It was part of the reason for bombing Cambodia.
> 
> He knew that it would cause them to come into power and they fight the North Vietnamese.
> 
> It took Vietnam to oust the Khmer Rouge.
> 
> What's embarrassing is YOUR lack of knowledge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since the Khmer Rouge were backed by the North Vietnamese...why would you think that they would "fight" them?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They weren't backed by the North Vietnamese. They were enemies.
> 
> Khmer Rouge jailer says U.S. contributed to Pol Pot rise | Reuters
> History News Network | Wrestling with the Khmer Rouge Legacy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This landmark decision came only days after the U.S. Embassy in Phnom Penh celebrated the sixtieth anniversary of the restoration of U.S.-Cambodian relations.  U.S. officials made no mention of their critical role in helping Pol Pots forces come to power.  Nor did the trio of former U.S. ambassadorsCharles Ray, Kent Wiedemann, and Joseph Mussomeliissue any apologies during the two-day celebration for the Nixon administrations secret B-52 bombings that inflicted massive destruction on the Cambodian countryside or for U.S. diplomatic support for the Khmer Rouge from 1979 to 1990.
> 
> During his trial, Duch testified that the Khmer Rouge would have likely died out if the United States had not promoted a military coup d'état in 1970 against the non-aligned government led by Prince Norodom Sihanouk.  "I think the Khmer Rouge would already have been demolished," he said of their status by 1970,"But Mr. Kissinger [then U.S. secretary of state] and Richard Nixon were quick [to back coup leader] Gen. Lon Nol, and then the Khmer Rouge noted the golden opportunity."
> 
> Because of this alliance, the Khmer Rouge was able to build up its power over the course of their 1970-75 war against the Lon Nol regime, Duch told the tribunal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You guys are something else.
> 
> Any other fucked up history you wanna re-write?
Click to expand...


So Nixon backs Lon Nol...who ISN'T part of the Khmer Rouge...and somehow THAT translates into backing the Khmer Rouge because they subsequently overthrow Lon Nol?  Is that your logic?  LOL


----------



## Sallow

Oldstyle said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Nixon would have never ended the war without the protests.
> 
> Remember? When he was shooting kids at Kent State?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure Tricky Dick wasn't at Kent State, Sallow...that was some freaked out National Guardsmen pulling those triggers.
> 
> You can argue WHY Nixon ended the war but it won't change the fact that he DID end the war that Kennedy and Johnson escalated.
Click to expand...


Yeah..he personally was responsible for about a million deaths, helped put into power one of the bloodiest regimes known to man which killed about another million people, secretly bombed 2 countries not involved in the fighting, but he ended the war after much domestic civil unrest.

Yay..score one for your side, Oldstyle.


----------



## Oldstyle

And who's word do you take as gospel on this?  The chief torturer of the Pol Pot regime?  Could you get any more ridiculous?


----------



## Oldstyle

Sallow said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> And Nixon would have never ended the war without the protests.
> 
> Remember? When he was shooting kids at Kent State?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure Tricky Dick wasn't at Kent State, Sallow...that was some freaked out National Guardsmen pulling those triggers.
> 
> You can argue WHY Nixon ended the war but it won't change the fact that he DID end the war that Kennedy and Johnson escalated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah..he personally was responsible for about a million deaths, helped put into power one of the bloodiest regimes known to man which killed about another million people, secretly bombed 2 countries not involved in the fighting, but he ended the war after much domestic civil unrest.
> 
> Yay..score one for your side, Oldstyle.
Click to expand...


Nixon isn't on "my side", idiot.  At the time I was a blissfully naive college student marching against the war.  I'm simply pointing out that no matter how you feel about Nixon (and trust me...I loathed the man) he did in fact end the Vietnam war.


----------



## Sallow

Oldstyle said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Since the Khmer Rouge were backed by the North Vietnamese...why would you think that they would "fight" them?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They weren't backed by the North Vietnamese. They were enemies.
> 
> Khmer Rouge jailer says U.S. contributed to Pol Pot rise | Reuters
> History News Network | Wrestling with the Khmer Rouge Legacy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This landmark decision came only days after the U.S. Embassy in Phnom Penh celebrated the sixtieth anniversary of the restoration of U.S.-Cambodian relations.  U.S. officials made no mention of their critical role in helping Pol Pots forces come to power.  Nor did the trio of former U.S. ambassadorsCharles Ray, Kent Wiedemann, and Joseph Mussomeliissue any apologies during the two-day celebration for the Nixon administrations secret B-52 bombings that inflicted massive destruction on the Cambodian countryside or for U.S. diplomatic support for the Khmer Rouge from 1979 to 1990.
> 
> During his trial, Duch testified that the Khmer Rouge would have likely died out if the United States had not promoted a military coup d'état in 1970 against the non-aligned government led by Prince Norodom Sihanouk.  "I think the Khmer Rouge would already have been demolished," he said of their status by 1970,"But Mr. Kissinger [then U.S. secretary of state] and Richard Nixon were quick [to back coup leader] Gen. Lon Nol, and then the Khmer Rouge noted the golden opportunity."
> 
> Because of this alliance, the Khmer Rouge was able to build up its power over the course of their 1970-75 war against the Lon Nol regime, Duch told the tribunal.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You guys are something else.
> 
> Any other fucked up history you wanna re-write?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Nixon backs Lon Nol...who ISN'T part of the Khmer Rouge...and somehow THAT translates into backing the Khmer Rouge because they subsequently overthrow Lon Nol?  Is that your logic?  LOL
Click to expand...


They weren't "overthrown"..they were ousted by Vietnam.

Man. And Lon Nol was part of their government.

Seriously dude.


----------



## Oldstyle

And just for your edification...the Khmer Rouge killed 3 million not 1!  They are the shining example of just how awful communism can be when it is taken to it's extremes.


----------



## Oldstyle

Sallow said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> They weren't backed by the North Vietnamese. They were enemies.
> 
> Khmer Rouge jailer says U.S. contributed to Pol Pot rise | Reuters
> History News Network | Wrestling with the Khmer Rouge Legacy
> 
> 
> 
> You guys are something else.
> 
> Any other fucked up history you wanna re-write?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So Nixon backs Lon Nol...who ISN'T part of the Khmer Rouge...and somehow THAT translates into backing the Khmer Rouge because they subsequently overthrow Lon Nol?  Is that your logic?  LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They weren't "overthrown"..they were ousted by Vietnam.
> 
> Man. And Lon Nol was part of their government.
> 
> Seriously dude.
Click to expand...


Lon Nol was part of the Khmer Rouge?  God, but you are clueless!  When the Khmer Rouge took power, Lon Nol went into exile, living in California I believe.  He was NOT part of their government!


----------



## Oldstyle

What's the matter, Sallow?  Don't want to play history anymore?


----------



## Oldstyle

Can't believe you gave me a neg rep and then tucked tail and RAN from this string because you were showing yourself to absolutely ignorant about the Khmer Rouge.  "The Big Bad Wolf"?  You're more like a little lap dog that piddles on itself when it gets scared.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy DID use the military during the Bay of Pigs...the main reason the operation turned into the fiasco that it did was that *he only used HALF the air power that was originally allotted to take out Castro's fighter aircraft* AND THAT DIDN'T DO THE JOB!  Remember those scathing comments made about Kennedy by high ranking military officials you provided earlier?  The REASON they disliked Kennedy was because he changed his mind at the last moment and only allowed 8 bombers to be used instead of the 16 that the military thought would be needed.  The reason they didn't like Kennedy was that they found him to be indecisive.
> 
> Kennedy DID use the military during the Cuban Missile Crisis...he did so when he imposed an armed blockade of shipping in International Waters.  Not only did he USE the military...he used them in a totally illegal action.
> 
> As for using the military to retaliate for the Berlin Wall?  What pray tell COULD Kennedy have done militarily to halt the construction of a wall inside of communist controlled Eastern Europe?  Your contention that non action on THAT proves that Kennedy was a dove is amusing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AGAIN, I told you I have let you slide. Not anymore...*link* up buster...
> 
> Your argument has failed. Admit it. Hawks, don't send less, they send MORE. Hawks don't opt for a blockade when all the military advisers wanted to 'fry' Cuba, AND...A 'hawk' is not indecisive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> http://ibdogs.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/bayofpigs7.pdf
> 
> The Bay of Pigs - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum
> 
> #4: Kennedy?s Failure at the Bay of Pigs (Top 10 Mistakes by U.S. Presidents) | Britannica Blog
> 
> Cuba: The Bay of Pigs Invasion
> 
> History News Network | Failures of the Presidents: JFK's Bay of Pigs Disaster
> 
> Your problem, Bfgrn...is that you've chosen to believe the Kennedy "myth" that was created posthumously by people like Arthur Schlesinger, who painted JFK in an absurdly flattering manner.
Click to expand...


Your problem, you need to READ what you linked...LOL

Here are some key points.

#4: Kennedy?s Failure at the Bay of Pigs (Top 10 Mistakes by U.S. Presidents) | Britannica Blog

Eisenhower approved a budget of $13 million for the operation, *but stipulated that no U.S. military personnel could be part of the combat force.*

Ideally the president would have liked the invasion and the overthrow of Castro to appear to be the work entirely of the Cuban exile community. He wanted to be able to deny that the U.S. government had had a hand in any of it. But Dulles and Bissell realized the noise was essential to this mission: if U.S. air craft would not support the Cuban brigade from the air, and *if there were no U.S. battleships offshore full of U.S. troops ready to back up the exile fighters, then the invasion was likely to fail. The presence of the U.S. military was the key to a successful invasion and a successful uprising of Cubans disenchanted with the Castro regime. But neither Dulles nor Bissell revealed their worries to the president. And there was one more point they failed to mention and which Kennedy may or may not have known: with 200,000 troops and militia at his disposal, Castro would have no trouble disposing of 1,300 volunteers, most of whom had no battlefield experience.*

Many of the approximately 1,300 CIA-trained Cuban exiles believed fervently that they were the first wave of Cuban freedom fighters who would liberate their homeland from Castro. They were convinced that as they stormed ashore they would be supported overhead by some of the finest fighter pilots of the U.S. Air Force, and as they advanced into Cuba, the U.S. Marines would be right behind them. These men were sorely mistaken.


----------



## thanatos144

All that Kennedy money was well spent in spinning a mediocre president as a good one 

tapatalk post


----------



## Sallow

Oldstyle said:


> Can't believe you gave me a neg rep and then tucked tail and RAN from this string because you were showing yourself to absolutely ignorant about the Khmer Rouge.  "The Big Bad Wolf"?  You're more like a little lap dog that piddles on itself when it gets scared.



Erm..

No.

You negged rep me over something stupid..and I returned the favor.

Dude..if you don't like negs..don't give them.


----------



## Sallow

Oldstyle said:


> What's the matter, Sallow?  Don't want to play history anymore?



Play what?

US involvement with the Khmer Rouge is pretty well known.

And it's not like the US is going to fess up about it..because of what happened after they came into power.

It's sort of like "Operation Ajax".

There's no point in really discussing spook shit with someone who's going to play dumb about it.


----------



## Oldstyle

Sallow said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't believe you gave me a neg rep and then tucked tail and RAN from this string because you were showing yourself to absolutely ignorant about the Khmer Rouge.  "The Big Bad Wolf"?  You're more like a little lap dog that piddles on itself when it gets scared.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erm..
> 
> No.
> 
> You negged rep me over something stupid..and I returned the favor.
> 
> Dude..if you don't like negs..don't give them.
Click to expand...


I gave you neg rep because you stated that Lon Nol was part of the Khmer Rouge.

"The first priority of the Khmer Rouge after conquering Cambodia and overthrowing the Khmer Republic was to execute all its leaders and high officials without delay,[17] a fate that Lon Nol escaped.  Marshal Lon Nol fled from Cambodia to Indonesia and then to the United States; first settling in Hawaii and in 1979 in Fullerton, California. He died on 17 November 1985."

So what did you give me neg rep for, you flaming idiot!  Oh, that's right...you gave me neg rep because I gave it to you...once again proving what a petty little whiny bitch you are when you're shown up on this board.  The truth is that you're too stupid to know that the Khmer Republic is not the same thing as the Khmer Rouge


----------



## Sallow

Oldstyle said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Can't believe you gave me a neg rep and then tucked tail and RAN from this string because you were showing yourself to absolutely ignorant about the Khmer Rouge.  "The Big Bad Wolf"?  You're more like a little lap dog that piddles on itself when it gets scared.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Erm..
> 
> No.
> 
> You negged rep me over something stupid..and I returned the favor.
> 
> Dude..if you don't like negs..don't give them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I gave you neg rep because you stated that Lon Nol was part of the Khmer Rouge.
> 
> "The first priority of the Khmer Rouge after conquering Cambodia and overthrowing the Khmer Republic was to execute all its leaders and high officials without delay,[17] a fate that Lon Nol escaped.  Marshal Lon Nol fled from Cambodia to Indonesia and then to the United States; first settling in Hawaii and in 1979 in Fullerton, California. He died on 17 November 1985."
> 
> So what did you give me neg rep for, you flaming idiot!  Oh, that's right...you gave me neg rep because I gave it to you...once again proving what a petty little whiny bitch you are when you're shown up on this board.  The truth is that you're too stupid to know that the Khmer Republic is not the same thing as the Khmer Rouge
Click to expand...


He was part of the Khmer Rouge/Republic whatever the fuck you want to call it. It was the same folks.

Trotsky was a part of the Soviet Union too..and after he fled he was killed. None of you folks deny that he was a Soviet..do yas?

And trust me on this..I ain't little and I ain't a bitch.

Idiot is debatable.


----------



## Oldstyle

Sallow said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Erm..
> 
> No.
> 
> You negged rep me over something stupid..and I returned the favor.
> 
> Dude..if you don't like negs..don't give them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you neg rep because you stated that Lon Nol was part of the Khmer Rouge.
> 
> "The first priority of the Khmer Rouge after conquering Cambodia and overthrowing the Khmer Republic was to execute all its leaders and high officials without delay,[17] a fate that Lon Nol escaped.  Marshal Lon Nol fled from Cambodia to Indonesia and then to the United States; first settling in Hawaii and in 1979 in Fullerton, California. He died on 17 November 1985."
> 
> So what did you give me neg rep for, you flaming idiot!  Oh, that's right...you gave me neg rep because I gave it to you...once again proving what a petty little whiny bitch you are when you're shown up on this board.  The truth is that you're too stupid to know that the Khmer Republic is not the same thing as the Khmer Rouge
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He was part of the Khmer Rouge/Republic whatever the fuck you want to call it. It was the same folks.
> 
> Trotsky was a part of the Soviet Union too..and after he fled he was killed. None of you folks deny that he was a Soviet..do yas?
> 
> And trust me on this..I ain't little and I ain't a bitch.
> 
> Idiot is debatable.
Click to expand...


God, but you are pitiful!  The Khmer Republic and the Khmer Rouge were two totally different political entities.  Yes...they share the word Khmer in their titles but if you weren't so clueless you'd know that Khmer is simply another way of saying Cambodia and it's used in many of the titles of political parties in Cambodia.

Lon Nol was *not* in the Khmer Rouge!  He fled Cambodia to escape from them.  

Idiot is NOT debatable!  You are one and you've proved it in this string.


----------



## whitehall

Once again the radical left seems to depend on the comedy channel for history analysis. "Our Kennedy" is a myth created by the media. Old Joe Kennedy was protected by organized crime thugs and any American who thought he could stray on to "our Kennedy" compound on Cape Cod would probably be shot on sight before JFK ever thought of a political career. It's ironic that the Kennedy people were the elite of society and everything the radical left wing "occupy Wall Street" hates about America today.


----------



## Bfgrn

whitehall said:


> Once again the radical left seems to depend on the comedy channel for history analysis. "Our Kennedy" is a myth created by the media. Old Joe Kennedy was protected by organized crime thugs and any American who thought he could stray on to "our Kennedy" compound on Cape Cod would probably be shot on sight before JFK ever thought of a political career. It's ironic that the Kennedy people were the elite of society and everything the radical left wing "occupy Wall Street" hates about America today.



Really? The same Kennedy family that has been the champion of the little guy, the poor, the disabled, the elderly and the disenfranchised?


----------



## Papageorgio

Bfgrn said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again the radical left seems to depend on the comedy channel for history analysis. "Our Kennedy" is a myth created by the media. Old Joe Kennedy was protected by organized crime thugs and any American who thought he could stray on to "our Kennedy" compound on Cape Cod would probably be shot on sight before JFK ever thought of a political career. It's ironic that the Kennedy people were the elite of society and everything the radical left wing "occupy Wall Street" hates about America today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The same Kennedy family that has been the champion of the little guy, the poor, the disabled, the elderly and the disenfranchised?
Click to expand...


The same Kennedy's that have killed at least two young women and have bought justice. The same Kennedy's that want wind turbines but not off their coast line. The same Kennedy's that have boozed it up for decades off the working backs of middle America. The Kennedy's that bootlegged, made friends with mobsters. The illegal activity of the rich and what it will buy. Sad people get sucked into the propaganda.


----------



## lakeview

What is this bullshit with comparing Kennedy to Reagan? Why is this happening in spades now? Why are Progressives saying that things are happening that aren't really happening? I haven't heard anyone compare Reagan to Kennedy...why are Progs saying it's happening? You're losing...just go away.


----------



## Sallow

Oldstyle said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I gave you neg rep because you stated that Lon Nol was part of the Khmer Rouge.
> 
> "The first priority of the Khmer Rouge after conquering Cambodia and overthrowing the Khmer Republic was to execute all its leaders and high officials without delay,[17] a fate that Lon Nol escaped.  Marshal Lon Nol fled from Cambodia to Indonesia and then to the United States; first settling in Hawaii and in 1979 in Fullerton, California. He died on 17 November 1985."
> 
> So what did you give me neg rep for, you flaming idiot!  Oh, that's right...you gave me neg rep because I gave it to you...once again proving what a petty little whiny bitch you are when you're shown up on this board.  The truth is that you're too stupid to know that the Khmer Republic is not the same thing as the Khmer Rouge
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was part of the Khmer Rouge/Republic whatever the fuck you want to call it. It was the same folks.
> 
> Trotsky was a part of the Soviet Union too..and after he fled he was killed. None of you folks deny that he was a Soviet..do yas?
> 
> And trust me on this..I ain't little and I ain't a bitch.
> 
> Idiot is debatable.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> God, but you are pitiful!  *The Khmer Republic and the Khmer Rouge *were two totally different political entities.  Yes...they share the word Khmer in their titles but if you weren't so clueless you'd know that Khmer is simply another way of saying Cambodia and it's used in many of the titles of political parties in Cambodia.
> 
> Lon Nol was *not* in the Khmer Rouge!  He fled Cambodia to escape from them.
> 
> Idiot is NOT debatable!  You are one and you've proved it in this string.
Click to expand...


The support of the Khmer Republic and the overthrow of Prince Sihanouk led directly to the massacres by the Khmer Rouge.

No matter how you slice it, Nixon had a hand in that.

So go fuck yourself. Asswipe.


----------



## Bfgrn

Papageorgio said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again the radical left seems to depend on the comedy channel for history analysis. "Our Kennedy" is a myth created by the media. Old Joe Kennedy was protected by organized crime thugs and any American who thought he could stray on to "our Kennedy" compound on Cape Cod would probably be shot on sight before JFK ever thought of a political career. It's ironic that the Kennedy people were the elite of society and everything the radical left wing "occupy Wall Street" hates about America today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The same Kennedy family that has been the champion of the little guy, the poor, the disabled, the elderly and the disenfranchised?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The same Kennedy's that have killed at least two young women and have bought justice. The same Kennedy's that want wind turbines but not off their coast line. The same Kennedy's that have boozed it up for decades off the working backs of middle America. The Kennedy's that bootlegged, made friends with mobsters. The illegal activity of the rich and what it will buy. Sad people get sucked into the propaganda.
Click to expand...


The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie  deliberate, contrived and dishonest  but the myth  persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy 

Propaganda? 

The same Kennedy administration that doubled the number of prosecutions of organized crime?


bootlegged?

The Biggest Kennedy Myth

Three times during the 1930s, Kennedy was appointed to federal positions requiring Senate confirmation (chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, chairman of the U.S. Maritime Commission, Ambassador to Great Britain). At a time when the memory of Prohibition was vivid and the passions it inflamed still smoldered, no one seemed to think Joe Kennedy had been a bootleggernot the Republicans, not the anti-Roosevelt Democrats, not remnant Klansmen or anti-Irish Boston Brahmins or cynical newsmen or resentful Dry leaders still seething from the humiliation of Repeal. Theres nothing in the Senate record that suggests anyone brought up the bootlegging charge; theres nothing about it in the press coverage that appeared in The New York Times, The Washington Post, The Wall Street Journal, or The Boston Globe. There was nothing asserting, suggesting, or hinting at bootlegging in the Roosevelt-hating Chicago Tribune, or in the long-dry Los Angeles Times. Around the time of his three Senate confirmations, the last of them concluding barely four years after Repeal, there was some murmuring about Kennedys involvement in possible stock-manipulation schemes, and a possible conflict of interest. But about involvement in the illegal liquor trade, there was nothing at all. With Prohibition fresh in the national mind, when a hint of illegal behavior would have been dearly prized by the presidents enemies or Kennedys own, there wasnt even a whisper.

more


----------



## Oldstyle

Sallow said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was part of the Khmer Rouge/Republic whatever the fuck you want to call it. It was the same folks.
> 
> Trotsky was a part of the Soviet Union too..and after he fled he was killed. None of you folks deny that he was a Soviet..do yas?
> 
> And trust me on this..I ain't little and I ain't a bitch.
> 
> Idiot is debatable.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> God, but you are pitiful!  *The Khmer Republic and the Khmer Rouge *were two totally different political entities.  Yes...they share the word Khmer in their titles but if you weren't so clueless you'd know that Khmer is simply another way of saying Cambodia and it's used in many of the titles of political parties in Cambodia.
> 
> Lon Nol was *not* in the Khmer Rouge!  He fled Cambodia to escape from them.
> 
> Idiot is NOT debatable!  You are one and you've proved it in this string.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The support of the Khmer Republic and the overthrow of Prince Sihanouk led directly to the massacres by the Khmer Rouge.
> 
> No matter how you slice it, Nixon had a hand in that.
> 
> So go fuck yourself. Asswipe.
Click to expand...


Supporting the Khmer Republic is NOT the same as supporting the Khmer Rouge you buffoon!  The Khmer Rouge translates to "The Cambodian Red"...it's the Cambodian communists.  The Khmer Republic WAS NOT communist.  

Give up trying to argue history, Sallow...you don't have the knowledge to pull it off.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again the radical left seems to depend on the comedy channel for history analysis. "Our Kennedy" is a myth created by the media. Old Joe Kennedy was protected by organized crime thugs and any American who thought he could stray on to "our Kennedy" compound on Cape Cod would probably be shot on sight before JFK ever thought of a political career. It's ironic that the Kennedy people were the elite of society and everything the radical left wing "occupy Wall Street" hates about America today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The same Kennedy family that has been the champion of the little guy, the poor, the disabled, the elderly and the disenfranchised?
Click to expand...


Yes, that same Kennedy family that has made championing those folks into quite the lucrative "career".  They've been living high off the hog with Citizen's Oil for decades...putting themselves into high paying positions at the non-profit that require little in the way of work.

Don't mistake the Kennedy clan for a band of Mother Theresa's...they get compensated very well for their "championing of the little guy"!


----------



## Sallow

Oldstyle said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> God, but you are pitiful!  *The Khmer Republic and the Khmer Rouge *were two totally different political entities.  Yes...they share the word Khmer in their titles but if you weren't so clueless you'd know that Khmer is simply another way of saying Cambodia and it's used in many of the titles of political parties in Cambodia.
> 
> Lon Nol was *not* in the Khmer Rouge!  He fled Cambodia to escape from them.
> 
> Idiot is NOT debatable!  You are one and you've proved it in this string.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The support of the Khmer Republic and the overthrow of Prince Sihanouk led directly to the massacres by the Khmer Rouge.
> 
> No matter how you slice it, Nixon had a hand in that.
> 
> So go fuck yourself. Asswipe.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Supporting the Khmer Republic is NOT the same as supporting the Khmer Rouge you buffoon!  The Khmer Rouge translates to "The Cambodian Red"...it's the Cambodian communists.  The Khmer Republic WAS NOT communist.
> 
> Give up trying to argue history, Sallow...you don't have the knowledge to pull it off.
Click to expand...


There is no argument.

The bombing led to the rise of the Khmer Rouge.

Initially Nixon did think the Khmer Rouge would be  a good way of keeping the North Vietnamese out of Cambodia and depose a sympathetic government.

Additionally it's the same binary argument you used to say "Nixon stopped the war".

Jerkoff.


----------



## Oldstyle

Sallow said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> The support of the Khmer Republic and the overthrow of Prince Sihanouk led directly to the massacres by the Khmer Rouge.
> 
> No matter how you slice it, Nixon had a hand in that.
> 
> So go fuck yourself. Asswipe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Supporting the Khmer Republic is NOT the same as supporting the Khmer Rouge you buffoon!  The Khmer Rouge translates to "The Cambodian Red"...it's the Cambodian communists.  The Khmer Republic WAS NOT communist.
> 
> Give up trying to argue history, Sallow...you don't have the knowledge to pull it off.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There is no argument.
> 
> The bombing led to the rise of the Khmer Rouge.
> 
> Initially Nixon did think the Khmer Rouge would be  a good way of keeping the North Vietnamese out of Cambodia and depose a sympathetic government.
> 
> Additionally it's the same binary argument you used to say "Nixon stopped the war".
> 
> Jerkoff.
Click to expand...


Once again, idiot boy...the Khmer Republic (which Nixon supported as a way to keep the North Vietnamese out of Cambodia) is NOT the same thing as the Khmer Rouge (which was about as hardcore communist as you can possibly get) who were an offshoot of the North Vietnamese Army.  

Why do you even keep coming back trying to argue this?  Seriously...tuck your tail and run from this string.  You don't know the first thing about Southeast Asia's history and you've embarrassed yourself with your ignorance.  It there was a "mercy rule" on this board, a moderator would have stepped in and put you out of your misery long ago.


----------



## Sallow

Oldstyle said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Supporting the Khmer Republic is NOT the same as supporting the Khmer Rouge you buffoon!  The Khmer Rouge translates to "The Cambodian Red"...it's the Cambodian communists.  The Khmer Republic WAS NOT communist.
> 
> Give up trying to argue history, Sallow...you don't have the knowledge to pull it off.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There is no argument.
> 
> The bombing led to the rise of the Khmer Rouge.
> 
> Initially Nixon did think the Khmer Rouge would be  a good way of keeping the North Vietnamese out of Cambodia and depose a sympathetic government.
> 
> Additionally it's the same binary argument you used to say "Nixon stopped the war".
> 
> Jerkoff.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, idiot boy...the Khmer Republic (which Nixon supported as a way to keep the North Vietnamese out of Cambodia) is NOT the same thing as the Khmer Rouge (which was about as hardcore communist as you can possibly get) and were an offshoot of the North Vietnamese Army.
> 
> Why do you even keep coming back trying to argue this?  Seriously...tuck your tail and run from this string.  You don't know the first thing about Southeast Asia's history and you've embarrassed yourself with your ignorance.  It there was a "mercy rule" on this board, a moderator would have stepped in and put you out of your misery long ago.
Click to expand...


Why?

Because the man you are defending was a sociopath responsible for the deaths of millions.

That's why.

You are disgusting turd. You are defending a man that exonerated William Calley.

Another fuck that you probably think is a hero.

Who over saw the mass killings of a village and the gang rapes of little girls.

You folks aren't human.

You folks are reptiles.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> whitehall said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again the radical left seems to depend on the comedy channel for history analysis. "Our Kennedy" is a myth created by the media. Old Joe Kennedy was protected by organized crime thugs and any American who thought he could stray on to "our Kennedy" compound on Cape Cod would probably be shot on sight before JFK ever thought of a political career. It's ironic that the Kennedy people were the elite of society and everything the radical left wing "occupy Wall Street" hates about America today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? The same Kennedy family that has been the champion of the little guy, the poor, the disabled, the elderly and the disenfranchised?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes, that same Kennedy family that has made championing those folks into quite the lucrative "career".  They've been living high off the hog with Citizen's Oil for decades...putting themselves into high paying positions at the non-profit that require little in the way of work.
> 
> Don't mistake the Kennedy clan for a band of Mother Theresa's...they get compensated very well for their "championing of the little guy"!
Click to expand...


Your comments give us zero insight into the Kennedys, but they speak volumes about YOU...

Liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil. 
Liberals believe in raising people up, conservatives believe in pushing people down.
Liberals believe in encouragement, conservatives believe in scorn.
Liberals always stand up for the little guy, conservatives always stand up for the big guy.







Three wise men explain who you are...

"It is the job of thinking people not to be on the side of the executioners"
Albert Camus

"One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good"
Edmund Burke

"A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing"
Oscar Wilde 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hey old fart, what did Eunice and Sarge "get compensated" for starting Special Olympics in their back yard?










"The simplest description of the War on Poverty is that it is a means of making life available for any and all pursuers. It does not try to make men good -- because that is moralizing. It does not try to give men what they want -- because that is catering. It does not try to give men false hopes -- because that is deception. Instead, the War on Poverty tries only to create the conditions by which the good life can be lived -- and that is humanism."
Robert Sargent "Sarge" Shriver, Jr.


----------



## Bfgrn

"Privilege is here, and with privilege goes responsibility. There is inherited wealth in this country and also inherited poverty. And unless the graduates of this college and other colleges like it who are given a running start in life--unless they are willing to put back into our society, those talents, the broad sympathy, the understanding, the compassion--unless they are willing to put those qualities back into the service of the Great Republic, then obviously the presuppositions upon which our democracy are based are bound to be fallible." 

President John F. Kennedy: Remarks at Amherst College, October 26, 1963


----------



## Oldstyle

You want to hear something that sums up the Kennedy clan in a nutshell?  I used to be a property manager in Aspen Colorado.  When I started there I was told that under no circumstances was I allowed to rent houses or condos to the Kennedy family.  Why, you might ask?  The answer was quite simple.  They had a long history of trashing where ever they stayed and then refusing to pay for the damages.  And why did they feel they were entitled to act that way you might ask?  Because they were the Kennedy's and the rules didn't apply to them.

When Michael Kennedy was killed on Aspen Mountain?  The reason he died was that he was playing touch football on skis going down Copper Gulch and ran into a tree.  That's a part of the mountain that's always crowded with skiers and what he and his buddies were doing endangered every other person on that trail.  Why did he not concern himself with the safety of others?  Because he was a Kennedy and the rules don't apply to them.

Please don't preach to me about the Kennedy's.  I think I might know them a bit better than you.


----------



## Oldstyle

And just so you know?  Quoting flowery rhetoric from JFK means about as much as the flowery rhetoric that Barack Obama has graced us with for the past five years.  It doesn't matter what you SAY...what counts is how you live your life.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> And just so you know?  Quoting flowery rhetoric from JFK means about as much as the flowery rhetoric that Barack Obama has graced us with for the past five years.  It doesn't matter what you SAY...what counts is how you live your life.



The accomplishments of the Kennedy family speak for themselves. You are septic inside. A true conservative.


----------



## Oldstyle

"Liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil.
Liberals believe in raising people up, conservatives believe in pushing people down.
Liberals believe in encouragement, conservatives believe in scorn.
Liberals always stand up for the little guy, conservatives always stand up for the big guy."

Gee, listening to liberals HERE I got the impression that liberals believe liberals are basically good and conservatives are basically evil.

There is a difference between helping someone in need and creating a nanny state where generations of Americans never reach their potential because they're mired in your welfare state trap.  You liberals always talk about how you want to help people but you never quite grasp how dependency doesn't make people's lives better.

Liberal educators have spent the last thirty years telling our kids that they are all "winners" no matter how they perform.  Now the poor dears have no job skills and are getting their asses handed to them by the rest of the world.  Nice job...

Liberals don't stand up for the "little guy"...they stand up for big government.  There is a difference.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And just so you know?  Quoting flowery rhetoric from JFK means about as much as the flowery rhetoric that Barack Obama has graced us with for the past five years.  It doesn't matter what you SAY...what counts is how you live your life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The accomplishments of the Kennedy family speak for themselves. You a septic inside. A true conservative.
Click to expand...


Do you even know any of the present crop of Kennedy's, Bfgrn?  Joe Kennedy is a buffoon that makes Joe Biden look intelligent.  He couldn't even win reelection in Massachusetts where being a Kennedy is the closest thing to royalty that we have in this country.  Then there's William Kennedy Smith who doesn't know the meaning of the word "NO!" and thought the nation's female population was provided for his carnal amusement.  Caroline Kennedy keeps getting brought up as potential Democratic "superstar" but the problem is that she's just not that bright.  Then there was Michael Kennedy's statutory rape of his 14 year old babysitter and let's not forget Kerry Kennedy's adultery.  The Kennedy family have the morals of alley cats and have been thumbing their noses at societies rules for the past fifty years.  You see them through rose colored liberal glasses.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> "Liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil.
> Liberals believe in raising people up, conservatives believe in pushing people down.
> Liberals believe in encouragement, conservatives believe in scorn.
> Liberals always stand up for the little guy, conservatives always stand up for the big guy."
> 
> Gee, listening to liberals HERE I got the impression that liberals believe liberals are basically good and conservatives are basically evil.
> 
> There is a difference between helping someone in need and creating a nanny state where generations of Americans never reach their potential because they're mired in your welfare state trap.  You liberals always talk about how you want to help people but you never quite grasp how dependency doesn't make people's lives better.
> 
> Liberal educators have spent the last thirty years telling our kids that they are all "winners" no matter how they perform.  Now the poor dears have no job skills and are getting their asses handed to them by the rest of the world.  Nice job...
> 
> Liberals don't stand up for the "little guy"...they stand up for big government.  There is a difference.



Ignorance is bliss...

Stuff the ignorant 'welfare trap' bullshit. HERE are the FACTS:

If there is a citizenry on this planet that does NOT have an entitlement mentality, it is the American people. American workers take less vacation time than any other people. American workers take pride in the quality of their work and their work ethic. 

Who are the 47%?

Federal budget and Census data show that, in 2010, 91 percent of the benefit dollars from entitlement and other mandatory programs went to the elderly (people 65 and over), the seriously disabled, and members of working households.  People who are neither elderly nor disabled  and do not live in a working household  received only 9 percent of the benefits. 

Moreover, the vast bulk of that 9 percent goes for medical care, unemployment insurance benefits (which individuals must have a significant work history to receive), Social Security survivor benefits for the children and spouses of deceased workers, and Social Security benefits for retirees between ages 62 and 64.  Seven out of the 9 percentage points go for one of these four purposes.

80 percent of the workforce has seen their wages decline in real terms over the last quarter-century, and the average household has seen 40 percent of its wealth disappear during the Great Recession. Through it all, families never asked for a handout from anyone, especially Washington. They were left to go on their own, working harder, squeezing nickels, and taking care of themselves. But their economic boats have been taking on water for years, and now the crisis has swamped millions of middle class families. ref ref

"Labor is the United States. The men and women, who with their minds, their hearts and hands, create the wealth that is shared in this countrythey are America." 
President Dwight D. Eisenhower


Conservatives have NEVER given us 'less government', except for the hierarchy they worship. 

Your idea of helping someone in need is to give them a cup and have them beg at your feet...it is what makes you right wing scum believe you are human. 

Here is the ONLY 'nanny state' government created....

Conservatives built the BIGGEST Nanny State in the history of the world...














Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. Reagan was an ideological inflection point, ending a 50-year liberal ascendancy and beginning a 30-year conservative ascendancy."
Charles Krauthammer

Have you ever heard of a bleeding heart Republican?
Paul Craig Roberts - the father of Reaganomics


----------



## Oldstyle

LOL...didn't want to argue the "merits" of the Kennedy family did you?


----------



## Oldstyle

Sallow said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> There is no argument.
> 
> The bombing led to the rise of the Khmer Rouge.
> 
> Initially Nixon did think the Khmer Rouge would be  a good way of keeping the North Vietnamese out of Cambodia and depose a sympathetic government.
> 
> Additionally it's the same binary argument you used to say "Nixon stopped the war".
> 
> Jerkoff.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, idiot boy...the Khmer Republic (which Nixon supported as a way to keep the North Vietnamese out of Cambodia) is NOT the same thing as the Khmer Rouge (which was about as hardcore communist as you can possibly get) and were an offshoot of the North Vietnamese Army.
> 
> Why do you even keep coming back trying to argue this?  Seriously...tuck your tail and run from this string.  You don't know the first thing about Southeast Asia's history and you've embarrassed yourself with your ignorance.  It there was a "mercy rule" on this board, a moderator would have stepped in and put you out of your misery long ago.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because the man you are defending was a sociopath responsible for the deaths of millions.
> 
> That's why.
> 
> You are disgusting turd. You are defending a man that exonerated William Calley.
> 
> Another fuck that you probably think is a hero.
> 
> Who over saw the mass killings of a village and the gang rapes of little girls.
> 
> You folks aren't human.
> 
> You folks are reptiles.
Click to expand...


I'm not defending Nixon, you ass clown!  I've already stated in this string that I loathed the man!  All I'm doing is pointing out that you're COMPLETELY wrong when you accuse Nixon of supporting the Khmer Rouge and being responsible for the millions of deaths they caused.  You're so fucking stupid you didn't know there was a difference between the Khmer Republic and the Khmer Rouge.

I didn't support the Presidential pardon of William Calley but I remember that a majority of the country then didn't feel the same way as I did.  Jimmy Carter was a very vocal advocate of leniency for Calley.  So how does THAT compute with your notion that "you folks aren't human"?  I suppose Carter IS human (because he's a liberal) but I'm not (even though I didn't support the pardon) because I'm a conservative?


----------



## Sallow

Oldstyle said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, idiot boy...the Khmer Republic (which Nixon supported as a way to keep the North Vietnamese out of Cambodia) is NOT the same thing as the Khmer Rouge (which was about as hardcore communist as you can possibly get) and were an offshoot of the North Vietnamese Army.
> 
> Why do you even keep coming back trying to argue this?  Seriously...tuck your tail and run from this string.  You don't know the first thing about Southeast Asia's history and you've embarrassed yourself with your ignorance.  It there was a "mercy rule" on this board, a moderator would have stepped in and put you out of your misery long ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because the man you are defending was a sociopath responsible for the deaths of millions.
> 
> That's why.
> 
> You are disgusting turd. You are defending a man that exonerated William Calley.
> 
> Another fuck that you probably think is a hero.
> 
> Who over saw the mass killings of a village and the gang rapes of little girls.
> 
> You folks aren't human.
> 
> You folks are reptiles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not defending Nixon, you ass clown!  I've already stated in this string that I loathed the man!  All I'm doing is pointing out that you're COMPLETELY wrong when you accuse Nixon of supporting the Khmer Rouge and being responsible for the millions of deaths they caused.  You're so fucking stupid you didn't know there was a difference between the Khmer Republic and the Khmer Rouge.
Click to expand...


Wait, what? First off this began because you made the completely wrong claim that there was no historical evidence that John F. Kennedy was thinking about getting out of Vietnam. When you found out that was completely wrong you went off on a freakin dance to "clarify" your position. THEN you went off and said Nixon ENDED the war. Which without context sounds like Nixon was some kind of saint. Nixon was a monster. Kissinger had to stop the guy from blowing up dikes that would have killed 250,000 people in one day.

Nixon White House Considered Nuclear Options Against North Vietnam

Nixon ENDED the war after killing millions. Nixon brought about the Khmer Rouge which killed Millions more. Kennedy on the other hand was considering ending the war.

By the way, I'm not sitting here "clarifying" LBJ's position. His actions were just as monstrous.


			
				Oldstyle said:
			
		

> I didn't support the Presidential pardon of William Calley but I remember that a majority of the country then didn't feel the same way as I did.  Jimmy Carter was a very vocal advocate of leniency for Calley.  So how does THAT compute with your notion that "you folks aren't human"?  I suppose Carter IS human (because he's a liberal) but I'm not (even though I didn't support the pardon) because I'm a conservative?



How does what compute? Carter didn't think Calley was responsible for the actions of his men because the war was so screwed up in the first place. Nixon? Didn't see what Calley did as a problem.

And stow it. I don't believe you protested the war unless you were out there with Romney protesting to send folks to it.


----------



## Sallow

Oldstyle said:


> LOL...didn't want to argue the "merits" of the Kennedy family did you?



Merits of the Kennedy family?

2 of Joe's boys FOUGHT in WWII and one of them died.

Then one of Joe's boys became President and was assassinated.

His brother was assassinated on a quest to become President.

And their brother went on to be one of the most successful legislators in the Senate.

It's you folks that loathe this family.

They've given a great deal back to the nation that made them rich.


----------



## Oldstyle

Sallow said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why?
> 
> Because the man you are defending was a sociopath responsible for the deaths of millions.
> 
> That's why.
> 
> You are disgusting turd. You are defending a man that exonerated William Calley.
> 
> Another fuck that you probably think is a hero.
> 
> Who over saw the mass killings of a village and the gang rapes of little girls.
> 
> You folks aren't human.
> 
> You folks are reptiles.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not defending Nixon, you ass clown!  I've already stated in this string that I loathed the man!  All I'm doing is pointing out that you're COMPLETELY wrong when you accuse Nixon of supporting the Khmer Rouge and being responsible for the millions of deaths they caused.  You're so fucking stupid you didn't know there was a difference between the Khmer Republic and the Khmer Rouge.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait, what? First off this began because you made the completely wrong claim that there was no historical evidence that John F. Kennedy was thinking about getting out of Vietnam. When you found out that was completely wrong you went off on a freakin dance to "clarify" your position. THEN you went off and said Nixon ENDED the war. Which without context sounds like Nixon was some kind of saint. Nixon was a monster. Kissinger had to stop the guy from blowing up dikes that would have killed 250,000 people in one day.
> 
> Nixon White House Considered Nuclear Options Against North Vietnam
> 
> Nixon ENDED the war after killing millions. Nixon brought about the Khmer Rouge which killed Millions more. Kennedy on the other hand was considering ending the war.
> 
> By the way, I'm not sitting here "clarifying" LBJ's position. His actions were just as monstrous.
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't support the Presidential pardon of William Calley but I remember that a majority of the country then didn't feel the same way as I did.  Jimmy Carter was a very vocal advocate of leniency for Calley.  So how does THAT compute with your notion that "you folks aren't human"?  I suppose Carter IS human (because he's a liberal) but I'm not (even though I didn't support the pardon) because I'm a conservative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does what compute? Carter didn't think Calley was responsible for the actions of his men because the war was so screwed up in the first place. Nixon? Didn't see what Calley did as a problem.
> 
> And stow it. I don't believe you protested the war unless you were out there with Romney protesting to send folks to it.
Click to expand...


You keep making the same ridiculous claim...that Nixon "brought about" the *Khmer Rouge* when I've shown you repeatedly that Nixon backed the *Khmer Republic*.  So are you brain dead, Sallow...or just *REALLY REALLY* stupid?


----------



## Oldstyle

And if you take the time to examine what was really happening with Kennedy and the Vietnam war instead of cherry picking a few statements that were made, it's very obvious that although Kennedy *wanted* to pull US troops from combat in Vietnam that he rapidly came to the conclusion that doing so would cause South Vietnam to go over to the communists, he was *ADAMANT* about not letting that happen and instead increased the numbers of "advisers".  That is why the claim by progressives that Kennedy would have ended the war if he hadn't been assassinated is baseless.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> And if you take the time to examine what was really happening with Kennedy and the Vietnam war instead of cherry picking a few statements that were made, it's very obvious that although Kennedy *wanted* to pull US troops from combat in Vietnam that he rapidly came to the conclusion that doing so would cause South Vietnam to go over to the communists, he was *ADAMANT* about not letting that happen and instead increased the numbers of "advisers".  That is why the claim by progressives that Kennedy would have ended the war if he hadn't been assassinated is baseless.



It is not 'baseless'. His own advisers and his Secretary of Defense said that he would have ended our involvement. It is totally ignorant to 'claim' that JFK would have escalated the war as LBJ did.

One of John F. Kennedy's most trusted and closest advisers was devout Keynesian John Kenneth Galbraith. JFK and Galbraith were working together to end the Vietnam War, against the recommendations of his personal military adviser, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, and his deputy National Security Adviser, Walt Rostow. Kennedy sent Galbraith on a personal mission to Vietnam to assess the situation there. Kennedy didn't trust his ambassador (Henry Cabot Lodge), the military or anyone else would tell him the truth. Galbraith even arranged a private luncheon for Kennedy and India's Prime Minister Nehru at the Newport estate of Jacqueline Kennedy's mother and stepfather. No one from the State Department--to Secretary of State Dean Rusk's great consternation--was invited, save Galbraith. At the Nehru-Kennedy luncheon, Galbraith and JFK began probing the Indian leader about ways to avoid American militarization of Vietnam, a subject on which (for complex reasons) the neutralist Nehru remained maddeningly ambiguous, emphasizing only that the United States must stay out.

Galbraith and Vietnam

By Richard Parker

Monday, March 14, 2005

In the fall of 1961, unknown to the American public, John F. Kennedy was weighing a crucial decision about Vietnam not unlike that which George W. Bush faced about Iraq in early 2002--whether to go to war. It was the height of the cold war, when Communism was the "terrorist threat," and Ho Chi Minh the era's Saddam Hussein to many in Washington. But the new President was a liberal Massachusetts Democrat (and a decorated war veteran), not a conservative Sunbelt Republican who claimed God's hand guided his foreign policy. JFK's tough-minded instincts about war were thus very different. Contrary to what many have come to believe about the Vietnam War's origins, new research shows that Kennedy wanted no war in Asia and had clear criteria for conditions under which he'd send Americans abroad to fight and die for their country--criteria quite relevant today.

But thanks also in part to recently declassified records, we now know that Kennedy's top aides--whatever his own views--were offering him counsel not all that different from what Bush was told forty years later. Early that November, his personal military adviser, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, and his deputy National Security Adviser, Walt Rostow, were on their way back from Saigon with a draft of the "Taylor report," their bold plan to "save" Vietnam, beginning with the commitment of at least 8,000 US troops--a down payment, they hoped, on thousands more to follow. But they knew JFK had no interest in their idea because six months earlier in a top-secret meeting, he had forcefully vetoed his aides' proposed dispatch of 60,000 troops to neighboring Laos--and they were worried about how to maneuver his assent.

Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, then Ambassador to India, got wind of their plan--and rushed to block their efforts. He was not an expert on Vietnam, but India chaired the International Control Commission, which had been set up following French withdrawal from Indochina to oversee a shaky peace accord meant to stabilize the region, and so from State Department cables he knew about the Taylor mission--and thus had a clear sense of what was at stake. *For Galbraith, a trusted adviser with unique back-channel access to the President, a potential US war in Vietnam represented more than a disastrous misadventure in foreign policy--it risked derailing the New Frontier's domestic plans for Keynesian-led full employment, and for massive new spending on education, the environment and what would become the War on Poverty. Worse, he feared, it might ultimately tear not only the Democratic Party but the nation apart--and usher in a new conservative era in American politics. *

more


----------



## Oldstyle

As for my feelings about the war and Nixon?  By the time I graduated high school, it was obvious that the United States was running out the string in Vietnam.  It wasn't about "winning" anymore...it was simply about what poor SOB would be the last American to get killed before we pulled out.  Nixon ended that conflict in August of that year.  It wasn't Kennedy who got that done.  It wasn't Johnson.  It was Nixon.  As much as I loathed Nixon...I have to give him credit for stopping what had become a senseless waste of American lives.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> As for my feelings about the war and Nixon?  By the time I graduated high school, it was obvious that the United States was running out the string in Vietnam.  It wasn't about "winning" anymore...it was simply about what poor SOB would be the last American to get killed before we pulled out.  Nixon ended that conflict in August of that year.  It wasn't Kennedy who got that done.  It wasn't Johnson.  It was Nixon.  As much as I loathed Nixon...I have to give him credit for stopping what had become a senseless waste of American lives.



If you actually lived through that era, you would KNOW that the only thing with a 'string' was Nixon's 5 year 'string' of lies, escalation of bombing, escalation into other countries, while Kissinger kept saying "peace is at hand".

No Kennedy was alive that could have ended the war.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if you take the time to examine what was really happening with Kennedy and the Vietnam war instead of cherry picking a few statements that were made, it's very obvious that although Kennedy *wanted* to pull US troops from combat in Vietnam that he rapidly came to the conclusion that doing so would cause South Vietnam to go over to the communists, he was *ADAMANT* about not letting that happen and instead increased the numbers of "advisers".  That is why the claim by progressives that Kennedy would have ended the war if he hadn't been assassinated is baseless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not 'baseless'. His own advisers and his Secretary of Defense said that he would have ended our involvement. It is totally ignorant to 'claim' that JFK would have escalated the war as LBJ did.
> 
> One of John F. Kennedy's most trusted and closest advisers was devout Keynesian John Kenneth Galbraith. JFK and Galbraith were working together to end the Vietnam War, against the recommendations of his personal military adviser, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, and his deputy National Security Adviser, Walt Rostow. Kennedy sent Galbraith on a personal mission to Vietnam to assess the situation there. Kennedy didn't trust his ambassador (Henry Cabot Lodge), the military or anyone else would tell him the truth. Galbraith even arranged a private luncheon for Kennedy and India's Prime Minister Nehru at the Newport estate of Jacqueline Kennedy's mother and stepfather. No one from the State Department--to Secretary of State Dean Rusk's great consternation--was invited, save Galbraith. At the Nehru-Kennedy luncheon, Galbraith and JFK began probing the Indian leader about ways to avoid American militarization of Vietnam, a subject on which (for complex reasons) the neutralist Nehru remained maddeningly ambiguous, emphasizing only that the United States must stay out.
> 
> Galbraith and Vietnam
> 
> By Richard Parker
> 
> Monday, March 14, 2005
> 
> In the fall of 1961, unknown to the American public, John F. Kennedy was weighing a crucial decision about Vietnam not unlike that which George W. Bush faced about Iraq in early 2002--whether to go to war. It was the height of the cold war, when Communism was the "terrorist threat," and Ho Chi Minh the era's Saddam Hussein to many in Washington. But the new President was a liberal Massachusetts Democrat (and a decorated war veteran), not a conservative Sunbelt Republican who claimed God's hand guided his foreign policy. JFK's tough-minded instincts about war were thus very different. Contrary to what many have come to believe about the Vietnam War's origins, new research shows that Kennedy wanted no war in Asia and had clear criteria for conditions under which he'd send Americans abroad to fight and die for their country--criteria quite relevant today.
> 
> But thanks also in part to recently declassified records, we now know that Kennedy's top aides--whatever his own views--were offering him counsel not all that different from what Bush was told forty years later. Early that November, his personal military adviser, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, and his deputy National Security Adviser, Walt Rostow, were on their way back from Saigon with a draft of the "Taylor report," their bold plan to "save" Vietnam, beginning with the commitment of at least 8,000 US troops--a down payment, they hoped, on thousands more to follow. But they knew JFK had no interest in their idea because six months earlier in a top-secret meeting, he had forcefully vetoed his aides' proposed dispatch of 60,000 troops to neighboring Laos--and they were worried about how to maneuver his assent.
> 
> Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, then Ambassador to India, got wind of their plan--and rushed to block their efforts. He was not an expert on Vietnam, but India chaired the International Control Commission, which had been set up following French withdrawal from Indochina to oversee a shaky peace accord meant to stabilize the region, and so from State Department cables he knew about the Taylor mission--and thus had a clear sense of what was at stake. *For Galbraith, a trusted adviser with unique back-channel access to the President, a potential US war in Vietnam represented more than a disastrous misadventure in foreign policy--it risked derailing the New Frontier's domestic plans for Keynesian-led full employment, and for massive new spending on education, the environment and what would become the War on Poverty. Worse, he feared, it might ultimately tear not only the Democratic Party but the nation apart--and usher in a new conservative era in American politics. *
> 
> more
Click to expand...


When Galbraith sent his letters to Kennedy we had only 1,500 "advisers" in South Vietnam yet when Kennedy was assassinated we had 16,000 "advisers" in South Vietnam.  Gee, Sallow...think Kennedy was escalating the conflict or ending it?


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for my feelings about the war and Nixon?  By the time I graduated high school, it was obvious that the United States was running out the string in Vietnam.  It wasn't about "winning" anymore...it was simply about what poor SOB would be the last American to get killed before we pulled out.  Nixon ended that conflict in August of that year.  It wasn't Kennedy who got that done.  It wasn't Johnson.  It was Nixon.  As much as I loathed Nixon...I have to give him credit for stopping what had become a senseless waste of American lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you actually lived through that era, you would KNOW that the only thing with a 'string' was Nixon's 5 year 'string' of lies, escalation of bombing, escalation into other countries, while Kissinger kept saying "peace is at hand".
> 
> No Kennedy was alive that could have ended the war.
Click to expand...


Trust me...I "lived through that era"!  My draft lottery number was 18.  Say what you will about Nixon...he DID end the war.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if you take the time to examine what was really happening with Kennedy and the Vietnam war instead of cherry picking a few statements that were made, it's very obvious that although Kennedy *wanted* to pull US troops from combat in Vietnam that he rapidly came to the conclusion that doing so would cause South Vietnam to go over to the communists, he was *ADAMANT* about not letting that happen and instead increased the numbers of "advisers".  That is why the claim by progressives that Kennedy would have ended the war if he hadn't been assassinated is baseless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It is not 'baseless'. His own advisers and his Secretary of Defense said that he would have ended our involvement. It is totally ignorant to 'claim' that JFK would have escalated the war as LBJ did.
> 
> One of John F. Kennedy's most trusted and closest advisers was devout Keynesian John Kenneth Galbraith. JFK and Galbraith were working together to end the Vietnam War, against the recommendations of his personal military adviser, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, and his deputy National Security Adviser, Walt Rostow. Kennedy sent Galbraith on a personal mission to Vietnam to assess the situation there. Kennedy didn't trust his ambassador (Henry Cabot Lodge), the military or anyone else would tell him the truth. Galbraith even arranged a private luncheon for Kennedy and India's Prime Minister Nehru at the Newport estate of Jacqueline Kennedy's mother and stepfather. No one from the State Department--to Secretary of State Dean Rusk's great consternation--was invited, save Galbraith. At the Nehru-Kennedy luncheon, Galbraith and JFK began probing the Indian leader about ways to avoid American militarization of Vietnam, a subject on which (for complex reasons) the neutralist Nehru remained maddeningly ambiguous, emphasizing only that the United States must stay out.
> 
> Galbraith and Vietnam
> 
> By Richard Parker
> 
> Monday, March 14, 2005
> 
> In the fall of 1961, unknown to the American public, John F. Kennedy was weighing a crucial decision about Vietnam not unlike that which George W. Bush faced about Iraq in early 2002--whether to go to war. It was the height of the cold war, when Communism was the "terrorist threat," and Ho Chi Minh the era's Saddam Hussein to many in Washington. But the new President was a liberal Massachusetts Democrat (and a decorated war veteran), not a conservative Sunbelt Republican who claimed God's hand guided his foreign policy. JFK's tough-minded instincts about war were thus very different. Contrary to what many have come to believe about the Vietnam War's origins, new research shows that Kennedy wanted no war in Asia and had clear criteria for conditions under which he'd send Americans abroad to fight and die for their country--criteria quite relevant today.
> 
> But thanks also in part to recently declassified records, we now know that Kennedy's top aides--whatever his own views--were offering him counsel not all that different from what Bush was told forty years later. Early that November, his personal military adviser, Gen. Maxwell Taylor, and his deputy National Security Adviser, Walt Rostow, were on their way back from Saigon with a draft of the "Taylor report," their bold plan to "save" Vietnam, beginning with the commitment of at least 8,000 US troops--a down payment, they hoped, on thousands more to follow. But they knew JFK had no interest in their idea because six months earlier in a top-secret meeting, he had forcefully vetoed his aides' proposed dispatch of 60,000 troops to neighboring Laos--and they were worried about how to maneuver his assent.
> 
> Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, then Ambassador to India, got wind of their plan--and rushed to block their efforts. He was not an expert on Vietnam, but India chaired the International Control Commission, which had been set up following French withdrawal from Indochina to oversee a shaky peace accord meant to stabilize the region, and so from State Department cables he knew about the Taylor mission--and thus had a clear sense of what was at stake. *For Galbraith, a trusted adviser with unique back-channel access to the President, a potential US war in Vietnam represented more than a disastrous misadventure in foreign policy--it risked derailing the New Frontier's domestic plans for Keynesian-led full employment, and for massive new spending on education, the environment and what would become the War on Poverty. Worse, he feared, it might ultimately tear not only the Democratic Party but the nation apart--and usher in a new conservative era in American politics. *
> 
> more
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When Galbraith sent his letters to Kennedy we had only 1,500 "advisers" in South Vietnam yet when Kennedy was assassinated we had 16,000 "advisers" in South Vietnam.  Gee, Sallow...think Kennedy was escalating the conflict or ending it?
Click to expand...


You don't even know who you are talking to...LOL

NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION MEMORANDUM NO. 263

TO:      Secretary of State
         Secretary of Defense
         Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff


SUBJECT: South Vietnam

At a meeting on October 5, 1963, the President considered the recommendations contained in the report of Secretary McNamara and General Taylor on their mission to South Vietnam.

The President approved the military recommendations contained in Section I B (1 -3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made of the *implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963. 
*
...

2. The objectives of the United States with respect to the withdrawal of U.S. military personnel remain as stated in the White House statement of October 2, 1963.


----------



## Oldstyle

Vietnam War Allied Troop Levels 1960-73

All the "spin" about who escalated the war and who drew it down can be solved by simply looking at troop levels in Vietnam on a year to year basis.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Vietnam War Allied Troop Levels 1960-73
> 
> All the "spin" about who escalated the war and who drew it down can be solved by simply looking at troop levels in Vietnam on a year to year basis.



I understand the right wing brain can only operate on a 'slippery slope' level.

Would JFK have fabricated the Gulf of Tonkin resolution?

JFKs Vietnam Withdrawal Plan Is a Fact, Not Speculation 

My essays in Boston Review and Salon established that the plan to withdraw US forces from Vietnam by the end of 1965 existed. And that President Kennedy had decided to implement that plan. In 2003, this was controversial. Many historians had denied it. Peter Dale Scott, John Newman, and Arthur Schlesinger were exceptions. They were right, and documents and tapes released under the JFK Records Act proved them right. The issue was resolved by early 2008 when Francis Bator, who had been President Johnson's Deputy National Security Adviser, opened his reply to my letter in the New York Review of Books with these words:

    "Professor Galbraith is correct [Letters, NYR, December 6, 2007] that there was a plan to withdraw US forces from Vietnam, beginning with the first thousand by December 1963, and almost all of the rest by the end of 1965. President Kennedy had approved that plan. It was the actual policy of the United States on the day Kennedy died."


----------



## Oldstyle

As for what happened in 1963?  You've totally overlooked the overthrow of the South Vietnamese government in November...something that totally changed the dynamic from when Kennedy was exploring the feasibility of drawing down troop levels by 1,000 in October.  Kennedy didn't go through with his "plan" because the situation in South Vietnam changed and he was cautioned that a US withdraw would almost certainly cause South Vietnam to fall to the communists.


----------



## Oldstyle

Did a plan exist?  Yes it did!  For about a month.  Then cold reality slapped JFK in the face when he was informed that reports the South Vietnamese were capable of handling the fight against the North Vietnamese were optimistic at best.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Did a plan exist?  Yes it did!  For about a month.  Then cold reality slapped JFK in the face when he was informed that reports the South Vietnamese were capable of handling the fight against the North Vietnamese were optimistic at best.



The plan existed on the day he DIED. Anything that happened after that day cannot be blamed on JFK.


----------



## Oldstyle

That plan was shelved when Diem was assassinated, Bfgrn.  There is absolutely ZERO proof that Kennedy was going to go ahead with taking troops out of South Vietnam when doing so would almost certainly have caused the fall of South Vietnam.


----------



## Oldstyle

So let me see if I understand how this plays out in progressive fantasy world...

Kennedy *isn't* responsible for anything that happens after his death...

But he *does *get credit for trying to end the war...even though he increased troop levels from 900 when he took office to 16,000 when he was shot?


----------



## Sallow

Oldstyle said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not defending Nixon, you ass clown!  I've already stated in this string that I loathed the man!  All I'm doing is pointing out that you're COMPLETELY wrong when you accuse Nixon of supporting the Khmer Rouge and being responsible for the millions of deaths they caused.  You're so fucking stupid you didn't know there was a difference between the Khmer Republic and the Khmer Rouge.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, what? First off this began because you made the completely wrong claim that there was no historical evidence that John F. Kennedy was thinking about getting out of Vietnam. When you found out that was completely wrong you went off on a freakin dance to "clarify" your position. THEN you went off and said Nixon ENDED the war. Which without context sounds like Nixon was some kind of saint. Nixon was a monster. Kissinger had to stop the guy from blowing up dikes that would have killed 250,000 people in one day.
> 
> Nixon White House Considered Nuclear Options Against North Vietnam
> 
> Nixon ENDED the war after killing millions. Nixon brought about the Khmer Rouge which killed Millions more. Kennedy on the other hand was considering ending the war.
> 
> By the way, I'm not sitting here "clarifying" LBJ's position. His actions were just as monstrous.
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't support the Presidential pardon of William Calley but I remember that a majority of the country then didn't feel the same way as I did.  Jimmy Carter was a very vocal advocate of leniency for Calley.  So how does THAT compute with your notion that "you folks aren't human"?  I suppose Carter IS human (because he's a liberal) but I'm not (even though I didn't support the pardon) because I'm a conservative?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How does what compute? Carter didn't think Calley was responsible for the actions of his men because the war was so screwed up in the first place. Nixon? Didn't see what Calley did as a problem.
> 
> And stow it. I don't believe you protested the war unless you were out there with Romney protesting to send folks to it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep making the same ridiculous claim...that Nixon "brought about" the *Khmer Rouge* when I've shown you repeatedly that Nixon backed the *Khmer Republic*.  So are you brain dead, Sallow...or just *REALLY REALLY* stupid?
Click to expand...


Neither.

You're a reptile.

Simple.


----------



## Oldstyle

Sallow said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait, what? First off this began because you made the completely wrong claim that there was no historical evidence that John F. Kennedy was thinking about getting out of Vietnam. When you found out that was completely wrong you went off on a freakin dance to "clarify" your position. THEN you went off and said Nixon ENDED the war. Which without context sounds like Nixon was some kind of saint. Nixon was a monster. Kissinger had to stop the guy from blowing up dikes that would have killed 250,000 people in one day.
> 
> Nixon White House Considered Nuclear Options Against North Vietnam
> 
> Nixon ENDED the war after killing millions. Nixon brought about the Khmer Rouge which killed Millions more. Kennedy on the other hand was considering ending the war.
> 
> By the way, I'm not sitting here "clarifying" LBJ's position. His actions were just as monstrous.
> 
> 
> How does what compute? Carter didn't think Calley was responsible for the actions of his men because the war was so screwed up in the first place. Nixon? Didn't see what Calley did as a problem.
> 
> And stow it. I don't believe you protested the war unless you were out there with Romney protesting to send folks to it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep making the same ridiculous claim...that Nixon "brought about" the *Khmer Rouge* when I've shown you repeatedly that Nixon backed the *Khmer Republic*.  So are you brain dead, Sallow...or just *REALLY REALLY* stupid?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Neither.
> 
> You're a reptile.
> 
> Simple.
Click to expand...


I'm a "reptile" because I've pointed out how ignorant you are when it comes to the history of Cambodia?  You grow more pathetic with each post...


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> That plan was shelved when Diem was assassinated, Bfgrn.  There is absolutely ZERO proof that Kennedy was going to go ahead with taking troops out of South Vietnam when doing so would almost certainly have caused the fall of South Vietnam.



The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was enacted August 10, 1964. WHEN did JFK die?

Regular U.S. combat units were deployed beginning in 1965. WHEN did JFK die?

Kennedy was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that "to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences"

Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ), as he took over the presidency after the death of Kennedy, initially did not consider Vietnam a priority and was more concerned with his "Great Society" and progressive social programs. Presidential aide Jack Valenti recalls, "Vietnam at the time was no bigger than a man's fist on the horizon. We hardly discussed it because it was not worth discussing."[158][159]

On 24 November 1963, Johnson said, "the battle against communism... must be joined... with strength and determination."[160] The pledge came at a time when the situation in South Vietnam was deteriorating, especially in places like the Mekong Delta, because of the recent coup against Di&#7879;m.[161] *Johnson had reversed Kennedy's disengagement policy from Vietnam in withdrawing 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 (NSAM 263 on 11 October),[162] with his own NSAM 273 (26 November)[163][164] to expand the war.*

link


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> That plan was shelved when Diem was assassinated, Bfgrn.  There is absolutely ZERO proof that Kennedy was going to go ahead with taking troops out of South Vietnam when doing so would almost certainly have caused the fall of South Vietnam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was enacted August 10, 1964. WHEN did JFK die?
> 
> Regular U.S. combat units were deployed beginning in 1965. WHEN did JFK die?
> 
> Kennedy was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that "to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences"
> 
> Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ), as he took over the presidency after the death of Kennedy, initially did not consider Vietnam a priority and was more concerned with his "Great Society" and progressive social programs. Presidential aide Jack Valenti recalls, "Vietnam at the time was no bigger than a man's fist on the horizon. We hardly discussed it because it was not worth discussing."[158][159]
> 
> On 24 November 1963, Johnson said, "the battle against communism... must be joined... with strength and determination."[160] The pledge came at a time when the situation in South Vietnam was deteriorating, especially in places like the Mekong Delta, because of the recent coup against Di&#7879;m.[161] *Johnson had reversed Kennedy's disengagement policy from Vietnam in withdrawing 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 (NSAM 263 on 11 October),[162] with his own NSAM 273 (26 November)[163][164] to expand the war.*
> 
> link
Click to expand...


If Kennedy was against the deployment of American combat troops then explain why he increased the number of those combat troops from under a thousand the first year he was in office to over sixteen thousand by the time he was killed?  Oh, wait...let me guess...because he chose to call them "advisers" I suppose you don't think they were combat troops, right?  Just how naive are you, Bfgrn?


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> That plan was shelved when Diem was assassinated, Bfgrn.  There is absolutely ZERO proof that Kennedy was going to go ahead with taking troops out of South Vietnam when doing so would almost certainly have caused the fall of South Vietnam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was enacted August 10, 1964. WHEN did JFK die?
> 
> Regular U.S. combat units were deployed beginning in 1965. WHEN did JFK die?
> 
> Kennedy was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that "to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences"
> 
> Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ), as he took over the presidency after the death of Kennedy, initially did not consider Vietnam a priority and was more concerned with his "Great Society" and progressive social programs. Presidential aide Jack Valenti recalls, "Vietnam at the time was no bigger than a man's fist on the horizon. We hardly discussed it because it was not worth discussing."[158][159]
> 
> On 24 November 1963, Johnson said, "the battle against communism... must be joined... with strength and determination."[160] The pledge came at a time when the situation in South Vietnam was deteriorating, especially in places like the Mekong Delta, because of the recent coup against Di&#7879;m.[161] *Johnson had reversed Kennedy's disengagement policy from Vietnam in withdrawing 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 (NSAM 263 on 11 October),[162] with his own NSAM 273 (26 November)[163][164] to expand the war.*
> 
> link
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Kennedy was against the deployment of American combat troops then explain why he increased the number of those combat troops from under a thousand the first year he was in office to over sixteen thousand by the time he was killed?  Oh, wait...let me guess...because he chose to call them "advisers" I suppose you don't think they were combat troops, right?  Just how naive are you, Bfgrn?
Click to expand...


*Regular U.S. combat units* were deployed beginning in 1965. WHEN did JFK die?

Johnson had *reversed Kennedy's disengagement policy from Vietnam in withdrawing 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 (NSAM 263 on 11 October*),[162] with his own NSAM 273 (26 November)[163][164] to expand the war.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> That plan was shelved when Diem was assassinated, Bfgrn.  There is absolutely ZERO proof that Kennedy was going to go ahead with taking troops out of South Vietnam when doing so would almost certainly have caused the fall of South Vietnam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was enacted August 10, 1964. WHEN did JFK die?
> 
> Regular U.S. combat units were deployed beginning in 1965. WHEN did JFK die?
> 
> Kennedy was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that "to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences"
> 
> Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ), as he took over the presidency after the death of Kennedy, initially did not consider Vietnam a priority and was more concerned with his "Great Society" and progressive social programs. Presidential aide Jack Valenti recalls, "Vietnam at the time was no bigger than a man's fist on the horizon. We hardly discussed it because it was not worth discussing."[158][159]
> 
> On 24 November 1963, Johnson said, "the battle against communism... must be joined... with strength and determination."[160] The pledge came at a time when the situation in South Vietnam was deteriorating, especially in places like the Mekong Delta, because of the recent coup against Di&#7879;m.[161] *Johnson had reversed Kennedy's disengagement policy from Vietnam in withdrawing 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 (NSAM 263 on 11 October),[162] with his own NSAM 273 (26 November)[163][164] to expand the war.*
> 
> link
Click to expand...


Oh, you mean Kennedy's "policy" that never was put into place BECAUSE of the deterioration of the situation in South Vietnam following the coup against Diem?


----------



## Oldstyle

Kind of hard to "reverse" a policy that was never implemented in the first place!


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Gulf of Tonkin Resolution was enacted August 10, 1964. WHEN did JFK die?
> 
> Regular U.S. combat units were deployed beginning in 1965. WHEN did JFK die?
> 
> Kennedy was against the deployment of American combat troops and observed that "to introduce U.S. forces in large numbers there today, while it might have an initially favorable military impact, would almost certainly lead to adverse political and, in the long run, adverse military consequences"
> 
> Lyndon B. Johnson (LBJ), as he took over the presidency after the death of Kennedy, initially did not consider Vietnam a priority and was more concerned with his "Great Society" and progressive social programs. Presidential aide Jack Valenti recalls, "Vietnam at the time was no bigger than a man's fist on the horizon. We hardly discussed it because it was not worth discussing."[158][159]
> 
> On 24 November 1963, Johnson said, "the battle against communism... must be joined... with strength and determination."[160] The pledge came at a time when the situation in South Vietnam was deteriorating, especially in places like the Mekong Delta, because of the recent coup against Di&#7879;m.[161] *Johnson had reversed Kennedy's disengagement policy from Vietnam in withdrawing 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 (NSAM 263 on 11 October),[162] with his own NSAM 273 (26 November)[163][164] to expand the war.*
> 
> link
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Kennedy was against the deployment of American combat troops then explain why he increased the number of those combat troops from under a thousand the first year he was in office to over sixteen thousand by the time he was killed?  Oh, wait...let me guess...because he chose to call them "advisers" I suppose you don't think they were combat troops, right?  Just how naive are you, Bfgrn?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Regular U.S. combat units* were deployed beginning in 1965. WHEN did JFK die?
> 
> Johnson had *reversed Kennedy's disengagement policy from Vietnam in withdrawing 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 (NSAM 263 on 11 October*),[162] with his own NSAM 273 (26 November)[163][164] to expand the war.
Click to expand...


So if we call them "advisers" instead of "combat troops" that means they didn't exist?  LOL  Gotcha!!!


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Kind of hard to "reverse" a policy that was never implemented in the first place!



It WAS the policy on the day he died. It was REVERSED by LBJ. A TOTALLY different man. WHAT is so hard to comprehend?


----------



## Oldstyle

Vietnam War Allied Troop Levels 1960-73

Those are the troop levels in Vietnam by year.  Show me where Kennedy did anything except increase those levels!


----------



## Oldstyle

And that was NOT the policy on the day he died because that policy had been abandoned as soon as Diem was assassinated.   We were NOT pulling troops out of Vietnam when Kennedy was shot...we were sending more...A LOT MORE!


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Kennedy was against the deployment of American combat troops then explain why he increased the number of those combat troops from under a thousand the first year he was in office to over sixteen thousand by the time he was killed?  Oh, wait...let me guess...because he chose to call them "advisers" I suppose you don't think they were combat troops, right?  Just how naive are you, Bfgrn?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Regular U.S. combat units* were deployed beginning in 1965. WHEN did JFK die?
> 
> Johnson had *reversed Kennedy's disengagement policy from Vietnam in withdrawing 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 (NSAM 263 on 11 October*),[162] with his own NSAM 273 (26 November)[163][164] to expand the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So if we call them "advisers" instead of "combat troops" that means they didn't exist?  LOL  Gotcha!!!
Click to expand...


YES. Regular U.S. combat *units * are not the same as military advisers.

Example:

11th Marine Regiment 

Vietnam War

The years between 1955 and 1965 were spent in continued training to maintain a constant state of readiness. During the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962, the 11th Marines played a role in the task force ordered to impose a naval quarantine against arms shipments to Cuba.

A new era opened on 8 March 1965 when the Marines were committed to ground action in South Vietnam. Beginning on 16 August 1965, the regiment was gradually deployed to South Vietnam. The transfer was completed by the arrival of the 2d Battalion on 27 May 1966. The nature of the war required the artillerymen to defend their own positions against numerous enemy probes and brought about a vastly increased employment of artillery by helicopters, both for displacement and resupply.

United States Air Force in South Vietnam
*
Advisory *Years (1961-1964)

Late in 1961 the U.S. began sending USAF and U.S. Army personnel to South Vietnam to train and advise its personnel. U.S. personnel were not to engage in combat operations, but sometimes did. Known as the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam or the Viet Cong, the guerrillas shot down four U.S. Army helicopters. As the Viet Cong became more active and as more Americans became casualties, the U.S. stepped up the training and the supply of equipment. The goal was it could finish training as soon as possible and withdraw.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> And that was NOT the policy on the day he died because that policy had been abandoned as soon as Diem was assassinated.   We were NOT pulling troops out of Vietnam when Kennedy was shot...we were sending more...A LOT MORE!



We DID withdraw 1,000 military advisers by the end of 1963 per the policy in place the day Kennedy died. WHEN did Kennedy die, 1965? 1966?? 1972???

1963 	16300 	
1964 	23300 	
1965 	184300 	
1966 	385300 	
1967 	485600 	
1968 	536100 	
1969 	475200 	
1970 	334600 	
1971 	156800 	
1972 	24200

Your link


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Regular U.S. combat units* were deployed beginning in 1965. WHEN did JFK die?
> 
> Johnson had *reversed Kennedy's disengagement policy from Vietnam in withdrawing 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 (NSAM 263 on 11 October*),[162] with his own NSAM 273 (26 November)[163][164] to expand the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So if we call them "advisers" instead of "combat troops" that means they didn't exist?  LOL  Gotcha!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> YES. Regular U.S. combat *units * are not the same as military advisers.
> 
> Example:
> 
> 11th Marine Regiment
> 
> Vietnam War
> 
> The years between 1955 and 1965 were spent in continued training to maintain a constant state of readiness. During the Cuban Missile Crisis of October 1962, the 11th Marines played a role in the task force ordered to impose a naval quarantine against arms shipments to Cuba.
> 
> A new era opened on 8 March 1965 when the Marines were committed to ground action in South Vietnam. Beginning on 16 August 1965, the regiment was gradually deployed to South Vietnam. The transfer was completed by the arrival of the 2d Battalion on 27 May 1966. The nature of the war required the artillerymen to defend their own positions against numerous enemy probes and brought about a vastly increased employment of artillery by helicopters, both for displacement and resupply.
> 
> United States Air Force in South Vietnam
> *
> Advisory *Years (1961-1964)
> 
> Late in 1961 the U.S. began sending USAF and U.S. Army personnel to South Vietnam to train and advise its personnel. U.S. personnel were not to engage in combat operations, but sometimes did. Known as the National Front for the Liberation of South Vietnam or the Viet Cong, the guerrillas shot down four U.S. Army helicopters. As the Viet Cong became more active and as more Americans became casualties, the U.S. stepped up the training and the supply of equipment. The goal was it could finish training as soon as possible and withdraw.
Click to expand...


"Kennedy accepted a diplomatic settlement, at least on paper, in Laos, but chose to respond by military escalation in Vietnam.19
Under Eisenhower, the Pentagon Papers report, US forces had been "strictly advisory," following the norm of the Latin American terror states. But as JFK took over in 1961, "the U.S. had in addition provided military capabilities such as helicopters and tactical air support" by January 1962, following Kennedy's authorization of USAF Farmgate operations in October. On November 22, 1961, the President authorized use of US forces "in a sharply increased effort to avoid a further deterioration of the situation in SVN [South Vietnam]," including "increased airlift to the GVN in the form of helicopters, light aviation and transport aircraft," and both equipment and US personnel "for aerial reconnaissance, instruction in and execution of air-ground support and special intelligence." Included in the "US military units" were three army Helicopter Companies, a Troop Carrier Squadron with 32 planes, combat aircraft, a Reconnaissance Unit, and six C-123 aircraft equipped for defoliation. On November 11, the NSC had authorized dispatch of "Aircraft, personnel and chemical defoliants to kill Viet Cong food crops and defoliate selected border and jungle areas," and by November 27 it was reported that "spraying equipment had been installed on Vietnamese H-34 helicopters, and is ready for use against food crops." US military personnel were increased from 841 to 5576 by June 30, 1962. MAAG [Military Assistance Advisory Group] teams were extended to battalion level and were "beginning to participate more directly in advising Vietnamese unit commanders in the planning and execution of military operations plans." By February 1962, the US Air Force "had already flown hundreds of missions," John Newman writes, citing an army history, often with only a low-ranking Vietnamese enlisted man for show. In one week of May 1962, Vietnamese Air Force and US helicopter units flew about 350 sorties (offensive, airlift, etc.).20

US escalation led to "a noticeable improvement," Hilsman wrote. In particular, "the helicopters were grand... Roaring in over the treetops, they were a terrifying sight to the superstitious Viet Cong peasants," who "simply turned and ran," becoming "easy targets." Kennedy also authorized the use of napalm, which particularly delighted MACV Commander General Paul Harkins; asked about the consequences of napalming villages, he replied that it "really puts the fear of God into the Viet Cong." By mid-1962, the CIA was conducting intelligence and sabotage operations against the North, as well as "counter-terror" (the technical term for "our terror") in the South. The intent of Kennedy's 1961-1962 escalation was "to fight the insurgency by destroying its economic base and disrupting the social fabric of the areas where the Front was strongest" by a variety of means, later extended to "defoliation, air attack, and indiscriminate artillery bombardment of what later were to be called `free fire zones'" (Bergerud).21"

Noam Chomsky's "Rethinking Camelot"


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that was NOT the policy on the day he died because that policy had been abandoned as soon as Diem was assassinated.   We were NOT pulling troops out of Vietnam when Kennedy was shot...we were sending more...A LOT MORE!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We DID withdraw 1,000 military advisers by the end of 1963 per the policy in place the day Kennedy died. WHEN did Kennedy die, 1965? 1966?? 1972???
> 
> 1963 	16300
> 1964 	23300
> 1965 	184300
> 1966 	385300
> 1967 	485600
> 1968 	536100
> 1969 	475200
> 1970 	334600
> 1971 	156800
> 1972 	24200
> 
> Your link
Click to expand...


Provide some proof that 1,000 advisers were withdrawn...the numbers you've provided above show no such draw down...but instead show a steady increase.  And I love how you decided to "leave out" the figures prior to 1963 that prove Kennedy was escalating the war.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And that was NOT the policy on the day he died because that policy had been abandoned as soon as Diem was assassinated.   We were NOT pulling troops out of Vietnam when Kennedy was shot...we were sending more...A LOT MORE!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We DID withdraw 1,000 military advisers by the end of 1963 per the policy in place the day Kennedy died. WHEN did Kennedy die, 1965? 1966?? 1972???
> 
> 1963 	16300
> 1964 	23300
> 1965 	184300
> 1966 	385300
> 1967 	485600
> 1968 	536100
> 1969 	475200
> 1970 	334600
> 1971 	156800
> 1972 	24200
> 
> Your link
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Provide some proof that 1,000 advisers were withdrawn...the numbers you've provided above show no such draw down...but instead show a steady increase.  And I love how you decided to "leave out" the figures prior to 1963 that prove Kennedy was escalating the war.
Click to expand...


JFKs Vietnam Withdrawal Plan Is a Fact, Not Speculation 

Francis Bator, President Johnson's Deputy National Security Adviser

"Professor Galbraith is correct [Letters, NYR, December 6, 2007] that there was a plan to withdraw US forces from Vietnam, beginning with the first thousand by December 1963, and almost all of the rest by the end of 1965. President Kennedy had approved that plan. *It was the actual policy of the United States on the day Kennedy died.*"


Robert McNamara, Secretary of Defense JFK and LBJ.

As McNamaras 1986 oral history, on deposit at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library, makes clear (but his book does not), he was himself in the second group, who favored withdrawal without victorynot necessarily admitting or even predicting defeat, but accepting uncertainty as to what would follow. The denouement came shortly thereafter:

    After much debate, the president endorsed our recommendation to withdraw 1,000 men by December 31, 1963. He did so, I recall, without indicating his reasoning. In any event, because objections had been so intense and because I suspected others might try to get him to reverse the decision, I urged him to announce it publicly. That would set it in concrete. . . . The president finally agreed, and the announcement was released by Pierre Salinger after the meeting.'

On the day Kennedy died, the course of policy had been set. This is not speculation about a state of mind. It is a statement of fact about a decision.

Had Kennedy lived, the withdrawal plan would have remained policy, and the numbers of US troops in Vietnam would have declined, unless and until policy changed. Might Kennedy still have reversed the decision at some point? Of course he might have. But there is no evidence that he intended to do so.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Walkthrough - Vietnam in Late 1963

20 Nov 1963 - Honolulu Meeting Briefing Book, Part I. See also Part II.
The briefing books prepared for a Vietnam meeting in Honolulu reaffirmed the timetables for complete withdrawal from Vietnam, *as well as the initial 1,000 main withdrawal, despite the recent coup in Vietnam.
*
24 Nov 1963 - Memorandum for the Record of a Meeting, Executive Office Building, Washington, November 24, 1963, 3 p.m.
Within two days of President Kennedy's death, on Sunday afternoon, President Johnson already began receiving advice that "we could not at this point or time give a particularly optimistic appraisal of the future" regarding Vietnam. President Johnson expressed dissatisfaction with the present course and particularly its emphasis on social reforms, and stated that "He was anxious to get along, win the war..."

26 Nov 1963 - National Security Action Memorandum No. 273
NSAM 273 was drafted while President Kennedy was still alive, though he never saw the draft. The final version was signed by President Johnson on the day after the Kennedy funeral, November 26. Concerning troop withdrawal, it reiterated the "objectives" of the Oct 2 announcement without noting the October 11 implementation in NSAM 263. The wording of a section on covert action against North Vietnam was loosened significantly (see following document).

26 Dec 1963 - 202-10002-10112: MILITARY OPERATIONS IN NORTH VIETNAM
This memo to General Taylor discusses proposed covert actions against North Vietnam which were generated in the wake of the Kennedy assassination, after having been alluded to in one paragraph from NSAM 273. These OPLAN 34 activities would have as one of their effects the Gulf of Tonkin incident, used by President Johnson to obtain Congressional approval for dramatically escalating the war.


----------



## Bfgrn

Kennedy never made it to the 1964 election, and since he left behind such a vaporous paper trail, the man who succeeded him, Lyndon Johnson, was able to portray his own deeper Vietnam intervention as a logical progression of J.F.K.'s policies. But McNamara knows the truth. The man who helped L.B.J. widen the war into a colossal tragedy knows Kennedy would have done no such thing. And McNamara acknowledges this, though it highlights his own blame. In the end, *McNamara says* today, *Kennedy would have withdrawn, realizing "that it was South Vietnam's war and the people there had to win it... We couldn't win the war for them."*

Read more: Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME


----------



## Oldstyle

You keep going back to that same old Kennedy "white wash" from Time, Bfgrn...

Isn't it obvious at this point that it was written with the express goal of preserving the Kennedy "myth"?

How do you take Kennedy's very real escalation of the number of troops and their combat roles...and then make the claim that he was ready to pull out of Vietnam completely and allow it to fall to the communists?  Kennedy states REPEATEDLY that he was not willing to let that happen and his ACTIONS back up that commitment.  Yet here you are trotting out the same old tired claim that because Kennedy briefly believed intelligence reports that the war was going so well, that the South Vietnamese could be trusted to "mop things up" in a victory over the Viet Minh and asked for a study on the draw down of troops by a mere thousand, that he would have done so following the assassination of Diem and the realization that things were NOT going as well as he'd been led to believe.


----------



## Oldstyle

"By 1962, Kennedy's war had far surpassed the French war at its peak in helicopters and aerial fire power. As for personnel, France had 20,000 nationals fighting in all of Indochina in 1949 (US force levels reached 16,700 under JFK), increasing to 57,000 at the peak.23

Kennedy's aggression was no secret. In March 1962, US officials announced publicly that US pilots were engaged in combat missions (bombing and strafing). By October, after three US planes were shot down in two days, a front-page story in the New York Times reported that "in 30 percent of all the combat missions flown in Vietnamese Air Force planes, Americans are at the controls," though "national insignia have been erased from many aircraft, both American and Vietnamese, ...to avoid the thorny international problems involved." The press reported further that US Army fliers and gunners were taking the military initiative against southern guerrillas, using HU-1A helicopters, which had more firepower than any World War II fighter plane, as an offensive weapon. Armed helicopters were regularly supporting ARVN operations. US operations in 1962 in the Delta region in the southern sector of South Vietnam were reported by journalist Robert Shaplen, among others.24

The character of Kennedy's war was also no secret. In a 1963 book, journalist Richard Tregaskis reported his interviews with US helicopter pilots who described how "wild men" of the helicopter units would shoot civilians for sport in "solid VC areas." Describing visits to hamlets that had been hit by napalm and heavy bombs in US air strikes, Malcolm Browne, AP correspondent from 1961, observed that "there is no question that the results are revolting. Unfortunately, the Viet Cong builds bunkers so skillfully it is rarely touched by aerial bombs or napalm, except in cases of direct hits. But huts are flattened, and civilian loss of life is generally high. In some, the charred bodies of children and babies have made pathetic piles in the middle of the remains of market places."25"

Chomsky "Rethinking Camelot"

Does any of that sound like Kennedy was deescalating the war?  It's obvious that the Kennedy Administration was originator of the wide spread use of defoliants and napalm and that under Kennedy the US forces in Vietnam were no longer the small group of "advisers" that Eisenhower sent but an active participant in the fighting of the war.  Kennedy's "advisers" were flying the planes and helicopters that were engaging the Viet Minh.  THAT is the reality of what Kennedy was doing in Vietnam prior to his death.  What you (and Time) would like the world to believe is a myth constructed to give Kennedy's legacy a "make over".


----------



## Sallow

Oldstyle said:


> "By 1962, Kennedy's war had far surpassed the French war at its peak in helicopters and aerial fire power. As for personnel, France had 20,000 nationals fighting in all of Indochina in 1949 (US force levels reached 16,700 under JFK), increasing to 57,000 at the peak.23
> 
> Kennedy's aggression was no secret. In March 1962, US officials announced publicly that US pilots were engaged in combat missions (bombing and strafing). By October, after three US planes were shot down in two days, a front-page story in the New York Times reported that "in 30 percent of all the combat missions flown in Vietnamese Air Force planes, Americans are at the controls," though "national insignia have been erased from many aircraft, both American and Vietnamese, ...to avoid the thorny international problems involved." The press reported further that US Army fliers and gunners were taking the military initiative against southern guerrillas, using HU-1A helicopters, which had more firepower than any World War II fighter plane, as an offensive weapon. Armed helicopters were regularly supporting ARVN operations. US operations in 1962 in the Delta region in the southern sector of South Vietnam were reported by journalist Robert Shaplen, among others.24
> 
> The character of Kennedy's war was also no secret. In a 1963 book, journalist Richard Tregaskis reported his interviews with US helicopter pilots who described how "wild men" of the helicopter units would shoot civilians for sport in "solid VC areas." Describing visits to hamlets that had been hit by napalm and heavy bombs in US air strikes, Malcolm Browne, AP correspondent from 1961, observed that "there is no question that the results are revolting. Unfortunately, the Viet Cong builds bunkers so skillfully it is rarely touched by aerial bombs or napalm, except in cases of direct hits. But huts are flattened, and civilian loss of life is generally high. In some, the charred bodies of children and babies have made pathetic piles in the middle of the remains of market places."25"
> 
> Chomsky "Rethinking Camelot"
> 
> Does any of that sound like Kennedy was deescalating the war?  It's obvious that the Kennedy Administration was originator of the wide spread use of defoliants and napalm and that under Kennedy the US forces in Vietnam were no longer the small group of "advisers" that Eisenhower sent but an active participant in the fighting of the war.  Kennedy's "advisers" were flying the planes and helicopters that were engaging the Viet Minh.  THAT is the reality of what Kennedy was doing in Vietnam prior to his death.  What you (and Time) would like the world to believe is a myth constructed to give Kennedy's legacy a "make over".



Now you're quoting Chomsky?



[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PEIrZO069Kg]william buckley threatens to punch chomsky in the face - YouTube[/ame]

Man..I miss Bill Buckley.


----------



## Oldstyle

At least Chomsky knows there is a difference between the Khmer Republic and the Khmer Rouge...

I'm quite sure Bill Buckley would have been *amused* by you, Sallow.  You are EVERYTHING that he found lacking in liberals.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> You keep going back to that same old Kennedy "white wash" from Time, Bfgrn...
> 
> Isn't it obvious at this point that it was written with the express goal of preserving the Kennedy "myth"?
> 
> How do you take Kennedy's very real escalation of the number of troops and their combat roles...and then make the claim that he was ready to pull out of Vietnam completely and allow it to fall to the communists?  Kennedy states REPEATEDLY that he was not willing to let that happen and his ACTIONS back up that commitment.  Yet here you are trotting out the same old tired claim that because Kennedy briefly believed intelligence reports that the war was going so well, that the South Vietnamese could be trusted to "mop things up" in a victory over the Viet Minh and asked for a study on the draw down of troops by a mere thousand, that he would have done so following the assassination of Diem and the realization that things were NOT going as well as he'd been led to believe.



WHY the fuck would Robert McNamara want to 'whitewash' JFK and incriminate HIMSELF???


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> At least Chomsky knows there is a difference between the Khmer Republic and the Khmer Rouge...
> 
> I'm quite sure Bill Buckley would have been *amused* by you, Sallow.  You are EVERYTHING that he found lacking in liberals.



You know, Ive spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks
William F. Buckley Jr.


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least Chomsky knows there is a difference between the Khmer Republic and the Khmer Rouge...
> 
> I'm quite sure Bill Buckley would have been *amused* by you, Sallow.  You are EVERYTHING that he found lacking in liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, Ive spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks
> William F. Buckley Jr.
Click to expand...


You notice he didn't even attempt to do so with the left considering you're all f****** Kooks

tapatalk post


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> At least Chomsky knows there is a difference between the Khmer Republic and the Khmer Rouge...
> 
> I'm quite sure Bill Buckley would have been *amused* by you, Sallow.  You are EVERYTHING that he found lacking in liberals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You know, Ive spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks
> William F. Buckley Jr.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You notice he didn't even attempt to do so with the left considering you're all f****** Kooks
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Just LOOK at your avatar and the avatar of you folks on the right...it is always threatening. Never a symbol of liberty but a symbol of power.

While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You know, Ive spent my entire life time separating the Right from the kooks
> William F. Buckley Jr.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You notice he didn't even attempt to do so with the left considering you're all f****** Kooks
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just LOOK at your avatar and the avatar of you folks on the right...it is always threatening. Never a symbol of liberty but a symbol of power.
> 
> While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
> Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians
Click to expand...


My avatar threatens you?  Really?  Is it the ladder?


----------



## Oldstyle

His avatar is a band name....ooooooh...scary scary...


----------



## Oldstyle

Of course Sallow's is all butterflies and cotton candy...right?


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep going back to that same old Kennedy "white wash" from Time, Bfgrn...
> 
> Isn't it obvious at this point that it was written with the express goal of preserving the Kennedy "myth"?
> 
> How do you take Kennedy's very real escalation of the number of troops and their combat roles...and then make the claim that he was ready to pull out of Vietnam completely and allow it to fall to the communists?  Kennedy states REPEATEDLY that he was not willing to let that happen and his ACTIONS back up that commitment.  Yet here you are trotting out the same old tired claim that because Kennedy briefly believed intelligence reports that the war was going so well, that the South Vietnamese could be trusted to "mop things up" in a victory over the Viet Minh and asked for a study on the draw down of troops by a mere thousand, that he would have done so following the assassination of Diem and the realization that things were NOT going as well as he'd been led to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHY the fuck would Robert McNamara want to 'whitewash' JFK and incriminate HIMSELF???
Click to expand...


Because he was not just an employee of JFK...he was one of his best friends.


----------



## thanatos144

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep going back to that same old Kennedy "white wash" from Time, Bfgrn...
> 
> Isn't it obvious at this point that it was written with the express goal of preserving the Kennedy "myth"?
> 
> How do you take Kennedy's very real escalation of the number of troops and their combat roles...and then make the claim that he was ready to pull out of Vietnam completely and allow it to fall to the communists?  Kennedy states REPEATEDLY that he was not willing to let that happen and his ACTIONS back up that commitment.  Yet here you are trotting out the same old tired claim that because Kennedy briefly believed intelligence reports that the war was going so well, that the South Vietnamese could be trusted to "mop things up" in a victory over the Viet Minh and asked for a study on the draw down of troops by a mere thousand, that he would have done so following the assassination of Diem and the realization that things were NOT going as well as he'd been led to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHY the fuck would Robert McNamara want to 'whitewash' JFK and incriminate HIMSELF???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because he was not just an employee of JFK...he was one of his best friends.
Click to expand...


Progressives hate when people don't buy the JFK myth 

tapatalk post


----------



## Oldstyle

There are some intelligent Progressives on this board but OMG there are some dumb ones!  Sallow gave me neg rep with the following message:

"Nixon initially supported the Khmer Rouge. He know bombing Cambodia would help them into power and they would fight the North Vietnamese. Of course you are such a dolt you don't know that."  Sallow

The only problem is that Nixon supported the Khmer Republic...not the Khmer Rouge...something that Sallow was obviously ignorant of.  But what's really indicative of his mind set is that when I pointed out that the Khmer Republic and the Khmer Rouge were not the same, his response was something along the lines of "So what?"

It would be akin to mixing up the "White Russian's" with the "Red Russians" and then bristling at someone pointing out that they aren't the same.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You notice he didn't even attempt to do so with the left considering you're all f****** Kooks
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just LOOK at your avatar and the avatar of you folks on the right...it is always threatening. Never a symbol of liberty but a symbol of power.
> 
> While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
> Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> My avatar threatens you?  Really?  Is it the ladder?
Click to expand...


If you look at the avatars on this board the VAST majority of dark, sinister and threatening ones are chosen by 'conservatives'. Are there exceptions? Of COURSE.


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just LOOK at your avatar and the avatar of you folks on the right...it is always threatening. Never a symbol of liberty but a symbol of power.
> 
> While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
> Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My avatar threatens you?  Really?  Is it the ladder?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you look at the avatars on this board the VAST majority of dark, sinister and threatening ones are chosen by 'conservatives'. Are there exceptions? Of COURSE.
Click to expand...


That is stupid 

tapatalk post


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep going back to that same old Kennedy "white wash" from Time, Bfgrn...
> 
> Isn't it obvious at this point that it was written with the express goal of preserving the Kennedy "myth"?
> 
> How do you take Kennedy's very real escalation of the number of troops and their combat roles...and then make the claim that he was ready to pull out of Vietnam completely and allow it to fall to the communists?  Kennedy states REPEATEDLY that he was not willing to let that happen and his ACTIONS back up that commitment.  Yet here you are trotting out the same old tired claim that because Kennedy briefly believed intelligence reports that the war was going so well, that the South Vietnamese could be trusted to "mop things up" in a victory over the Viet Minh and asked for a study on the draw down of troops by a mere thousand, that he would have done so following the assassination of Diem and the realization that things were NOT going as well as he'd been led to believe.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHY the fuck would Robert McNamara want to 'whitewash' JFK and incriminate HIMSELF???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Because he was not just an employee of JFK...he was one of his best friends.
Click to expand...


Kennedy had his circle of friends. Mac was an adviser. JFK didn't know McNamara before he chose his cabinet. McNamara came from the private sector. He was president of the Ford Motor Company.

Why would Francis Bator, who had been President Johnson's Deputy National Security Adviser, lie to protect Kennedy? The Johnson people have always tried to drag JFK into LBJ' war.

Francis Bator:
    "Professor Galbraith is correct that there was a plan to withdraw US forces from Vietnam, beginning with the first thousand by December 1963, and almost all of the rest by the end of 1965. President Kennedy had approved that plan. It was the actual policy of the United States on the day Kennedy died."

Did the official documents also lie to protect Kennedy??

Walkthrough - Vietnam in Late 1963

20 Nov 1963 - Honolulu Meeting Briefing Book, Part I. See also Part II.
The briefing books prepared for a Vietnam meeting in Honolulu reaffirmed the timetables for complete withdrawal from Vietnam, *as well as the initial 1,000 main withdrawal, despite the recent coup in Vietnam.
*
*24 Nov 1963 - Memorandum for the Record of a Meeting, Executive Office Building, Washington, November 24, 1963, 3 p.m.
Within two days of President Kennedy's death, on Sunday afternoon, President Johnson already began receiving advice that "we could not at this point or time give a particularly optimistic appraisal of the future" regarding Vietnam. President Johnson expressed dissatisfaction with the present course and particularly its emphasis on social reforms, and stated that "He was anxious to get along, win the war..."*

26 Nov 1963 - National Security Action Memorandum No. 273
NSAM 273 was drafted while President Kennedy was still alive, though he never saw the draft. The final version was signed by President Johnson on the day after the Kennedy funeral, November 26. Concerning troop withdrawal, it reiterated the "objectives" of the Oct 2 announcement without noting the October 11 implementation in NSAM 263. The wording of a section on covert action against North Vietnam was loosened significantly (see following document).

26 Dec 1963 - 202-10002-10112: MILITARY OPERATIONS IN NORTH VIETNAM
This memo to General Taylor discusses proposed covert actions against North Vietnam which were generated in the wake of the Kennedy assassination, after having been alluded to in one paragraph from NSAM 273. These OPLAN 34 activities would have as one of their effects the Gulf of Tonkin incident, used by President Johnson to obtain Congressional approval for dramatically escalating the war.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHY the fuck would Robert McNamara want to 'whitewash' JFK and incriminate HIMSELF???
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Because he was not just an employee of JFK...he was one of his best friends.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kennedy had his circle of friends. Mac was an adviser. JFK didn't know McNamara before he chose his cabinet. McNamara came from the private sector. He was president of the Ford Motor Company.
> 
> Why would Francis Bator, who had been President Johnson's Deputy National Security Adviser, lie to protect Kennedy? The Johnson people have always tried to drag JFK into LBJ' war.
> 
> Francis Bator:
> "Professor Galbraith is correct that there was a plan to withdraw US forces from Vietnam, beginning with the first thousand by December 1963, and almost all of the rest by the end of 1965. President Kennedy had approved that plan. It was the actual policy of the United States on the day Kennedy died."
> 
> Did the official documents also lie to protect Kennedy??
> 
> Walkthrough - Vietnam in Late 1963
> 
> 20 Nov 1963 - Honolulu Meeting Briefing Book, Part I. See also Part II.
> The briefing books prepared for a Vietnam meeting in Honolulu reaffirmed the timetables for complete withdrawal from Vietnam, *as well as the initial 1,000 main withdrawal, despite the recent coup in Vietnam.
> *
> *24 Nov 1963 - Memorandum for the Record of a Meeting, Executive Office Building, Washington, November 24, 1963, 3 p.m.
> Within two days of President Kennedy's death, on Sunday afternoon, President Johnson already began receiving advice that "we could not at this point or time give a particularly optimistic appraisal of the future" regarding Vietnam. President Johnson expressed dissatisfaction with the present course and particularly its emphasis on social reforms, and stated that "He was anxious to get along, win the war..."*
> 
> 26 Nov 1963 - National Security Action Memorandum No. 273
> NSAM 273 was drafted while President Kennedy was still alive, though he never saw the draft. The final version was signed by President Johnson on the day after the Kennedy funeral, November 26. Concerning troop withdrawal, it reiterated the "objectives" of the Oct 2 announcement without noting the October 11 implementation in NSAM 263. The wording of a section on covert action against North Vietnam was loosened significantly (see following document).
> 
> 26 Dec 1963 - 202-10002-10112: MILITARY OPERATIONS IN NORTH VIETNAM
> This memo to General Taylor discusses proposed covert actions against North Vietnam which were generated in the wake of the Kennedy assassination, after having been alluded to in one paragraph from NSAM 273. These OPLAN 34 activities would have as one of their effects the Gulf of Tonkin incident, used by President Johnson to obtain Congressional approval for dramatically escalating the war.
Click to expand...


Calling Robert McNamara an "adviser" doesn't come close to describing his relationship with JFK.

"According to Special Counsel Ted Sorensen, Kennedy regarded McNamara as the "star of his team, calling upon him for advice on a wide range of issues beyond national security, including business and economic matters."[15] McNamara became one of the few members of the Kennedy Administration to work and socialize with Kennedy, and he became so close to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy that he served as a pallbearer at the younger Kennedy's funeral in 1968.[16] McNamara's specialty was to statistically analyze the efficiency of fighting the protracted Vietnam War, including how to maximize the use of defoliants, bombs, and cannon.[17]"  Wikipedia


----------



## Oldstyle

You keep restating the fact that there was a "plan" to withdraw a thousand troops from South Vietnam...and I keep restating that "plan" was effectively abandoned a month after JFK asked that it be put together.  There is no proof what so ever that John F. Kennedy was ready to pull out of Vietnam and let the communists take control.  His speeches and comments to other world leaders at that time all point to a man who is still adamant about stemming the tide of communism worldwide.  

This attempt to "rewrite" the history of what JFK did in Vietnam is simply not backed up by the facts.  The FACT is that Kennedy escalated the war in just about every way possible.  He increased troop levels from under a thousand to more than sixteen thousand in a few scant years.  He introduced the policy of deforestation and forced relocation of civilians to keep them away from the influence of the Viet Minh.  He had US pilots flying hundreds of combat sorties, bombing and using napalm on hamlets "suspected" of being Viet Cong supporters.  Those are NOT the actions of someone who is adverse to conflict.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Because he was not just an employee of JFK...he was one of his best friends.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy had his circle of friends. Mac was an adviser. JFK didn't know McNamara before he chose his cabinet. McNamara came from the private sector. He was president of the Ford Motor Company.
> 
> Why would Francis Bator, who had been President Johnson's Deputy National Security Adviser, lie to protect Kennedy? The Johnson people have always tried to drag JFK into LBJ' war.
> 
> Francis Bator:
> "Professor Galbraith is correct that there was a plan to withdraw US forces from Vietnam, beginning with the first thousand by December 1963, and almost all of the rest by the end of 1965. President Kennedy had approved that plan. It was the actual policy of the United States on the day Kennedy died."
> 
> Did the official documents also lie to protect Kennedy??
> 
> Walkthrough - Vietnam in Late 1963
> 
> 20 Nov 1963 - Honolulu Meeting Briefing Book, Part I. See also Part II.
> The briefing books prepared for a Vietnam meeting in Honolulu reaffirmed the timetables for complete withdrawal from Vietnam, *as well as the initial 1,000 main withdrawal, despite the recent coup in Vietnam.
> *
> *24 Nov 1963 - Memorandum for the Record of a Meeting, Executive Office Building, Washington, November 24, 1963, 3 p.m.
> Within two days of President Kennedy's death, on Sunday afternoon, President Johnson already began receiving advice that "we could not at this point or time give a particularly optimistic appraisal of the future" regarding Vietnam. President Johnson expressed dissatisfaction with the present course and particularly its emphasis on social reforms, and stated that "He was anxious to get along, win the war..."*
> 
> 26 Nov 1963 - National Security Action Memorandum No. 273
> NSAM 273 was drafted while President Kennedy was still alive, though he never saw the draft. The final version was signed by President Johnson on the day after the Kennedy funeral, November 26. Concerning troop withdrawal, it reiterated the "objectives" of the Oct 2 announcement without noting the October 11 implementation in NSAM 263. The wording of a section on covert action against North Vietnam was loosened significantly (see following document).
> 
> 26 Dec 1963 - 202-10002-10112: MILITARY OPERATIONS IN NORTH VIETNAM
> This memo to General Taylor discusses proposed covert actions against North Vietnam which were generated in the wake of the Kennedy assassination, after having been alluded to in one paragraph from NSAM 273. These OPLAN 34 activities would have as one of their effects the Gulf of Tonkin incident, used by President Johnson to obtain Congressional approval for dramatically escalating the war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Calling Robert McNamara an "adviser" doesn't come close to describing his relationship with JFK.
> 
> "According to Special Counsel Ted Sorensen, Kennedy regarded McNamara as the "star of his team, calling upon him for advice on a wide range of issues beyond national security, including business and economic matters."[15] McNamara became one of the few members of the Kennedy Administration to work and socialize with Kennedy, and he became so close to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy that he served as a pallbearer at the younger Kennedy's funeral in 1968.[16] McNamara's specialty was to statistically analyze the efficiency of fighting the protracted Vietnam War, including how to maximize the use of defoliants, bombs, and cannon.[17]"  Wikipedia
Click to expand...


Was Francis Bator a pallbearer at Bobby Kennedy's funeral in 1968 too? Everyone knows LBJ and RFK were bosom buddies.

Two days after Kennedy was killed the strategy change drastically. LBJ expressed dissatisfaction with the present course and particularly its emphasis on social reforms, and stated that "He was anxious to get along, win the war..."

Did Khrushchev also lie to protect JFK when he wrote in his memoir, If Kennedy had lived, the two men could have brought peace to the world?


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> You keep restating the fact that there was a "plan" to withdraw a thousand troops from South Vietnam...and I keep restating that "plan" was effectively abandoned a month after JFK asked that it be put together.  There is no proof what so ever that John F. Kennedy was ready to pull out of Vietnam and let the communists take control.  His speeches and comments to other world leaders at that time all point to a man who is still adamant about stemming the tide of communism worldwide.
> 
> This attempt to "rewrite" the history of what JFK did in Vietnam is simply not backed up by the facts.  The FACT is that Kennedy escalated the war in just about every way possible.  He increased troop levels from under a thousand to more than sixteen thousand in a few scant years.  He introduced the policy of deforestation and forced relocation of civilians to keep them away from the influence of the Viet Minh.  He had US pilots flying hundreds of combat sorties, bombing and using napalm on hamlets "suspected" of being Viet Cong supporters.  Those are NOT the actions of someone who is adverse to conflict.



"War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."
John F. Kennedy

The plan was not abandoned. Two days before Kennedy was assassinated that plan was in place. And two days after Kennedy was assassinated that plan was drastically changed.

*20 Nov 1963* - Honolulu Meeting Briefing Book, Part I. See also Part II.
The briefing books prepared for a Vietnam meeting in Honolulu reaffirmed the timetables for complete withdrawal from Vietnam, as well as the initial 1,000 main withdrawal, despite the recent coup in Vietnam. 

*24 Nov 1963 *- Memorandum for the Record of a Meeting, Executive Office Building, Washington, November 24, 1963, 3 p.m.
Within two days of President Kennedy's death, on Sunday afternoon, President Johnson already began receiving advice that "we could not at this point or time give a particularly optimistic appraisal of the future" regarding Vietnam. President Johnson expressed dissatisfaction with the present course and particularly its emphasis on social reforms, and stated that "He was anxious to get along, win the war..."


----------



## Oldstyle

The "plan" was never even close to being implemented, Dude.  Almost as soon as it was formulated Kennedy came to the conclusion that the people who had been telling him the war was going so well that we could pull out and let the South Vietnamese "mop up" were full of it!

Once again...there is ZERO evidence that JFK was going to pull troops out of South Vietnam if he hadn't been assassinated in 1963!  He was just as adamant about stemming the spread of communism around the world and still believed the viability of the "domino theory".  There is no way in the world that Kennedy was going to pull out and let South Vietnam go over to the communists...especially right before an upcoming election.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy had his circle of friends. Mac was an adviser. JFK didn't know McNamara before he chose his cabinet. McNamara came from the private sector. He was president of the Ford Motor Company.
> 
> Why would Francis Bator, who had been President Johnson's Deputy National Security Adviser, lie to protect Kennedy? The Johnson people have always tried to drag JFK into LBJ' war.
> 
> Francis Bator:
> "Professor Galbraith is correct that there was a plan to withdraw US forces from Vietnam, beginning with the first thousand by December 1963, and almost all of the rest by the end of 1965. President Kennedy had approved that plan. It was the actual policy of the United States on the day Kennedy died."
> 
> Did the official documents also lie to protect Kennedy??
> 
> Walkthrough - Vietnam in Late 1963
> 
> 20 Nov 1963 - Honolulu Meeting Briefing Book, Part I. See also Part II.
> The briefing books prepared for a Vietnam meeting in Honolulu reaffirmed the timetables for complete withdrawal from Vietnam, *as well as the initial 1,000 main withdrawal, despite the recent coup in Vietnam.
> *
> *24 Nov 1963 - Memorandum for the Record of a Meeting, Executive Office Building, Washington, November 24, 1963, 3 p.m.
> Within two days of President Kennedy's death, on Sunday afternoon, President Johnson already began receiving advice that "we could not at this point or time give a particularly optimistic appraisal of the future" regarding Vietnam. President Johnson expressed dissatisfaction with the present course and particularly its emphasis on social reforms, and stated that "He was anxious to get along, win the war..."*
> 
> 26 Nov 1963 - National Security Action Memorandum No. 273
> NSAM 273 was drafted while President Kennedy was still alive, though he never saw the draft. The final version was signed by President Johnson on the day after the Kennedy funeral, November 26. Concerning troop withdrawal, it reiterated the "objectives" of the Oct 2 announcement without noting the October 11 implementation in NSAM 263. The wording of a section on covert action against North Vietnam was loosened significantly (see following document).
> 
> 26 Dec 1963 - 202-10002-10112: MILITARY OPERATIONS IN NORTH VIETNAM
> This memo to General Taylor discusses proposed covert actions against North Vietnam which were generated in the wake of the Kennedy assassination, after having been alluded to in one paragraph from NSAM 273. These OPLAN 34 activities would have as one of their effects the Gulf of Tonkin incident, used by President Johnson to obtain Congressional approval for dramatically escalating the war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Calling Robert McNamara an "adviser" doesn't come close to describing his relationship with JFK.
> 
> "According to Special Counsel Ted Sorensen, Kennedy regarded McNamara as the "star of his team, calling upon him for advice on a wide range of issues beyond national security, including business and economic matters."[15] McNamara became one of the few members of the Kennedy Administration to work and socialize with Kennedy, and he became so close to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy that he served as a pallbearer at the younger Kennedy's funeral in 1968.[16] McNamara's specialty was to statistically analyze the efficiency of fighting the protracted Vietnam War, including how to maximize the use of defoliants, bombs, and cannon.[17]"  Wikipedia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was Francis Bator a pallbearer at Bobby Kennedy's funeral in 1968 too? Everyone knows LBJ and RFK were bosom buddies.
> 
> Two days after Kennedy was killed the strategy change drastically. LBJ expressed dissatisfaction with the present course and particularly its emphasis on social reforms, and stated that "He was anxious to get along, win the war..."
> 
> Did Khrushchev also lie to protect JFK when he wrote in his memoir, If Kennedy had lived, the two men could have brought peace to the world?
Click to expand...


Did Khrushchev lie?  Yes, I believe he did.  He and Kennedy were hardly bosom buddies, especially after the Cuban Missile Crisis.  Why would Khrushchev make that statement?  To embellish his own importance.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Calling Robert McNamara an "adviser" doesn't come close to describing his relationship with JFK.
> 
> "According to Special Counsel Ted Sorensen, Kennedy regarded McNamara as the "star of his team, calling upon him for advice on a wide range of issues beyond national security, including business and economic matters."[15] McNamara became one of the few members of the Kennedy Administration to work and socialize with Kennedy, and he became so close to Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy that he served as a pallbearer at the younger Kennedy's funeral in 1968.[16] McNamara's specialty was to statistically analyze the efficiency of fighting the protracted Vietnam War, including how to maximize the use of defoliants, bombs, and cannon.[17]"  Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was Francis Bator a pallbearer at Bobby Kennedy's funeral in 1968 too? Everyone knows LBJ and RFK were bosom buddies.
> 
> Two days after Kennedy was killed the strategy change drastically. LBJ expressed dissatisfaction with the present course and particularly its emphasis on social reforms, and stated that "He was anxious to get along, win the war..."
> 
> Did Khrushchev also lie to protect JFK when he wrote in his memoir, If Kennedy had lived, the two men could have brought peace to the world?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did Khrushchev lie?  Yes, I believe he did.  He and Kennedy were hardly bosom buddies, especially after the Cuban Missile Crisis.  Why would Khrushchev make that statement?  To embellish his own importance.
Click to expand...


You clearly don't know history. You are fabricating your own version. Everyone is a liar, and has an agenda except you.

You don't even believe official documents, official meeting notes, LBJ's Deputy National Security Adviser.

Documents and tapes released under the JFK Records Act prove I am right. You are trying to project based on what you feel, not what is FACT.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was Francis Bator a pallbearer at Bobby Kennedy's funeral in 1968 too? Everyone knows LBJ and RFK were bosom buddies.
> 
> Two days after Kennedy was killed the strategy change drastically. LBJ expressed dissatisfaction with the present course and particularly its emphasis on social reforms, and stated that "He was anxious to get along, win the war..."
> 
> Did Khrushchev also lie to protect JFK when he wrote in his memoir, If Kennedy had lived, the two men could have brought peace to the world?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did Khrushchev lie?  Yes, I believe he did.  He and Kennedy were hardly bosom buddies, especially after the Cuban Missile Crisis.  Why would Khrushchev make that statement?  To embellish his own importance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You clearly don't know history. You are fabricating your own version. Everyone is a liar, and has an agenda except you.
> 
> You don't even believe official documents, official meeting notes, LBJ's Deputy National Security Adviser.
> 
> Documents and tapes released under the JFK Records Act prove I am right. You are trying to project based on what you feel, not what is FACT.
Click to expand...


The people that are "projecting" are the people who take the order by Kennedy to look into the feasibility of withdrawing a thousand troops because he had been led to believe the situation in South Vietnam was so good...and state THAT order meant Kennedy intended to end the Vietnam war.  The "fabrication" here is that Kennedy was about to abandon South Vietnam and let it be taken over by the communists and that was snuffed out by Oswald's bullets.  

You've got a President who increased the number of troops from under a thousand to over 16,000 in just two years!  You've got a President who authorized a total change of the use of those troops from advisers to participants.  You've got a President who changed the very conduct of the war with widespread bombing, the use of napalm and defoliants.  You've got a President who just went toe to toe with the Soviets over missiles in Cuba and Turkey and drew a line in the proverbial sand yet you think THAT President would have been willing to simply walk away from a conflict with the communists in Vietnam and let South Vietnam fall?  If that WAS the case then why did we back the coup against the Diem brothers?  Why did we replace the leadership in a country that we were about to abandon?  You replace Diem because you realize that his government is so corrupt that you can't win a war with him as your partner.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did Khrushchev lie?  Yes, I believe he did.  He and Kennedy were hardly bosom buddies, especially after the Cuban Missile Crisis.  Why would Khrushchev make that statement?  To embellish his own importance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You clearly don't know history. You are fabricating your own version. Everyone is a liar, and has an agenda except you.
> 
> You don't even believe official documents, official meeting notes, LBJ's Deputy National Security Adviser.
> 
> Documents and tapes released under the JFK Records Act prove I am right. You are trying to project based on what you feel, not what is FACT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The people that are "projecting" are the people who take the order by Kennedy to look into the feasibility of withdrawing a thousand troops because he had been led to believe the situation in South Vietnam was so good...and state THAT order meant Kennedy intended to end the Vietnam war.  The "fabrication" here is that Kennedy was about to abandon South Vietnam and let it be taken over by the communists and that was snuffed out by Oswald's bullets.
> 
> You've got a President who increased the number of troops from under a thousand to over 16,000 in just two years!  You've got a President who authorized a total change of the use of those troops from advisers to participants.  You've got a President who changed the very conduct of the war with widespread bombing, the use of napalm and defoliants.  You've got a President who just went toe to toe with the Soviets over missiles in Cuba and Turkey and drew a line in the proverbial sand yet you think THAT President would have been willing to simply walk away from a conflict with the communists in Vietnam and let South Vietnam fall?  If that WAS the case then why did we back the coup against the Diem brothers?  Why did we replace the leadership in a country that we were about to abandon?  You replace Diem because you realize that his government is so corrupt that you can't win a war with him as your partner.
Click to expand...


Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.
Daniel Patrick Moynihan

You have every right to your opinion, but the FACT remains that the policy in place the day Kennedy died was withdrawal of 1,000 advisers by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965. Kennedy did NOT abandon that policy, and the responsibility for changes rest with his successor, NOT President Kennedy.



Jackie Kennedy&#8217;s Letter to Khrushchev: My Last Nights in the White House
By Jacqueline Kennedy


Washington, December 1, 1963.

Dear Mr. Chairman President,

I would like to thank you for sending Mr. Mikoyan as your representative to my husband&#8217;s funeral.

He looked so upset when he came through the line, and I was very moved.

I tried to give him a message for you that day&#8212;but as it was such a terrible day for me, I do not know if my words came out as I meant them to.

So now, in one of the last nights I will spend in the White House, in one of the last letters I will write on this paper at the White House, I would like to write you my message.

I send it only because I know how much my husband cared about peace, and how the relation between you and him was central to this care in his mind. He used to quote your words in some of his speeches-&#8221;In the next war the survivors will envy the dead.&#8221;

You and he were adversaries, but you were allied in a determination that the world should not be blown up. You respected each other and could deal with each other. I know that President Johnson will make every effort to establish the same relationship with you.

The danger which troubled my husband was that war might be started not so much by the big men as by the little ones.

While big men know the needs for self-control and restraint&#8212;little men are sometimes moved more by fear and pride. If only in the future the big men can continue to make the little ones sit down and talk, before they start to fight.

I know that President Johnson will continue the policy in which my husband so deeply believed&#8212;a policy of control and restraint&#8212;and he will need your help.

I send this letter because I know so deeply of the importance of the relationship which existed between you and my husband, and also because of your kindness, and that of Mrs. Khrushcheva in Vienna.

I read that she had tears in her eyes when she left the American Embassy in Moscow, after signing the book of mourning. Please thank her for that.

Sincerely,
Jacqueline Kennedy


----------



## Oldstyle

The FACT is that Kennedy *increased* the number of troops in South Vietnam from under a thousand when he took office to over sixteen thousand when he was killed.  He *never *withdrew troops.


----------



## Oldstyle

As for Jackie Kennedy?  Remind me why I should expect the thoughts of one of the more vacuous First Ladies in the history of our nation to sway my opinion on her late husband's politics?  Jackie Kennedy didn't know her hubby was screwing most of the females in the Western hemisphere...but she's suddenly an expert on politics?  Please...


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> As for Jackie Kennedy?  Remind me why I should expect the thoughts of one of the more vacuous First Ladies in the history of our nation to sway my opinion on her late husband's politics?  Jackie Kennedy didn't know her hubby was screwing most of the females in the Western hemisphere...but she's suddenly an expert on politics?  Please...



WOW, you really are a septic piece of shit aren't you. 

Vacuous? Jackie Kennedy not only knew about Jack's womanizing, she tried to get him back by having affairs with William Holden and Fiat founder Gianni Agnelli.


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for Jackie Kennedy?  Remind me why I should expect the thoughts of one of the more vacuous First Ladies in the history of our nation to sway my opinion on her late husband's politics?  Jackie Kennedy didn't know her hubby was screwing most of the females in the Western hemisphere...but she's suddenly an expert on politics?  Please...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, you really are a septic piece of shit aren't you.
> 
> Vacuous? Jackie Kennedy not only knew about Jack's womanizing, she tried to get him back by having affairs with William Holden and Fiat founder Gianni Agnelli.
Click to expand...


You really believe this shit don't you?  Lmao 

tapatalk post


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> The FACT is that Kennedy *increased* the number of troops in South Vietnam from under a thousand when he took office to over sixteen thousand when he was killed.  He *never *withdrew troops.



Kennedy increased the number of military personnel in Vietnam to over sixteen thousand. Then he had ordered the withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and all troops by the end of 1965 on the day he died. He never sent in any divisions, didn't fabricate a wars act, lobby Congress or sign a resolution for the use of "conventional'' military force in Southeast Asia or Americanize the Vietnam war. To try to pin what happened after he died to him is ignorant and dishonest.

March 8, 1965 - The first U.S. combat troops arrive in Vietnam.


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for Jackie Kennedy?  Remind me why I should expect the thoughts of one of the more vacuous First Ladies in the history of our nation to sway my opinion on her late husband's politics?  Jackie Kennedy didn't know her hubby was screwing most of the females in the Western hemisphere...but she's suddenly an expert on politics?  Please...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, you really are a septic piece of shit aren't you.
> 
> Vacuous? Jackie Kennedy not only knew about Jack's womanizing, she tried to get him back by having affairs with William Holden and Fiat founder Gianni Agnelli.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really believe this shit don't you?  Lmao
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


It's the truth, why shouldn't I believe it?

And Jackie Kennedy at the ripe old age of 34 faced the grief of her husband's murder with steadiness, courage, grace and honor. She had the wherewithal to take an active role in planning the details of her husband's state funeral, which was based on Abraham Lincoln's. And when she returned from burying her husband, she held a birthday party for John Jr.

Jackie Kennedy showed America how to handle tragedy.


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The FACT is that Kennedy *increased* the number of troops in South Vietnam from under a thousand when he took office to over sixteen thousand when he was killed.  He *never *withdrew troops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy increased the number of military personnel in Vietnam to over sixteen thousand. Then he had ordered the withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and all troops by the end of 1965 on the day he died. He never sent in any divisions, didn't fabricate a wars act, lobby Congress or sign a resolution for the use of "conventional'' military force in Southeast Asia or Americanize the Vietnam war. To try to pin what happened after he died to him is ignorant and dishonest.
> 
> March 8, 1965 - The first U.S. combat troops arrive in Vietnam.
Click to expand...


Still believe in the tooth fairy as well? 

tapatalk post


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, you really are a septic piece of shit aren't you.
> 
> Vacuous? Jackie Kennedy not only knew about Jack's womanizing, she tried to get him back by having affairs with William Holden and Fiat founder Gianni Agnelli.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really believe this shit don't you?  Lmao
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's the truth, why shouldn't I believe it?
> 
> And Jackie Kennedy at the ripe old age of 34 faced the grief of her husband's murder with steadiness, courage, grace and honor. She had the wherewithal to take an active role in planning the details of her husband's state funeral, which was based on Abraham Lincoln's. And when she returned from burying her husband, she held a birthday party for John Jr.
> 
> Jackie Kennedy showed America how to handle tragedy.
Click to expand...


She was a weak woman who should have divorced her whoring  husband. Much like the gutless Hillary Clinton should have done.

tapatalk post


----------



## thanatos144

Of course if you did write a divorce JFK she probably in the dead like Teddys secretary

tapatalk post


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The FACT is that Kennedy *increased* the number of troops in South Vietnam from under a thousand when he took office to over sixteen thousand when he was killed.  He *never *withdrew troops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy increased the number of military personnel in Vietnam to over sixteen thousand. Then he had ordered the withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and all troops by the end of 1965 on the day he died. He never sent in any divisions, didn't fabricate a wars act, lobby Congress or sign a resolution for the use of "conventional'' military force in Southeast Asia or Americanize the Vietnam war. To try to pin what happened after he died to him is ignorant and dishonest.
> 
> March 8, 1965 - The first U.S. combat troops arrive in Vietnam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still believe in the tooth fairy as well?
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


I believe in FACTS. That is what I presented. If you can bring proof that they are not FACTS, have at it...


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really believe this shit don't you?  Lmao
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the truth, why shouldn't I believe it?
> 
> And Jackie Kennedy at the ripe old age of 34 faced the grief of her husband's murder with steadiness, courage, grace and honor. She had the wherewithal to take an active role in planning the details of her husband's state funeral, which was based on Abraham Lincoln's. And when she returned from burying her husband, she held a birthday party for John Jr.
> 
> Jackie Kennedy showed America how to handle tragedy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was a weak woman who should have divorced her whoring  husband. Much like the gutless Hillary Clinton should have done.
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


You right wing scum are sub human slime.


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy increased the number of military personnel in Vietnam to over sixteen thousand. Then he had ordered the withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and all troops by the end of 1965 on the day he died. He never sent in any divisions, didn't fabricate a wars act, lobby Congress or sign a resolution for the use of "conventional'' military force in Southeast Asia or Americanize the Vietnam war. To try to pin what happened after he died to him is ignorant and dishonest.
> 
> March 8, 1965 - The first U.S. combat troops arrive in Vietnam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still believe in the tooth fairy as well?
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I believe in FACTS. That is what I presented. If you can bring proof that they are not FACTS, have at it...
Click to expand...


You bring night facts what you bring is a myth created by the media and Democrats the entire Kennedy family are full of rapist murderers and rum runners the equivalent of a drug dealer

tapatalk post


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the truth, why shouldn't I believe it?
> 
> And Jackie Kennedy at the ripe old age of 34 faced the grief of her husband's murder with steadiness, courage, grace and honor. She had the wherewithal to take an active role in planning the details of her husband's state funeral, which was based on Abraham Lincoln's. And when she returned from burying her husband, she held a birthday party for John Jr.
> 
> Jackie Kennedy showed America how to handle tragedy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She was a weak woman who should have divorced her whoring  husband. Much like the gutless Hillary Clinton should have done.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You right wing scum are sub human slime.
Click to expand...


No we just like to treat women as actual human beings unlike you left wing

tapatalk post


----------



## thanatos144

Camelot never f****** happened

tapatalk post


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still believe in the tooth fairy as well?
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in FACTS. That is what I presented. If you can bring proof that they are not FACTS, have at it...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You bring night facts what you bring is a myth created by the media and Democrats the entire Kennedy family are full of rapist murderers and rum runners the equivalent of a drug dealer
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


WHAT language is that sentence? Your ignorance is showing.


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I believe in FACTS. That is what I presented. If you can bring proof that they are not FACTS, have at it...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You bring night facts what you bring is a myth created by the media and Democrats the entire Kennedy family are full of rapist murderers and rum runners the equivalent of a drug dealer
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WHAT language is that sentence? Your ignorance is showing.
Click to expand...


No you f****** idiot my spell check is showing. I can't help it that you worship thugs  and murders  on like I

tapatalk post


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> She was a weak woman who should have divorced her whoring  husband. Much like the gutless Hillary Clinton should have done.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You right wing scum are sub human slime.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No we just like to treat women as actual human beings unlike you left wing
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


That's why YOU want to decide what a woman can do with her uterus.


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You bring night facts what you bring is a myth created by the media and Democrats the entire Kennedy family are full of rapist murderers and rum runners the equivalent of a drug dealer
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT language is that sentence? Your ignorance is showing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No you f****** idiot my spell check is showing. I can't help it that you worship thugs  and burgers on like I
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


ROFLMAO! You really are an ignorant one. 'burgers'...from McDonalds? 'on like I'?


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You right wing scum are sub human slime.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No we just like to treat women as actual human beings unlike you left wing
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That's why YOU want to decide what a woman can do with her uterus.
Click to expand...


No I just don't believe in killing innocent babies like you do

tapatalk post


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> WHAT language is that sentence? Your ignorance is showing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No you f****** idiot my spell check is showing. I can't help it that you worship thugs  and burgers on like I
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> ROFLMAO! You really are an ignorant one. 'burgers'...from McDonalds? 'on like I'?
Click to expand...


Again spellchecker.  

tapatalk post


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No we just like to treat women as actual human beings unlike you left wing
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why YOU want to decide what a woman can do with her uterus.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No I just don't believe in killing innocent babies like you do
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


They are not 'babies', and it is not YOUR decision. If YOU don't want to have an abortion, DON'T have one. And keep your nose out of other people's lives.


----------



## Sallow

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really believe this shit don't you?  Lmao
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's the truth, why shouldn't I believe it?
> 
> And Jackie Kennedy at the ripe old age of 34 faced the grief of her husband's murder with steadiness, courage, grace and honor. She had the wherewithal to take an active role in planning the details of her husband's state funeral, which was based on Abraham Lincoln's. And when she returned from burying her husband, she held a birthday party for John Jr.
> 
> Jackie Kennedy showed America how to handle tragedy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She was a weak woman who should have divorced her whoring  husband. Much like the gutless Hillary Clinton should have done.
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


You married?

Like ever?


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's why YOU want to decide what a woman can do with her uterus.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No I just don't believe in killing innocent babies like you do
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not 'babies', and it is not YOUR decision. If YOU don't want to have an abortion, DON'T have one. And keep your nose out of other people's lives.
Click to expand...


They are babies and also human an innocent killing them is a pathetic disgusting action did you ask the baby if they wanted to be sucked up by vacuum and chopped up into pieces? It is their body after all 

tapatalk post


----------



## thanatos144

Sallow said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's the truth, why shouldn't I believe it?
> 
> And Jackie Kennedy at the ripe old age of 34 faced the grief of her husband's murder with steadiness, courage, grace and honor. She had the wherewithal to take an active role in planning the details of her husband's state funeral, which was based on Abraham Lincoln's. And when she returned from burying her husband, she held a birthday party for John Jr.
> 
> Jackie Kennedy showed America how to handle tragedy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She was a weak woman who should have divorced her whoring  husband. Much like the gutless Hillary Clinton should have done.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You married?
> 
> Like ever?
Click to expand...


Of course I am married I treat women as more then a cum bucket like you liberals do. 

tapatalk post


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> No I just don't believe in killing innocent babies like you do
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are not 'babies', and it is not YOUR decision. If YOU don't want to have an abortion, DON'T have one. And keep your nose out of other people's lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are babies and also human an innocent killing them is a pathetic disgusting action did you ask the baby if they wanted to be sucked up by vacuum and chopped up into pieces? It is their body after all
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


They are not 'babies'. SO, a woman is not capable of making that decision? Why is that? Is it HER body?


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are not 'babies', and it is not YOUR decision. If YOU don't want to have an abortion, DON'T have one. And keep your nose out of other people's lives.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are babies and also human an innocent killing them is a pathetic disgusting action did you ask the baby if they wanted to be sucked up by vacuum and chopped up into pieces? It is their body after all
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are not 'babies'. SO, a woman is not capable of making that decision? Why is that? Is it HER body?
Click to expand...


They are a baby and lying to yourself doesn't change that 

tapatalk post


----------



## Sallow

thanatos144 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> She was a weak woman who should have divorced her whoring  husband. Much like the gutless Hillary Clinton should have done.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You married?
> 
> Like ever?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course I am married I treat women as more then a cum bucket like you liberals do.
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Is she made of plastic?

Or rubber?


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are babies and also human an innocent killing them is a pathetic disgusting action did you ask the baby if they wanted to be sucked up by vacuum and chopped up into pieces? It is their body after all
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are not 'babies'. SO, a woman is not capable of making that decision? Why is that? Is it HER body?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They are a baby and lying to yourself doesn't change that
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


SO, a woman is not capable of making that decision? Why is that?


----------



## thanatos144

Sallow said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> You married?
> 
> Like ever?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I am married I treat women as more then a cum bucket like you liberals do.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Is she made of plastic?
> 
> Or rubber?
Click to expand...


This is me not you 

tapatalk post


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are not 'babies'. SO, a woman is not capable of making that decision? Why is that? Is it HER body?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are a baby and lying to yourself doesn't change that
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SO, a woman is not capable of making that decision? Why is that?
Click to expand...


She did the minute she decided to have sex. Responsibility can not be murdered away.  

tapatalk post


----------



## thanatos144

I never understood why you ignorant progressives always seem to think that talking about killing babies means  you automatically win any argument only in your twisted mind is dead babies a good thing

tapatalk post


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are a baby and lying to yourself doesn't change that
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SO, a woman is not capable of making that decision? Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She did the minute she decided to have sex. Responsibility can not be murdered away.
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


SO, you not only want to control a woman's uterus, you want to control when she opens and closes her legs. 

Those decisions are HER responsibility...NOT YOURS!


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> I never understood why you ignorant progressives always seem to think that talking about killing babies means  you automatically win any argument only in your twisted mind is dead babies a good thing
> 
> tapatalk post



They are not 'babies' and it is not 'murder', no matter how many times you grunt your ignorance.

I never understood why you ignorant right wingers always seem to think that calling a fertilized egg a 'baby' and calling a legal medical procedure 'murder' means  you automatically win any argument.


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I never understood why you ignorant progressives always seem to think that talking about killing babies means  you automatically win any argument only in your twisted mind is dead babies a good thing
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They are not 'babies' and it is not 'murder', no matter how many times you grunt your ignorance.
> 
> I never understood why you ignorant right wingers always seem to think that calling a fertilized egg a 'baby' and calling a legal medical procedure 'murder' means  you automatically win any argument.
Click to expand...


Do you think anytime a woman has sex it is rape? 

tapatalk post


----------



## Sallow

thanatos144 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course I am married I treat women as more then a cum bucket like you liberals do.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Is she made of plastic?
> 
> Or rubber?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is me not you
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Well you don't seem like you are married to a real live flesh and blood person, otherwise you'd realize that marriage is complicated.

It's also private and none of anyone's business.


----------



## Sallow

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> They are a baby and lying to yourself doesn't change that
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SO, a woman is not capable of making that decision? Why is that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> She did the minute she decided to have sex. Responsibility can not be murdered away.
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


So you are concerned about what here, life in general? Human life? American life? What?

What's your problem with abortion?


----------



## thanatos144

Sallow said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> SO, a woman is not capable of making that decision? Why is that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> She did the minute she decided to have sex. Responsibility can not be murdered away.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you are concerned about what here, life in general? Human life? American life? What?
> 
> What's your problem with abortion?
Click to expand...


Murdering innocent babies is wrong. I didn't bring it up 

tapatalk post


----------



## Sallow

thanatos144 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> She did the minute she decided to have sex. Responsibility can not be murdered away.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you are concerned about what here, life in general? Human life? American life? What?
> 
> What's your problem with abortion?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Murdering innocent babies is wrong. I didn't bring it up
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


So it's just babies you are concerned about? Or babies in America? What?


----------



## Papageorgio

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The FACT is that Kennedy *increased* the number of troops in South Vietnam from under a thousand when he took office to over sixteen thousand when he was killed.  He *never *withdrew troops.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy increased the number of military personnel in Vietnam to over sixteen thousand. Then he had ordered the withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and all troops by the end of 1965 on the day he died. He never sent in any divisions, didn't fabricate a wars act, lobby Congress or sign a resolution for the use of "conventional'' military force in Southeast Asia or Americanize the Vietnam war. To try to pin what happened after he died to him is ignorant and dishonest.
> 
> March 8, 1965 - The first U.S. combat troops arrive in Vietnam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Still believe in the tooth fairy as well?
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Funny how they inhale certain propaganda. Facts are irrelevant.


----------



## thanatos144

Sallow said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you are concerned about what here, life in general? Human life? American life? What?
> 
> What's your problem with abortion?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Murdering innocent babies is wrong. I didn't bring it up
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So it's just babies you are concerned about? Or babies in America? What?
Click to expand...


Awww kook at the village idiot try a lay a trap lol 

tapatalk post


----------



## Bfgrn

Papageorgio said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy increased the number of military personnel in Vietnam to over sixteen thousand. Then he had ordered the withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and all troops by the end of 1965 on the day he died. He never sent in any divisions, didn't fabricate a wars act, lobby Congress or sign a resolution for the use of "conventional'' military force in Southeast Asia or Americanize the Vietnam war. To try to pin what happened after he died to him is ignorant and dishonest.
> 
> March 8, 1965 - The first U.S. combat troops arrive in Vietnam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Still believe in the tooth fairy as well?
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how they inhale certain propaganda. Facts are irrelevant.
Click to expand...


Those ARE the facts. You are welcome to try to dispute them, but you won't. Why? Because you CAN'T. You can only hail insults, then cut & run.


----------



## Papageorgio

Bfgrn said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Still believe in the tooth fairy as well?
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how they inhale certain propaganda. Facts are irrelevant.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Those ARE the facts. You are welcome to try to dispute them, but you won't. Why? Because you CAN'T. You can only hail insults, then cut & run.
Click to expand...


No, because I post and try to work with the ignorant and they are to ignorant to admit when proven wrong. So why bother, you prove how ignorant, intolerant and hateful you are with every post. No need to help you out.


----------



## Bfgrn

Papageorgio said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how they inhale certain propaganda. Facts are irrelevant.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Those ARE the facts. You are welcome to try to dispute them, but you won't. Why? Because you CAN'T. You can only hail insults, then cut & run.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, because I post and try to work with the ignorant and they are to ignorant to admit when proven wrong. So why bother, you prove how ignorant, intolerant and hateful you are with every post. No need to help you out.
Click to expand...


Translation...game, set match Bfgrn...


FACTS:

On October 2, 1963, President Kennedy made clear his determination to implement those plansto withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963, and to get almost all the rest out by the end of 1965. There followed, on October 4, a memorandum titled South Vietnam Actions from General Maxwell Taylor to his fellow Joint Chiefs of Staff, Generals May, Wheeler, Shoup, and Admiral McDonald, that reads:

    b. The program currently in progress to train Vietnamese forces will be reviewed and accelerated as necessary to insure that all essential functions visualized to be required for the projected operational environment, to include those now performed by U.S. military units and personnel, can be assumed properly by the Vietnamese by the end of calendar year 1965. *All planning will be directed towards preparing RVN forces for the withdrawal of all U.S. special assistance units and personnel by the end of calendar year 1965.* (Emphasis added.)

All planning is an unconditional phrase. There is no contingency here, or elsewhere in this memorandum. The next paragraph reads:

    c. Execute the plan to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963 per your DTG 212201Z July, and as approved for planning by JCS DTG 062042Z September. *Previous guidance on the public affairs annex is altered to the extent that the action will now be treated in low key, as the initial increment of U.S. forces whose presence is no longer required* because (a) Vietnamese forces have been trained to assume the function involved; or (b) the function for which they came to Vietnam has been completed. (Emphasis added.)

THIS was the official US policy on the day President Kennedy died.


----------



## Sallow

thanatos144 said:


> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Murdering innocent babies is wrong. I didn't bring it up
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So it's just babies you are concerned about? Or babies in America? What?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Awww kook at the village idiot try a lay a trap lol
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


It's not a "trap" man.

It's BAU for you.

We've done this dance before.

You come up short.

You are all for war, the death penalty, stand your ground and a plethora of other stuff that involves killing human beings you don't like.

So really?

You are just a hypocrite.

Just say it.

Be proud.

Own it.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for Jackie Kennedy?  Remind me why I should expect the thoughts of one of the more vacuous First Ladies in the history of our nation to sway my opinion on her late husband's politics?  Jackie Kennedy didn't know her hubby was screwing most of the females in the Western hemisphere...but she's suddenly an expert on politics?  Please...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, you really are a septic piece of shit aren't you.
> 
> Vacuous? Jackie Kennedy not only knew about Jack's womanizing, she tried to get him back by having affairs with William Holden and Fiat founder Gianni Agnelli.
Click to expand...


So having affairs makes Jackie Kennedy "less" vacuous?  Interesting concept...


----------



## Sallow

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> As for Jackie Kennedy?  Remind me why I should expect the thoughts of one of the more vacuous First Ladies in the history of our nation to sway my opinion on her late husband's politics?  Jackie Kennedy didn't know her hubby was screwing most of the females in the Western hemisphere...but she's suddenly an expert on politics?  Please...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, you really are a septic piece of shit aren't you.
> 
> Vacuous? Jackie Kennedy not only knew about Jack's womanizing, she tried to get him back by having affairs with William Holden and Fiat founder Gianni Agnelli.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So having affairs makes Jackie Kennedy "less" vacuous?  Interesting concept...
Click to expand...


It makes her human.

We all can't be saints.

Like conservatives.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Those ARE the facts. You are welcome to try to dispute them, but you won't. Why? Because you CAN'T. You can only hail insults, then cut & run.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No, because I post and try to work with the ignorant and they are to ignorant to admit when proven wrong. So why bother, you prove how ignorant, intolerant and hateful you are with every post. No need to help you out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Translation...game, set match Bfgrn...
> 
> 
> FACTS:
> 
> On October 2, 1963, President Kennedy made clear his determination to implement those plans&#8212;to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963, and to get almost all the rest out by the end of 1965. There followed, on October 4, a memorandum titled &#8220;South Vietnam Actions&#8221; from General Maxwell Taylor to his fellow Joint Chiefs of Staff, Generals May, Wheeler, Shoup, and Admiral McDonald, that reads:
> 
> b. The program currently in progress to train Vietnamese forces will be reviewed and accelerated as necessary to insure that all essential functions visualized to be required for the projected operational environment, to include those now performed by U.S. military units and personnel, can be assumed properly by the Vietnamese by the end of calendar year 1965. *All planning will be directed towards preparing RVN forces for the withdrawal of all U.S. special assistance units and personnel by the end of calendar year 1965.* (Emphasis added.)
> 
> &#8220;All planning&#8221; is an unconditional phrase. There is no contingency here, or elsewhere in this memorandum. The next paragraph reads:
> 
> c. Execute the plan to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963 per your DTG 212201Z July, and as approved for planning by JCS DTG 062042Z September. *Previous guidance on the public affairs annex is altered to the extent that the action will now be treated in low key, as the initial increment of U.S. forces whose presence is no longer required* because (a) Vietnamese forces have been trained to assume the function involved; or (b) the function for which they came to Vietnam has been completed. (Emphasis added.)
> 
> THIS was the official US policy on the day President Kennedy died.
Click to expand...


It's quite simple, Bfgrn...were *any* troops withdrawn under John F. Kennedy's Administration and if so who and when?  Until you can show me where Kennedy actually DID draw down troops then all you've got to back up your contentions are the statements of people deeply involved in perpetuating the Kennedy "myth".


----------



## Oldstyle

Sallow said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> WOW, you really are a septic piece of shit aren't you.
> 
> Vacuous? Jackie Kennedy not only knew about Jack's womanizing, she tried to get him back by having affairs with William Holden and Fiat founder Gianni Agnelli.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So having affairs makes Jackie Kennedy "less" vacuous?  Interesting concept...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It makes her human.
> 
> We all can't be saints.
> 
> Like conservatives.
Click to expand...


It might make her human but doesn't change a thing as far as her being vacuous is concerned.  Have any of you ever listened to interviews with Jackie Kennedy?  She is the epitome of vacuous!


----------



## Oldstyle

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZN_rzm60cQI]Jacqueline Kennedy: In Her Own Words - YouTube[/ame]


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, because I post and try to work with the ignorant and they are to ignorant to admit when proven wrong. So why bother, you prove how ignorant, intolerant and hateful you are with every post. No need to help you out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Translation...game, set match Bfgrn...
> 
> 
> FACTS:
> 
> On October 2, 1963, President Kennedy made clear his determination to implement those plansto withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963, and to get almost all the rest out by the end of 1965. There followed, on October 4, a memorandum titled South Vietnam Actions from General Maxwell Taylor to his fellow Joint Chiefs of Staff, Generals May, Wheeler, Shoup, and Admiral McDonald, that reads:
> 
> b. The program currently in progress to train Vietnamese forces will be reviewed and accelerated as necessary to insure that all essential functions visualized to be required for the projected operational environment, to include those now performed by U.S. military units and personnel, can be assumed properly by the Vietnamese by the end of calendar year 1965. *All planning will be directed towards preparing RVN forces for the withdrawal of all U.S. special assistance units and personnel by the end of calendar year 1965.* (Emphasis added.)
> 
> All planning is an unconditional phrase. There is no contingency here, or elsewhere in this memorandum. The next paragraph reads:
> 
> c. Execute the plan to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963 per your DTG 212201Z July, and as approved for planning by JCS DTG 062042Z September. *Previous guidance on the public affairs annex is altered to the extent that the action will now be treated in low key, as the initial increment of U.S. forces whose presence is no longer required* because (a) Vietnamese forces have been trained to assume the function involved; or (b) the function for which they came to Vietnam has been completed. (Emphasis added.)
> 
> THIS was the official US policy on the day President Kennedy died.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's quite simple, Bfgrn...were *any* troops withdrawn under John F. Kennedy's Administration and if so who and when?  Until you can show me where Kennedy actually DID draw down troops then all you've got to back up your contentions are the statements of people deeply involved in perpetuating the Kennedy "myth".
Click to expand...


I will make even more simple...show me JFK lived to the end of 1963.

Then, please tell me what the official policy was the day Kennedy died. And no obfuscation, just the cold hard facts.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Jacqueline Kennedy: In Her Own Words - YouTube



A 'vacuous' woman wouldn't be capable of defining their relationship as "Victorian or Asiatic"


----------



## Oldstyle

Kennedy DIDN'T live the to the end of 1963!  He also didn't withdraw any troops in 1963!  What YOU have is people who are heavily invested in the Kennedy "myth" putting forth a narrative of what they think he would have done if he wasn't killed...a narrative that is solely based on the plan Kennedy had drawn up before the fall of the Diem brothers and the realization that South Vietnam was in no way able to go it alone.  Johnson *continued* the Kennedy agenda in Vietnam!  That wasn't troop withdrawals...it was a steady increase in the number of troops being sent there.

You want the "cold hard facts"?  The *only* President that withdrew troops from Vietnam was Richard Nixon.


----------



## Oldstyle

1


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jacqueline Kennedy: In Her Own Words - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A 'vacuous' woman wouldn't be capable of defining their relationship as "Victorian or Asiatic"
Click to expand...


A "vacuous" woman would make statements like "Where do I get my opinions?  From my husband of course!"

I'm sorry but that film piece paints Jackie Kennedy as "arm candy" without a brain in her pretty little head.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Kennedy DIDN'T live the to the end of 1963!  He also didn't withdraw any troops in 1963!  What YOU have is people who are heavily invested in the Kennedy "myth" putting forth a narrative of what they think he would have done if he wasn't killed...a narrative that is solely based on the plan Kennedy had drawn up before the fall of the Diem brothers and the realization that South Vietnam was in no way able to go it alone.  Johnson *continued* the Kennedy agenda in Vietnam!  That wasn't troop withdrawals...it was a steady increase in the number of troops being sent there.
> 
> You want the "cold hard facts"?  The *only* President that withdrew troops from Vietnam was Richard Nixon.



Dishonest. You are telling us about you, not JFK.

These are not 'op-ed' pieces, they are official policy records.

*20 Nov 1963* - Honolulu Meeting Briefing Book, Part I. See also Part II.
The briefing books prepared for a Vietnam meeting in Honolulu *reaffirmed the timetables for complete withdrawal from Vietnam, as well as the initial 1,000 main withdrawal, despite the recent coup in Vietnam.*

*24 Nov 1963* - Memorandum for the Record of a Meeting, Executive Office Building, Washington, November 24, 1963, 3 p.m.
Within two days of President Kennedy's death, on Sunday afternoon, President Johnson already began receiving advice that "we could not at this point or time give a particularly optimistic appraisal of the future" regarding Vietnam. *President Johnson expressed dissatisfaction with the present course and particularly its emphasis on social reforms, and stated that "He was anxious to get along, win the war..." *


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Jacqueline Kennedy: In Her Own Words - YouTube
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A 'vacuous' woman wouldn't be capable of defining their relationship as "Victorian or Asiatic"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A "vacuous" woman would make statements like "Where do I get my opinions?  From my husband of course!"
> 
> I'm sorry but that film piece paints Jackie Kennedy as "arm candy" without a brain in her pretty little head.
Click to expand...


POLITICAL opinions.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A 'vacuous' woman wouldn't be capable of defining their relationship as "Victorian or Asiatic"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A "vacuous" woman would make statements like "Where do I get my opinions?  From my husband of course!"
> 
> I'm sorry but that film piece paints Jackie Kennedy as "arm candy" without a brain in her pretty little head.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> POLITICAL opinions.
Click to expand...


She's the wife of a politician...she's the First Lady...but she wouldn't be capable of having her OWN opinions about politics?  That's laughable.  The fact is...JFK liked his women pretty and vacuous.  Is Jackie really that different than Marilyn Monroe?  Neither one of them was going to be getting any offers of membership in MENSA any time soon.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy DIDN'T live the to the end of 1963!  He also didn't withdraw any troops in 1963!  What YOU have is people who are heavily invested in the Kennedy "myth" putting forth a narrative of what they think he would have done if he wasn't killed...a narrative that is solely based on the plan Kennedy had drawn up before the fall of the Diem brothers and the realization that South Vietnam was in no way able to go it alone.  Johnson *continued* the Kennedy agenda in Vietnam!  That wasn't troop withdrawals...it was a steady increase in the number of troops being sent there.
> 
> You want the "cold hard facts"?  The *only* President that withdrew troops from Vietnam was Richard Nixon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dishonest. You are telling us about you, not JFK.
> 
> These are not 'op-ed' pieces, they are official policy records.
> 
> *20 Nov 1963* - Honolulu Meeting Briefing Book, Part I. See also Part II.
> The briefing books prepared for a Vietnam meeting in Honolulu *reaffirmed the timetables for complete withdrawal from Vietnam, as well as the initial 1,000 main withdrawal, despite the recent coup in Vietnam.*
> 
> *24 Nov 1963* - Memorandum for the Record of a Meeting, Executive Office Building, Washington, November 24, 1963, 3 p.m.
> Within two days of President Kennedy's death, on Sunday afternoon, President Johnson already began receiving advice that "we could not at this point or time give a particularly optimistic appraisal of the future" regarding Vietnam. *President Johnson expressed dissatisfaction with the present course and particularly its emphasis on social reforms, and stated that "He was anxious to get along, win the war..." *
Click to expand...


Dishonest?  In what way?  All I've pointed out is that the "plan" you keep referring to was drawn up under faulty assurances that the war in South Vietnam was going great!  Something which Kennedy very quickly discovered was not the case.  What you would have us believe is that the same man who drew a line in the sand one year earlier with the Soviets over Cuban missiles...risking WWIII and nuclear conflict...was going to simply walk away from South Vietnam and let it be taken by the communists?

The vast majority of historians have looked at what was happening prior to Kennedy's death and come to the conclusion that he had already turned away from a withdrawal from South Vietnam when he backed the coup that removed Diem from power.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy DIDN'T live the to the end of 1963!  He also didn't withdraw any troops in 1963!  What YOU have is people who are heavily invested in the Kennedy "myth" putting forth a narrative of what they think he would have done if he wasn't killed...a narrative that is solely based on the plan Kennedy had drawn up before the fall of the Diem brothers and the realization that South Vietnam was in no way able to go it alone.  Johnson *continued* the Kennedy agenda in Vietnam!  That wasn't troop withdrawals...it was a steady increase in the number of troops being sent there.
> 
> You want the "cold hard facts"?  The *only* President that withdrew troops from Vietnam was Richard Nixon.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dishonest. You are telling us about you, not JFK.
> 
> These are not 'op-ed' pieces, they are official policy records.
> 
> *20 Nov 1963* - Honolulu Meeting Briefing Book, Part I. See also Part II.
> The briefing books prepared for a Vietnam meeting in Honolulu *reaffirmed the timetables for complete withdrawal from Vietnam, as well as the initial 1,000 main withdrawal, despite the recent coup in Vietnam.*
> 
> *24 Nov 1963* - Memorandum for the Record of a Meeting, Executive Office Building, Washington, November 24, 1963, 3 p.m.
> Within two days of President Kennedy's death, on Sunday afternoon, President Johnson already began receiving advice that "we could not at this point or time give a particularly optimistic appraisal of the future" regarding Vietnam. *President Johnson expressed dissatisfaction with the present course and particularly its emphasis on social reforms, and stated that "He was anxious to get along, win the war..." *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Dishonest?  In what way?  All I've pointed out is that the "plan" you keep referring to was drawn up under faulty assurances that the war in South Vietnam was going great!  Something which Kennedy very quickly discovered was not the case.  What you would have us believe is that the same man who drew a line in the sand one year earlier with the Soviets over Cuban missiles...risking WWIII and nuclear conflict...was going to simply walk away from South Vietnam and let it be taken by the communists?
> 
> The vast majority of historians have looked at what was happening prior to Kennedy's death and come to the conclusion that he had already turned away from a withdrawal from South Vietnam when he backed the coup that removed Diem from power.
Click to expand...


The very definition of vacuous is to blame a President for policy change, TWO DAYS AFTER HE DIED. Policy does not operate on emotions, or on a whim. It is executive ORDERS. It can only be changes by ORDERS from a president. Kennedy gave no orders to change the policy of withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and complete withdrawal by the end of 1965...win OR LOSE.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As McNamaras 1986 oral history, on deposit at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library, makes clear (but his book does not), he was himself in the second group, who favored withdrawal without victorynot necessarily admitting or even predicting defeat, but accepting uncertainty as to what would follow. The denouement came shortly thereafter:

"After much debate, the president endorsed our recommendation to withdraw 1,000 men by December 31, 1963. He did so, I recall, without indicating his reasoning. In any event, because objections had been so intense and because I suspected others might try to get him to reverse the decision, I urged him to announce it publicly. That would set it in concrete. . . . The president finally agreed, and the announcement was released by Pierre Salinger after the meeting.'

On the day Kennedy died, the course of policy had been set. This is not speculation about a state of mind. It is a statement of fact about a decision.

JFK?s Vietnam Withdrawal Plan Is a Fact, Not Speculation


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dishonest. You are telling us about you, not JFK.
> 
> These are not 'op-ed' pieces, they are official policy records.
> 
> *20 Nov 1963* - Honolulu Meeting Briefing Book, Part I. See also Part II.
> The briefing books prepared for a Vietnam meeting in Honolulu *reaffirmed the timetables for complete withdrawal from Vietnam, as well as the initial 1,000 main withdrawal, despite the recent coup in Vietnam.*
> 
> *24 Nov 1963* - Memorandum for the Record of a Meeting, Executive Office Building, Washington, November 24, 1963, 3 p.m.
> Within two days of President Kennedy's death, on Sunday afternoon, President Johnson already began receiving advice that "we could not at this point or time give a particularly optimistic appraisal of the future" regarding Vietnam. *President Johnson expressed dissatisfaction with the present course and particularly its emphasis on social reforms, and stated that "He was anxious to get along, win the war..." *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dishonest?  In what way?  All I've pointed out is that the "plan" you keep referring to was drawn up under faulty assurances that the war in South Vietnam was going great!  Something which Kennedy very quickly discovered was not the case.  What you would have us believe is that the same man who drew a line in the sand one year earlier with the Soviets over Cuban missiles...risking WWIII and nuclear conflict...was going to simply walk away from South Vietnam and let it be taken by the communists?
> 
> The vast majority of historians have looked at what was happening prior to Kennedy's death and come to the conclusion that he had already turned away from a withdrawal from South Vietnam when he backed the coup that removed Diem from power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The very definition of vacuous is to blame a President for policy change, TWO DAYS AFTER HE DIED. Policy does not operate on emotions, or on a whim. It is executive ORDERS. It can only be changes by ORDERS from a president. Kennedy gave no orders to change the policy of withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and complete withdrawal by the end of 1965...win OR LOSE.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> As McNamaras 1986 oral history, on deposit at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library, makes clear (but his book does not), he was himself in the second group, who favored withdrawal without victorynot necessarily admitting or even predicting defeat, but accepting uncertainty as to what would follow. The denouement came shortly thereafter:
> 
> "After much debate, the president endorsed our recommendation to withdraw 1,000 men by December 31, 1963. He did so, I recall, without indicating his reasoning. In any event, because objections had been so intense and because I suspected others might try to get him to reverse the decision, I urged him to announce it publicly. That would set it in concrete. . . . The president finally agreed, and the announcement was released by Pierre Salinger after the meeting.'
> 
> On the day Kennedy died, the course of policy had been set. This is not speculation about a state of mind. It is a statement of fact about a decision.
> 
> JFK?s Vietnam Withdrawal Plan Is a Fact, Not Speculation
Click to expand...


And once again your "proof" that JFK was going to withdraw 1,000 troops is Galbraith...a man who over the years has been one of the foremost authors of the Kennedy "myth"?  Someone who views all things Kennedy through rose colored glasses?

Why even waste our time with this nonsense?

Set in concrete?  How exactly?  You mean to say if things changed...like if it was discovered that the reports about how well the war were going turned out to be wildly optimistic that Kennedy couldn't change his mind and not only not withdraw a thousand but send more?  Would that be violating some sort of "Presidential law" that I'm not aware of?  That Presidents aren't allowed to change their minds when it turns out that they were given bogus information?

It's not like Kennedy was known for his resolve on decisions, Bfgrn!  The reason the Bay of Pigs was such a disaster was that Kennedy changed his mind at the last second and didn't provide the air support he originally agreed to.  Funny how THAT guy...suddenly morphs into John "My Mind Is Made Up!" Kennedy on a decision to pull out troops.  But that's what happens when you look at things with an agenda in mind.  For folks like Galbraith the agenda is to make JFK the guy who was going to pull our troops out...even though Kennedy is REALLY the guy who escalated troop levels from under a thousand when he took office to sixteen thousand when he was killed!


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dishonest?  In what way?  All I've pointed out is that the "plan" you keep referring to was drawn up under faulty assurances that the war in South Vietnam was going great!  Something which Kennedy very quickly discovered was not the case.  What you would have us believe is that the same man who drew a line in the sand one year earlier with the Soviets over Cuban missiles...risking WWIII and nuclear conflict...was going to simply walk away from South Vietnam and let it be taken by the communists?
> 
> The vast majority of historians have looked at what was happening prior to Kennedy's death and come to the conclusion that he had already turned away from a withdrawal from South Vietnam when he backed the coup that removed Diem from power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The very definition of vacuous is to blame a President for policy change, TWO DAYS AFTER HE DIED. Policy does not operate on emotions, or on a whim. It is executive ORDERS. It can only be changes by ORDERS from a president. Kennedy gave no orders to change the policy of withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and complete withdrawal by the end of 1965...win OR LOSE.
> 
> -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> As McNamaras 1986 oral history, on deposit at the Lyndon Baines Johnson Library, makes clear (but his book does not), he was himself in the second group, who favored withdrawal without victorynot necessarily admitting or even predicting defeat, but accepting uncertainty as to what would follow. The denouement came shortly thereafter:
> 
> "After much debate, the president endorsed our recommendation to withdraw 1,000 men by December 31, 1963. He did so, I recall, without indicating his reasoning. In any event, because objections had been so intense and because I suspected others might try to get him to reverse the decision, I urged him to announce it publicly. That would set it in concrete. . . . The president finally agreed, and the announcement was released by Pierre Salinger after the meeting.'
> 
> On the day Kennedy died, the course of policy had been set. This is not speculation about a state of mind. It is a statement of fact about a decision.
> 
> JFK?s Vietnam Withdrawal Plan Is a Fact, Not Speculation
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And once again your "proof" that JFK was going to withdraw 1,000 troops is Galbraith...a man who over the years has been one of the foremost authors of the Kennedy "myth"?  Someone who views all things Kennedy through rose colored glasses?
> 
> Why even waste our time with this nonsense?
> 
> Set in concrete?  How exactly?  You mean to say if things changed...like if it was discovered that the reports about how well the war were going turned out to be wildly optimistic that Kennedy couldn't change his mind and not only not withdraw a thousand but send more?  Would that be violating some sort of "Presidential law" that I'm not aware of?  That Presidents aren't allowed to change their minds when it turns out that they were given bogus information?
> 
> It's not like Kennedy was known for his resolve on decisions, Bfgrn!  The reason the Bay of Pigs was such a disaster was that Kennedy changed his mind at the last second and didn't provide the air support he originally agreed to.  Funny how THAT guy...suddenly morphs into John "My Mind Is Made Up!" Kennedy on a decision to pull out troops.  But that's what happens when you look at things with an agenda in mind.  For folks like Galbraith the agenda is to make JFK the guy who was going to pull our troops out...even though Kennedy is REALLY the guy who escalated troop levels from under a thousand when he took office to sixteen thousand when he was killed!
Click to expand...


The proof is in the official documents of policy.

On October 2, 1963, as we have previously seen, President Kennedy made clear his determination to implement those plansto withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963, and to get almost all the rest out by the end of 1965. There followed, on October 4, a memorandum titled South Vietnam Actions from General Maxwell Taylor to his fellow Joint Chiefs of Staff, Generals May, Wheeler, Shoup, and Admiral McDonald, that reads:

    b. The program currently in progress to train Vietnamese forces will be reviewed and accelerated as necessary to insure that all essential functions visualized to be required for the projected operational environment, to include those now performed by U.S. military units and personnel, can be assumed properly by the Vietnamese by the end of calendar year 1965. _All planning will be directed towards preparing RVN forces for the withdrawal of all U.S. special assistance units and personnel by the end of calendar year 1965._ (Emphasis added.)

All planning is an unconditional phrase. There is no contingency here, or elsewhere in this memorandum. The next paragraph reads:

    c. Execute the plan to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963 per your DTG 212201Z July, and as approved for planning by JCS DTG 062042Z September. _Previous guidance on the public affairs annex is altered to the extent that the action will now be treated in low key, as the initial increment of U.S. forces whose presence is no longer required_ because (a) Vietnamese forces have been trained to assume the function involved; or (b) the function for which they came to Vietnam has been completed. (Emphasis added.)

This resolves the question of how the initial withdrawal was to be carried out. It was not to be a noisy or cosmetic affair, designed to please either U.S. opinion or to change policies in Saigon. It was rather to be a low-key, matter-of-fact beginning to a process that would play out over the following two years. The final paragraph of Taylors memorandum underlines this point by directing that specific checkpoints will be established now against which progress can be evaluated on a quarterly basis. There is much more in the JCS documents to show that Kennedy was well aware of the evidence that South Vietnam was, in fact, losing the war. But it hardly matters. The withdrawal decided on was unconditional, and did not depend on military progress or lack of it.

The Escalation at Kennedys Death

Four days after Kennedy was killed, NSAM 273 incorporated the new presidents directives into policy. It made clear that the objectives of Johnsons policy remained the same as Kennedys: to assist the people and government of South Vietnam to win their contest against the externally directed and supported Communist conspiracy through training support and without the application of overt U.S. military force. But Johnson had also approved intensified planning for covert action against North Vietnam by CIA-supported South Vietnamese forces.

With this, McNamara confirms one of Newmans central claims: NSAM 273 changed policy. Yes, the central objectives remained the same: a Vietnamese war with no overt U.S. military force. But covert force is still U.S. military force. And that was introduced or at least first approved, as McNamara writes, by NSAM 273 within four days of Kennedys assassination.Moreover, McNamara effectively supports Newman on the meaning of NSAM 273s seventh paragraph, which was inserted in the draft (as we have seen) sometime between November 21 and 26after the Honolulu meeting had adjourned and probably after Kennedy died.


----------



## Oldstyle

"Had Kennedy lived, the withdrawal plan would have remained policy, and the numbers of US troops in Vietnam would have declined, unless and until policy changed. *Might Kennedy still have &#8220;reversed the decision&#8221; at some point? Of course he might have.* But there is no evidence that he intended to do so"

The problem with Galbraith's assertion is that the "plan" he's talking about is based on the faulty assumption that the South Vietnamese were in fact trained and capable of taking over the fight against the North.  After that plan was formulated, Kennedy subsequently learned that the South Vietnamese were not NEARLY as capable as he had been led to believe.  So at THAT point, Galbraith wants us to assume that Kennedy would have gone ahead with the withdrawal of American troops from South Vietnam anyways even if that meant the collapse of the country and a takeover by the communists...something which goes counter to everything that Kennedy had done thus far as President.  And why does Galbraith assume that?  Because "policy" has been locked in supposedly?  This from a President who at the eleventh hour totally changed the "policy" to provide air cover for the invasion of Cuba because he didn't like how it would look "politically"?  Suddenly THAT President is going to go against an overwhelming national sentiment that we shouldn't allow South Vietnam to fall to the communists and order a complete withdrawal even if the South Vietnamese aren't ready to fight on by themselves?

Galbraith ignores Kennedy's history and personality because he WISHES that Kennedy had the legacy of being the President that withdrew from Vietnam.  The fact of the matter however is that Kennedy's "legacy" in Vietnam is that he is one of the Presidents who escalated that conflict.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> "Had Kennedy lived, the withdrawal plan would have remained policy, and the numbers of US troops in Vietnam would have declined, unless and until policy changed. *Might Kennedy still have reversed the decision at some point? Of course he might have.* But there is no evidence that he intended to do so"
> 
> The problem with Galbraith's assertion is that the "plan" he's talking about is based on the faulty assumption that the South Vietnamese were in fact trained and capable of taking over the fight against the North.  After that plan was formulated, Kennedy subsequently learned that the South Vietnamese were not NEARLY as capable as he had been led to believe.  So at THAT point, Galbraith wants us to assume that Kennedy would have gone ahead with the withdrawal of American troops from South Vietnam anyways even if that meant the collapse of the country and a takeover by the communists...something which goes counter to everything that Kennedy had done thus far as President.  And why does Galbraith assume that?  Because "policy" has been locked in supposedly?  This from a President who at the eleventh hour totally changed the "policy" to provide air cover for the invasion of Cuba because he didn't like how it would look "politically"?  Suddenly THAT President is going to go against an overwhelming national sentiment that we shouldn't allow South Vietnam to fall to the communists and order a complete withdrawal even if the South Vietnamese aren't ready to fight on by themselves?
> 
> Galbraith ignores Kennedy's history and personality because he WISHES that Kennedy had the legacy of being the President that withdrew from Vietnam.  The fact of the matter however is that Kennedy's "legacy" in Vietnam is that he is one of the Presidents who escalated that conflict.



"War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."
President 


You have the right to your opinion. But the fact remains that the withdrawal plan was the official US policy on the day Kennedy died. 

You are the one who "ignores Kennedy's history and personality" You even provide proof that contradicts your conclusions. During the Bay of Pigs Kennedy chose LESS military action, not more. During the Cuban Missile Crisis Kennedy chose minimal military action, not more. He chose a blockade over an invasion and used negotiations to reach a peaceful solution. THAT was "Kennedy's history and personality". Nothing he did during his presidency would support a conclusion that he would have followed the path LBJ CHOSE. And you criticize Galbraith for being fair and reasonable. Pretty funny. We will never know how Vietnam would have played out had Kennedy lived. But I am confident he wouldn't have followed the course LBJ chose.

Kennedy was well aware the military was lying and providing a rosy picture in Vietnam. He used that against the military brass as MORE reason to withdraw.

What would Kennedy have done? Here is a window into the future had he lived.

 President Kennedy's long-time friend, Senator Mike Mansfield, submitted a dismal report on Vietnam . After Mansfield left a tense, two-hour meeting with the president at his Palm Beach retreat in Florida, Kennedy moaned to aide Kenneth P. O'Donnell, I got angry with Mike for disagreeing with our policy so completely, and I got angry with myself because I found myself agreeing with him. The perceived progress in the war took another jolt in January 1963 when two of the president's closest advisers, Roger Hilsman and Michael Forrestal, returned from Saigon to confirm many of Mansfield 's pessimistic observations. In the meantime, the Vietcong defeated a huge ARVN and Civil Guard contingent at Ap Bac in the Mekong Delta, just thirty-five miles southwest of Saigon . More or less beginning then, Forrestal later recalled, Kennedy began to get worried about Vietnam .

President Kennedy feared that an immediate withdrawal would cause another witch hunt similar to that following China 's conversion to communism in 1949. In the Oval Office, he admitted to Mansfield that his call for a total military withdrawal was correct. But I can't do it until 1965after I'm reelected. Otherwise, there would be a wild conservative outcry in the election campaign that would have severe political repercussions. After Mansfield left the room, Kennedy confided his intentions to O'Donnell. In 1965, I'll become one of the most unpopular Presidents in history. I'll be damned everywhere as a Communist appeaser. But I don't care. If I tried to pull out completely now from Vietnam , we would have another Joe McCarthy Red Scare in our hands, but I can do it after I'm reelected. So we had better make damned sure I am reelected.
- See more at: History News Network | JFK Wanted Out of Vietnam

And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem. 
President John F. Kennedy


----------



## Oldstyle

Nothing would indicate that Kennedy would escalate the war like Johnson did?  Did you REALLY just try and make that point?

Under Kennedy we went from Ike's 900 "advisers" to over 16,000 "advisers" and YOU don't think constitutes an escalation?  Now THAT is some funny shit...


----------



## Oldstyle

And you keep on quoting from the same slanted article written by an author that worships at the "altar" of JFK, Bfgrn.  I'm not impressed by it.  He's taken a "plan" that was put forth to start a very small withdrawal of troops from South Vietnam in response to reports that the war was going so well that it was now simply a matter of the South Vietnamese "mopping up" and stated that plan was "policy"...policy that was unchangeable.

Once again...John F. Kennedy didn't withdraw ANY troops from Vietnam!  Neither did Johnson.  They BOTH escalated that conflict.  Love him or loath him...the President who drew down troop levels is Richard Nixon.  Every year that he was in office the number of American troops in Vietnam decreased by a large amount.  THAT wasn't a "plan" to withdraw troops...that was actually DOING IT!


----------



## Oldstyle

Vietnam War Allied Troop Levels 1960-73


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> And you keep on quoting from the same slanted article written by an author that worships at the "altar" of JFK, Bfgrn.  I'm not impressed by it.  He's taken a "plan" that was put forth to start a very small withdrawal of troops from South Vietnam in response to reports that the war was going so well that it was now simply a matter of the South Vietnamese "mopping up" and stated that plan was "policy"...policy that was unchangeable.
> 
> Once again...John F. Kennedy didn't withdraw ANY troops from Vietnam!  Neither did Johnson.  They BOTH escalated that conflict.  Love him or loath him...the President who drew down troop levels is Richard Nixon.  Every year that he was in office the number of American troops in Vietnam decreased by a large amount.  THAT wasn't a "plan" to withdraw troops...that was actually DOING IT!



When did I quote from Howard Jones, University Research Professor in the Department of History at the University of Alabama?

I already agreed Kennedy increased military levels in Vietnam. And I have already proven that the policy on the day President Kennedy died was for withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end on 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965. I have proven Kennedy knew Vietnam was NOT going so well. And he still stuck to his plan to withdraw. To say that JFK would have followed the path Johnson did is vacuous. 

to over 16,000 "advisers" ...is that a lot? we had almost 60,000 troops in Korea in 1963. You keep posting troop levels. Take a look at casualties, then tell me who escalated Vietnam into an American war?


----------



## Geaux4it

Redfish said:


> JFK was closer to today's libertarians than to either the liberals or the conservatives.
> 
> He was for smaller government, strong military, and he cut taxes.
> 
> Kennedy would not be a democrat today.



Indeed- He believed raising taxes stunts job growth so he promoted tax cuts

-Geaux

[youtube]aEdXrfIMdiU[/youtube]


----------



## Bfgrn




----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


>



All this chart "proves" is that Johnson increased the number of troops in Vietnam to an even greater extent than Kennedy and that Nixon was the one who brought them home.  It does NOTHING to prove that Kennedy didn't escalate the war...only that he didn't escalate it as much as Johnson did!

The "facts" are that Kennedy led the way for Johnson's escalation not only in the increased number of "advisers" that he sent to South Vietnam but more importantly how he used them in a TOTALLY different way than Eisenhower did!  Kennedy had American pilots flying hundreds of combat missions and he also is the one who introduced both the "defoliation" campaign, the wide spread use of napalm and the forced relocation of civilians into the conflict.  Kennedy DID what Johnson would do...only on a smaller scale.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you keep on quoting from the same slanted article written by an author that worships at the "altar" of JFK, Bfgrn.  I'm not impressed by it.  He's taken a "plan" that was put forth to start a very small withdrawal of troops from South Vietnam in response to reports that the war was going so well that it was now simply a matter of the South Vietnamese "mopping up" and stated that plan was "policy"...policy that was unchangeable.
> 
> Once again...John F. Kennedy didn't withdraw ANY troops from Vietnam!  Neither did Johnson.  They BOTH escalated that conflict.  Love him or loath him...the President who drew down troop levels is Richard Nixon.  Every year that he was in office the number of American troops in Vietnam decreased by a large amount.  THAT wasn't a "plan" to withdraw troops...that was actually DOING IT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did I quote from Howard Jones, University Research Professor in the Department of History at the University of Alabama?
> 
> I already agreed Kennedy increased military levels in Vietnam. And I have already proven that the policy on the day President Kennedy died was for withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end on 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965. I have proven Kennedy knew Vietnam was NOT going so well. And he still stuck to his plan to withdraw. To say that JFK would have followed the path Johnson did is vacuous.
> 
> to over 16,000 "advisers" ...is that a lot? we had almost 60,000 troops in Korea in 1963. You keep posting troop levels. Take a look at casualties, then tell me who escalated Vietnam into an American war?
Click to expand...


To say the JFK would NOT have followed the same path as Johnson is pure speculation on your part.  The people who have tried to rewrite history to portray Kennedy as a "dove" when his actions in Vietnam were anything but are engaging in speculation as well.  

It's hard to make the point that someone has "stuck to" a plan when the plan itself was never carried out.

And yes, you're right...Kennedy DID know that Vietnam was not going as well as he had been led to believe when he formulated his "plan".  So why would he stick to a plan that was conceived under false pretenses?  That makes no sense at all unless you want to contend that Kennedy had decided in 1963 than he would no longer contest the spread of communism around the world and would cede the Far East to China and the Soviets.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you keep on quoting from the same slanted article written by an author that worships at the "altar" of JFK, Bfgrn.  I'm not impressed by it.  He's taken a "plan" that was put forth to start a very small withdrawal of troops from South Vietnam in response to reports that the war was going so well that it was now simply a matter of the South Vietnamese "mopping up" and stated that plan was "policy"...policy that was unchangeable.
> 
> Once again...John F. Kennedy didn't withdraw ANY troops from Vietnam!  Neither did Johnson.  They BOTH escalated that conflict.  Love him or loath him...the President who drew down troop levels is Richard Nixon.  Every year that he was in office the number of American troops in Vietnam decreased by a large amount.  THAT wasn't a "plan" to withdraw troops...that was actually DOING IT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When did I quote from Howard Jones, University Research Professor in the Department of History at the University of Alabama?
> 
> I already agreed Kennedy increased military levels in Vietnam. And I have already proven that the policy on the day President Kennedy died was for withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end on 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965. I have proven Kennedy knew Vietnam was NOT going so well. And he still stuck to his plan to withdraw. To say that JFK would have followed the path Johnson did is vacuous.
> 
> to over 16,000 "advisers" ...is that a lot? we had almost 60,000 troops in Korea in 1963. You keep posting troop levels. Take a look at casualties, then tell me who escalated Vietnam into an American war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> To say the JFK would NOT have followed the same path as Johnson is pure speculation on your part.  The people who have tried to rewrite history to portray Kennedy as a "dove" when his actions in Vietnam were anything but are engaging in speculation as well.
> 
> It's hard to make the point that someone has "stuck to" a plan when the plan itself was never carried out.
> 
> And yes, you're right...Kennedy DID know that Vietnam was not going as well as he had been led to believe when he formulated his "plan".  So why would he stick to a plan that was conceived under false pretenses?  That makes no sense at all unless you want to contend that Kennedy had decided in 1963 than he would no longer contest the spread of communism around the world and would cede the Far East to China and the Soviets.
Click to expand...


Let's make it real simple. Provide the policy on Vietnam the day Kennedy died? Whatever you type requires documentation.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did I quote from Howard Jones, University Research Professor in the Department of History at the University of Alabama?
> 
> I already agreed Kennedy increased military levels in Vietnam. And I have already proven that the policy on the day President Kennedy died was for withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end on 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965. I have proven Kennedy knew Vietnam was NOT going so well. And he still stuck to his plan to withdraw. To say that JFK would have followed the path Johnson did is vacuous.
> 
> to over 16,000 "advisers" ...is that a lot? we had almost 60,000 troops in Korea in 1963. You keep posting troop levels. Take a look at casualties, then tell me who escalated Vietnam into an American war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To say the JFK would NOT have followed the same path as Johnson is pure speculation on your part.  The people who have tried to rewrite history to portray Kennedy as a "dove" when his actions in Vietnam were anything but are engaging in speculation as well.
> 
> It's hard to make the point that someone has "stuck to" a plan when the plan itself was never carried out.
> 
> And yes, you're right...Kennedy DID know that Vietnam was not going as well as he had been led to believe when he formulated his "plan".  So why would he stick to a plan that was conceived under false pretenses?  That makes no sense at all unless you want to contend that Kennedy had decided in 1963 than he would no longer contest the spread of communism around the world and would cede the Far East to China and the Soviets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's make it real simple. Provide the policy on Vietnam the day Kennedy died? Whatever you type requires documentation.
Click to expand...


"Policy" was whatever John F. Kennedy DECIDED it was going to be. You harbor some strange concept that he was locked into a certain policy and I don't have the faintest idea how you've arrived at that conclusion.  He's the President and Commander in Chief.  It's totally his call.  

As an example of what I'm talking about...the policy" for the Bay of Pigs invasion was air support consisting of 16 bombers to take out Cuba's air force.  That was the way the "plan" was drawn up.  Only at the last moment, Kennedy decided that it would be better to send 8 bombers instead of 16.  Kindly explain why Kennedy is somehow "locked into" the policy to withdraw troops in 1963 but in 1960 he was free to change policy at the very last moment?  It's obvious that Kennedy was NOT locked into that plan to withdraw a thousand troops and with a worsening situation in South Vietnam he very well would have sent MORE advisers rather than less.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> To say the JFK would NOT have followed the same path as Johnson is pure speculation on your part.  The people who have tried to rewrite history to portray Kennedy as a "dove" when his actions in Vietnam were anything but are engaging in speculation as well.
> 
> It's hard to make the point that someone has "stuck to" a plan when the plan itself was never carried out.
> 
> And yes, you're right...Kennedy DID know that Vietnam was not going as well as he had been led to believe when he formulated his "plan".  So why would he stick to a plan that was conceived under false pretenses?  That makes no sense at all unless you want to contend that Kennedy had decided in 1963 than he would no longer contest the spread of communism around the world and would cede the Far East to China and the Soviets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's make it real simple. Provide the policy on Vietnam the day Kennedy died? Whatever you type requires documentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Policy" was whatever John F. Kennedy DECIDED it was going to be. You harbor some strange concept that he was locked into a certain policy and I don't have the faintest idea how you've arrived at that conclusion.  He's the President and Commander in Chief.  It's totally his call.
> 
> As an example of what I'm talking about...the policy" for the Bay of Pigs invasion was air support consisting of 16 bombers to take out Cuba's air force.  That was the way the "plan" was drawn up.  Only at the last moment, Kennedy decided that it would be better to send 8 bombers instead of 16.  Kindly explain why Kennedy is somehow "locked into" the policy to withdraw troops in 1963 but in 1960 he was free to change policy at the very last moment?  It's obvious that Kennedy was NOT locked into that plan to withdraw a thousand troops and with a worsening situation in South Vietnam he very well would have sent MORE advisers rather than less.
Click to expand...


When did Kennedy change the policy? Because 2 days before he died the plan to withdraw was still in place.

You really are showing that you are not reading a thing I have posted...

*20 Nov 1963 - Honolulu Meeting Briefing Book, Part I. See also Part II.*
The briefing books prepared for a Vietnam meeting in Honolulu reaffirmed the timetables for complete withdrawal from Vietnam, as well as the initial 1,000 main withdrawal, despite the recent coup in Vietnam.


----------



## Oldstyle

The truth is...JFK escalated that conflict rather dramatically.  Granted, not as much as Johnson but certainly a lot more than Eisenhower.

  "We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans&#8212;born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage&#8212;and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.  Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."

That was John Kennedy on the day he was sworn in.  You would have us believe that in two short years he essentially quit on South Vietnam?  Was willing to simply hand it over to the communists?  With all due respect, my liberal friend?  You and your ilk are attempting to CREATE a Kennedy that never existed.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let's make it real simple. Provide the policy on Vietnam the day Kennedy died? Whatever you type requires documentation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Policy" was whatever John F. Kennedy DECIDED it was going to be. You harbor some strange concept that he was locked into a certain policy and I don't have the faintest idea how you've arrived at that conclusion.  He's the President and Commander in Chief.  It's totally his call.
> 
> As an example of what I'm talking about...the policy" for the Bay of Pigs invasion was air support consisting of 16 bombers to take out Cuba's air force.  That was the way the "plan" was drawn up.  Only at the last moment, Kennedy decided that it would be better to send 8 bombers instead of 16.  Kindly explain why Kennedy is somehow "locked into" the policy to withdraw troops in 1963 but in 1960 he was free to change policy at the very last moment?  It's obvious that Kennedy was NOT locked into that plan to withdraw a thousand troops and with a worsening situation in South Vietnam he very well would have sent MORE advisers rather than less.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When did Kennedy change the policy? Because 2 days before he died the plan to withdraw was still in place.
> 
> You really are showing that you are not reading a thing I have posted...
> 
> *20 Nov 1963 - Honolulu Meeting Briefing Book, Part I. See also Part II.*
> The briefing books prepared for a Vietnam meeting in Honolulu reaffirmed the timetables for complete withdrawal from Vietnam, as well as the initial 1,000 main withdrawal, despite the recent coup in Vietnam.
Click to expand...


I'm reading what you have been posting REPEATEDLY but what you've posted hasn't convinced me that John Kennedy had any intention of a total withdrawal from South Vietnam if that meant the collapse of the country and the subsequent takeover by the communists.  It goes counter to EVERYTHING that he had done in Vietnam since becoming President.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> The truth is...JFK escalated that conflict rather dramatically.  Granted, not as much as Johnson but certainly a lot more than Eisenhower.
> 
> "We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americansborn in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritageand unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.  Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
> 
> That was John Kennedy on the day he was sworn in.  You would have us believe that in two short years he essentially quit on South Vietnam?  Was willing to simply hand it over to the communists?  With all due respect, my liberal friend?  You and your ilk are attempting to CREATE a Kennedy that never existed.



'ilk'?

Ironic, when I quote Kennedy it is merely 'rhetoric', but when you quote Kennedy it is gospel.

You make the very same mistake the ignorant neocons made. They cherry-picked the rhetoric they wanted to hear, and ignored the rest.



"To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support--to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective--to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak--and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course--both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.

So let us begin anew--remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.

Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.

Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms--and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.

Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths and encourage the arts and commerce.

Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah--to "undo the heavy burdens . . . (and) let the oppressed go free."

And if a beach-head of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved."


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is...JFK escalated that conflict rather dramatically.  Granted, not as much as Johnson but certainly a lot more than Eisenhower.
> 
> "We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americansborn in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritageand unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.  Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
> 
> That was John Kennedy on the day he was sworn in.  You would have us believe that in two short years he essentially quit on South Vietnam?  Was willing to simply hand it over to the communists?  With all due respect, my liberal friend?  You and your ilk are attempting to CREATE a Kennedy that never existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'ilk'?
> 
> Ironic, when I quote Kennedy it is merely 'rhetoric', but when you quote Kennedy it is gospel.
> 
> You make the very same mistake the ignorant neocons made. They cherry-picked the rhetoric they wanted to hear, and ignored the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> "To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support--to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective--to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak--and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.
> 
> Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.
> 
> *We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.*
> 
> But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course--both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.
> 
> So let us begin anew--remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.
> 
> Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.
> 
> Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms--and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.
> 
> Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths and encourage the arts and commerce.
> 
> Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah--to "undo the heavy burdens . . . (and) let the oppressed go free."
> 
> And if a beach-head of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved."
Click to expand...


I haven't ignored anything.  I've simply pointed out Kennedy's steadfast and repeated declarations that he *would *resist communism's spread.  What you would like me to believe is that Kennedy changed his mind on that and was willing to let South Vietnam go over to the communists.  Quite frankly, I don't see any evidence of that whatsoever.  What I *DO* see is a "plan" to withdraw troops that was made under the belief that the war was going great and that South Vietnam was now ready to assume full responsibility for "mopping up"...something that Kennedy knew full well by the Fall of 1963 was not the case.  What you continually refer to as "policy" was never carried out...nor would it have been because the circumstances on the ground wouldn't allow that to take place.


----------



## Oldstyle

Foreign Affairs . JFK . WGBH American Experience | PBS

The article from PBS puts in context what Kennedy had done leading up to his assassination.


----------



## Oldstyle

"Our security and strength, in the last analysis, directly depend on the security and strength of others, and that is why our military and economic assistance plays such a key role in enabling those who live on the periphery of the Communist world to maintain their independence of choice. Our assistance to these nations can be painful, risky and costly, as is true in Southeast Asia today. But we dare not weary of the task. For our assistance makes possible the stationing of 3-5 million allied troops along the Communist frontier at one-tenth the cost of maintaining a comparable number of American soldiers."

And that is from the speech that Kennedy would have given on the day that he was assassinated.  Does it REALLY sound like he's decided to pull out of South Vietnam and let them go under communist control?


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The truth is...JFK escalated that conflict rather dramatically.  Granted, not as much as Johnson but certainly a lot more than Eisenhower.
> 
> "We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans&#8212;born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage&#8212;and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.  Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty."
> 
> That was John Kennedy on the day he was sworn in.  You would have us believe that in two short years he essentially quit on South Vietnam?  Was willing to simply hand it over to the communists?  With all due respect, my liberal friend?  You and your ilk are attempting to CREATE a Kennedy that never existed.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 'ilk'?
> 
> Ironic, when I quote Kennedy it is merely 'rhetoric', but when you quote Kennedy it is gospel.
> 
> You make the very same mistake the ignorant neocons made. They cherry-picked the rhetoric they wanted to hear, and ignored the rest.
> 
> 
> 
> "To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support--to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective--to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak--and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.
> 
> Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.
> 
> *We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.*
> 
> But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course--both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.
> 
> So let us begin anew--remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.
> 
> Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.
> 
> Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms--and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.
> 
> Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths and encourage the arts and commerce.
> 
> Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah--to "undo the heavy burdens . . . (and) let the oppressed go free."
> 
> And if a beach-head of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't ignored anything.  I've simply pointed out Kennedy's steadfast and repeated declarations that he *would *resist communism's spread.  What you would like me to believe is that Kennedy changed his mind on that and was willing to let South Vietnam go over to the communists.  Quite frankly, I don't see any evidence of that whatsoever.  What I *DO* see is a "plan" to withdraw troops that was made under the belief that the war was going great and that South Vietnam was now ready to assume full responsibility for "mopping up"...something that Kennedy knew full well by the Fall of 1963 was not the case.  What you continually refer to as "policy" was never carried out...nor would it have been because the circumstances on the ground wouldn't allow that to take place.
Click to expand...


Cherry picking again... neocon 'ILK"...

Herein lies your problem. Kennedy was a wise politician. He was not going to reveal his plans to withdraw until after he secured another 4 years in office. Does THIS sound like a man who was going to send 200,000 troops into Vietnam?

In the Oval Office, he admitted to Mansfield that his call for a total military withdrawal was correct. &#8220;But I can't do it until 1965&#8212;after I'm reelected.&#8221; Otherwise, there would be a &#8220;wild conservative outcry&#8221; in the election campaign that would have severe political repercussions. After Mansfield left the room, Kennedy confided his intentions to O'Donnell. &#8220;In 1965, I'll become one of the most unpopular Presidents in history. I'll be damned everywhere as a Communist appeaser. But I don't care. If I tried to pull out completely now from Vietnam , we would have another Joe McCarthy Red Scare in our hands, but I can do it after I'm reelected. So we had better make damned sure I am reelected.&#8221; - See more at: History News Network | JFK Wanted Out of Vietnam


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> When did I quote from Howard Jones, University Research Professor in the Department of History at the University of Alabama?
> 
> I already agreed Kennedy increased military levels in Vietnam. And I have already proven that the policy on the day President Kennedy died was for withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end on 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965. I have proven Kennedy knew Vietnam was NOT going so well. And he still stuck to his plan to withdraw. To say that JFK would have followed the path Johnson did is vacuous.
> 
> to over 16,000 "advisers" ...is that a lot? we had almost 60,000 troops in Korea in 1963. You keep posting troop levels. Take a look at casualties, then tell me who escalated Vietnam into an American war?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> To say the JFK would NOT have followed the same path as Johnson is pure speculation on your part.  The people who have tried to rewrite history to portray Kennedy as a "dove" when his actions in Vietnam were anything but are engaging in speculation as well.
> 
> It's hard to make the point that someone has "stuck to" a plan when the plan itself was never carried out.
> 
> And yes, you're right...Kennedy DID know that Vietnam was not going as well as he had been led to believe when he formulated his "plan".  So why would he stick to a plan that was conceived under false pretenses?  That makes no sense at all unless you want to contend that Kennedy had decided in 1963 than he would no longer contest the spread of communism around the world and would cede the Far East to China and the Soviets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's make it real simple. Provide the policy on Vietnam the day Kennedy died? Whatever you type requires documentation.
Click to expand...


So...you ask me to provide the "policy" on Vietnam on the day that Kennedy died and I give you the transcript of the very speech Kennedy would have given that day in Dallas where he once again would have clearly stated the high level of commitment to South Vietnam that the US had.   How much more "documentation" do you need as to Kennedy's mind set that October?  I'm sorry but THAT speech is not the speech that a man who's about to pull all of the American troops out of South Vietnam would have given.


----------



## Oldstyle

You might want to tread carefully here, Bfgrn...

You label Kennedy a "wise politician" because (according to you) he was about to lie to the American people about what his intentions were in Vietnam just so he could get reelected.

So what you're saying is that Kennedy shouldn't be taken at his word?  So does that hold true to what he told Mansfield that day in the Oval Office?  You want to claim that Kennedy's words don't mean what they seem to mean because he's not honest.  Your problem is that once you establish that Kennedy was a bald faced liar...you can't take what he said to anyone at face value...can you?


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> To say the JFK would NOT have followed the same path as Johnson is pure speculation on your part.  The people who have tried to rewrite history to portray Kennedy as a "dove" when his actions in Vietnam were anything but are engaging in speculation as well.
> 
> It's hard to make the point that someone has "stuck to" a plan when the plan itself was never carried out.
> 
> And yes, you're right...Kennedy DID know that Vietnam was not going as well as he had been led to believe when he formulated his "plan".  So why would he stick to a plan that was conceived under false pretenses?  That makes no sense at all unless you want to contend that Kennedy had decided in 1963 than he would no longer contest the spread of communism around the world and would cede the Far East to China and the Soviets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let's make it real simple. Provide the policy on Vietnam the day Kennedy died? Whatever you type requires documentation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So...you ask me to provide the "policy" on Vietnam on the day that Kennedy died and I give you the transcript of the very speech Kennedy would have given that day in Dallas where he once again would have clearly stated the high level of commitment to South Vietnam that the US had.   How much more "documentation" do you need as to Kennedy's mind set that October?  I'm sorry but THAT speech is not the speech that a man who's about to pull all of the American troops out of South Vietnam would have given.
Click to expand...


Yes, I asked you to provide the 'policy' on the day he died. But you refuse, why is that? Is it because the 'policy' is just as I say it is? And you seem to have a very immature understanding of what 'policy' is and how critical 'policy' is to order, chain of command and how' 'policy' prevents chaos and even disaster.

Kennedy was less afraid of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev's ordering a surprise attack than he was "that something would go wrong in a Dr. Strangelove kind of way"with a politically unstable U.S. general snapping and launching World War III.

Kennedy was particularly alarmed by his trigger-happy Air Force chief, cigar-chomping General Curtis LeMay, who firmly believed the U.S. should unleash a pre-emptive nuclear broadside against Russia while America still enjoyed massive arms superiority.

Read more: Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME


----------



## Oldstyle

LOL...I just gave you the speech that Kennedy would have given *that day* in Dallas...a speech that he *CLEARLY* would have stated his continuing commitment to a strategy of "containment" in South Vietnam...but you don't accept *THAT*!  Instead you want to talk about a mythical "policy" that you for some unknown reason think is set in stone and can't be deviated from.

Then ONCE AGAIN you cite the propaganda that TIME put out that tries oh so hard to paint Kennedy as something that he quite obviously never was.


----------



## Oldstyle

The following is from a top secret memorandum from McGeorge Bundy, Kennedy's Special Assistant for National Security sent less than 24 hours before Kennedy was assassinated.  Does IT sound like the US was planning on letting South Vietnam go over to the communists?

"Programs of military and economic assistance should be maintained at such levels that their magnitude and effectiveness in the eyes of the Vietnamese Government do not fall below the levels sustained by the United States in the time of the Diem Government. This does not exclude arrangements for economy on the MAP account with respect to accounting for ammunition and any other readjustments which are possible as between MAP and other U.S. defense resources. Special attention should be given to the expansion of the import distribution and effective use of fertilizer for the Delta."

That follows the earlier White House statement that you continually refer to as "proof" that Kennedy WOULD have gone through with troop reductions.

"U.S. POLICY ON VIET-NAM: WHITE HOUSE STATEMENT, OCTOBER 2, 1963

Secretary [of Defense Robert S.] McNamara and General [Maxwell D.] Taylor reported to the President this morning and to the National Security Council this afternoon. Their report included a number of classified findings and recommendations which will be the subject of further review and action. Their basic presentation was endorsed by all members of the Security Council and the following statement of United States policy was approved by the President on the basis of recommendations received from them and from Ambassador [Henry Cabot] Lodge.

1. The security of South Viet-Nam is a major interest of the United States as other free nations. We will adhere to our policy of working with the people and Government of South Viet-Nam to deny this country to communism and to suppress the externally stimulated and supported insurgency of the Viet Cong as promptly as possible. Effective performance in this undertaking is the central objective of our policy in South Viet-Nam.

2. The military program in South Viet-Nam has made progress and is sound in principle, though improvements are being energetically sought.

3. Major U.S. assistance in support of this military effort is needed only until the insurgency has been suppressed or until the national security forces of the Government of South Viet-Nam are capable of suppressing it.

Secretary McNamara and General Taylor reported their judgment that the major part of the U.S. military task can be completed by the end of 1965, although there may be a continuing requirement for a limited number of U.S. training personnel. They reported that by the end of this year, the U.S. program for training Vietnamese should have progressed to the point where 1,000 U.S. military personnel assigned to South Viet-Nam can be withdrawn.

4. The political situation in South Viet-Nam remains deeply serious. The United States has made clear its continuing opposition to any repressive actions in South Viet-Nam. While such actions have not yet significantly affected the military effort, they could do so in the future.

5. It remains the policy of the United States, in South Viet-Nam as in other parts of the world, to support the efforts of the people of that country to defeat aggression and to build a peaceful and free society."

Your problem, Bfgrn...is that you have multiple "policies" in play here that contradict each other.  Kennedy repeatedly declares that his "policy" is to support South Vietnam so as to keep the communists at bay while at the same time he declares as "policy" that the South Vietnamese are now sufficiently trained that we can begin to withdraw American "advisers".  The fact of the matter is that Kennedy knows full well by October of 1963 that the appraisals he had earlier received that South Vietnam was ready to shoulder all of the fighting without aid from US forces were wildly optimistic and that the war was not going as well as the reports that had led to the formulation of the withdrawal schedule.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> The following is from a top secret memorandum from McGeorge Bundy, Kennedy's Special Assistant for National Security sent less than 24 hours before Kennedy was assassinated.  Does IT sound like the US was planning on letting South Vietnam go over to the communists?
> 
> "Programs of military and economic assistance should be maintained at such levels that their magnitude and effectiveness in the eyes of the Vietnamese Government do not fall below the levels sustained by the United States in the time of the Diem Government. This does not exclude arrangements for economy on the MAP account with respect to accounting for ammunition and any other readjustments which are possible as between MAP and other U.S. defense resources. Special attention should be given to the expansion of the import distribution and effective use of fertilizer for the Delta."
> 
> That follows the earlier White House statement that you continually refer to as "proof" that Kennedy WOULD have gone through with troop reductions.
> 
> "U.S. POLICY ON VIET-NAM: WHITE HOUSE STATEMENT, OCTOBER 2, 1963
> 
> Secretary [of Defense Robert S.] McNamara and General [Maxwell D.] Taylor reported to the President this morning and to the National Security Council this afternoon. Their report included a number of classified findings and recommendations which will be the subject of further review and action. Their basic presentation was endorsed by all members of the Security Council and the following statement of United States policy was approved by the President on the basis of recommendations received from them and from Ambassador [Henry Cabot] Lodge.
> 
> 1. The security of South Viet-Nam is a major interest of the United States as other free nations. We will adhere to our policy of working with the people and Government of South Viet-Nam to deny this country to communism and to suppress the externally stimulated and supported insurgency of the Viet Cong as promptly as possible. Effective performance in this undertaking is the central objective of our policy in South Viet-Nam.
> 
> 2. The military program in South Viet-Nam has made progress and is sound in principle, though improvements are being energetically sought.
> 
> 3. Major U.S. assistance in support of this military effort is needed only until the insurgency has been suppressed or until the national security forces of the Government of South Viet-Nam are capable of suppressing it.
> 
> Secretary McNamara and General Taylor reported their judgment that the major part of the U.S. military task can be completed by the end of 1965, although there may be a continuing requirement for a limited number of U.S. training personnel. They reported that by the end of this year, the U.S. program for training Vietnamese should have progressed to the point where 1,000 U.S. military personnel assigned to South Viet-Nam can be withdrawn.
> 
> 4. The political situation in South Viet-Nam remains deeply serious. The United States has made clear its continuing opposition to any repressive actions in South Viet-Nam. While such actions have not yet significantly affected the military effort, they could do so in the future.
> 
> 5. It remains the policy of the United States, in South Viet-Nam as in other parts of the world, to support the efforts of the people of that country to defeat aggression and to build a peaceful and free society."
> 
> Your problem, Bfgrn...is that you have multiple "policies" in play here that contradict each other.  Kennedy repeatedly declares that his "policy" is to support South Vietnam so as to keep the communists at bay while at the same time he declares as "policy" that the South Vietnamese are now sufficiently trained that we can begin to withdraw American "advisers".  The fact of the matter is that Kennedy knows full well by October of 1963 that the appraisals he had earlier received that South Vietnam was ready to shoulder all of the fighting without aid from US forces were wildly optimistic and that the war was not going as well as the reports that had led to the formulation of the withdrawal schedule.



Where is a link?

You keep forgetting...on November 20, 1963 the withdrawal policy was still in place. Kennedy arrived in San Antonio at 1:30pm on Nov. 21,1963. He had less than 24 hours to live. WHEN did he change the policy?

*20 Nov 1963 - Honolulu Meeting Briefing Book, Part I. See also Part II.*
The briefing books prepared for a Vietnam meeting in Honolulu reaffirmed the timetables for complete withdrawal from Vietnam, as well as the initial 1,000 main withdrawal, despite the recent coup in Vietnam.


----------



## Oldstyle

You keep declaring that there was an "iron clad" policy in place that the US would without question withdraw 1,000 troops that year and all of the troops by 1965, Bfgrn and for the life of me I don't know how you've arrived at that conclusion.  NOTHING was set in stone....

Kennedy Week: JFK?s Uncertain Path in Vietnam | The Nation

That article does a great job of pointing out the uncertainty that the Kennedy White House was operating under when it came to Vietnam.  To declare that there WAS an iron clad "policy" that the troops would be pulled out by the end of 1965 is simply ignore the numerous OTHER "policies" that declared that our support of South Vietnam's fight against communist incursion from the north was unwavering.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> You keep declaring that there was an "iron clad" policy in place that the US would without question withdraw 1,000 troops that year and all of the troops by 1965, Bfgrn and for the life of me I don't know how you've arrived at that conclusion.  NOTHING was set in stone....
> 
> Kennedy Week: JFK?s Uncertain Path in Vietnam | The Nation
> 
> That article does a great job of pointing out the uncertainty that the Kennedy White House was operating under when it came to Vietnam.  To declare that there WAS an iron clad "policy" that the troops would be pulled out by the end of 1965 is simply ignore the numerous OTHER "policies" that declared that our support of South Vietnam's fight against communist incursion from the north was unwavering.



You and Perlstein have a right to an opinion as to what would have happened had Kennedy lived.

But the policy the day the President was assassinated was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965.

And 2 days before he died, that policy was still in place.

You like to accuse people like James K. Galbraith, son of the famous Kennedy hand and economist John Kenneth Galbraith, and Robert McNamara who was Secretary of Defense of lying. But they were THERE. Who the fuck is Perlstein?

I will prove Perlstein is NOT giving both sides of the debate.

Perlstein cherry picks just like the you and the neocons did with the inaugural address.

From your article. 

President Kennedy also read much more pessimistic evaluations. These were written mostly by civilianssome by officials in the State Department, others by journalists like Malcolm Browne and David Halberstam. Kennedy did not openly commit himself to either the optimists or the pessimists. What he did do was insist publicly that he would never cut and run. July 13, 1963: We are not going to withdraw from that effort. we are going to stay there. *September 2: I dont agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake. *

Now the REST of the story, HERE is what Perlstein left out of that same interview on Sept 2:

MR. CRONKITE. Mr. President, the only hot war we've got running at the moment is of course the one in Viet-Nam, and we have our difficulties here, quite obviously.

PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win itthe people of Viet-Namagainst the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep declaring that there was an "iron clad" policy in place that the US would without question withdraw 1,000 troops that year and all of the troops by 1965, Bfgrn and for the life of me I don't know how you've arrived at that conclusion.  NOTHING was set in stone....
> 
> Kennedy Week: JFK?s Uncertain Path in Vietnam | The Nation
> 
> That article does a great job of pointing out the uncertainty that the Kennedy White House was operating under when it came to Vietnam.  To declare that there WAS an iron clad "policy" that the troops would be pulled out by the end of 1965 is simply ignore the numerous OTHER "policies" that declared that our support of South Vietnam's fight against communist incursion from the north was unwavering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and Perlstein have a right to an opinion as to what would have happened had Kennedy lived.
> 
> But the policy the day the President was assassinated was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965.
> 
> And 2 days before he died, that policy was still in place.
> 
> You like to accuse people like James K. Galbraith, son of the famous Kennedy hand and economist John Kenneth Galbraith, and Robert McNamara who was Secretary of Defense of lying. But they were THERE. Who the fuck is Perlstein?
> 
> I will prove Perlstein is NOT giving both sides of the debate.
> 
> Perlstein cherry picks just like the you and the neocons did with the inaugural address.
> 
> From your article.
> 
> President Kennedy also read much more pessimistic evaluations. These were written mostly by civilianssome by officials in the State Department, others by journalists like Malcolm Browne and David Halberstam. Kennedy did not openly commit himself to either the optimists or the pessimists. What he did do was insist publicly that he would never cut and run. July 13, 1963: We are not going to withdraw from that effort. we are going to stay there. *September 2: I dont agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake. *
> 
> Now the REST of the story, HERE is what Perlstein left out of that same interview on Sept 2:
> 
> MR. CRONKITE. Mr. President, the only hot war we've got running at the moment is of course the one in Viet-Nam, and we have our difficulties here, quite obviously.
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win itthe people of Viet-Namagainst the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
Click to expand...


Once again...context is important here...what Kennedy is talking about is the internal battle that the Catholic Diem brothers were waging against the Buddhist majority in South Vietnam.  What Kennedy is referring to when he speaks about the Government getting out of touch with the people over the prior two months were Government led attacks on Buddhist monks and monasteries that resulted in thousands of deaths.  Kennedy at this point has come to the realization that Diem is corrupt and incompetent and needs to be replaced for South Vietnam to have a chance at defeating the communist insurgents.

The REASON Kennedy cares about maintaining the support of the people in South Vietnam is that he is still committed to keeping the communists OUT of the South.  *THAT* policy is still in effect when JFK is killed and *THAT* policy would have precluded Kennedy from withdrawing troops just as it had led him to increase troop levels from under a thousand to over sixteen thousand.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep declaring that there was an "iron clad" policy in place that the US would without question withdraw 1,000 troops that year and all of the troops by 1965, Bfgrn and for the life of me I don't know how you've arrived at that conclusion.  NOTHING was set in stone....
> 
> Kennedy Week: JFK?s Uncertain Path in Vietnam | The Nation
> 
> That article does a great job of pointing out the uncertainty that the Kennedy White House was operating under when it came to Vietnam.  To declare that there WAS an iron clad "policy" that the troops would be pulled out by the end of 1965 is simply ignore the numerous OTHER "policies" that declared that our support of South Vietnam's fight against communist incursion from the north was unwavering.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and Perlstein have a right to an opinion as to what would have happened had Kennedy lived.
> 
> But the policy the day the President was assassinated was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965.
> 
> And 2 days before he died, that policy was still in place.
> 
> You like to accuse people like James K. Galbraith, son of the famous Kennedy hand and economist John Kenneth Galbraith, and Robert McNamara who was Secretary of Defense of lying. But they were THERE. Who the fuck is Perlstein?
> 
> I will prove Perlstein is NOT giving both sides of the debate.
> 
> Perlstein cherry picks just like the you and the neocons did with the inaugural address.
> 
> From your article.
> 
> President Kennedy also read much more pessimistic evaluations. These were written mostly by civilianssome by officials in the State Department, others by journalists like Malcolm Browne and David Halberstam. Kennedy did not openly commit himself to either the optimists or the pessimists. What he did do was insist publicly that he would never cut and run. July 13, 1963: We are not going to withdraw from that effort. we are going to stay there. *September 2: I dont agree with those who say we should withdraw. That would be a great mistake. *
> 
> Now the REST of the story, HERE is what Perlstein left out of that same interview on Sept 2:
> 
> MR. CRONKITE. Mr. President, the only hot war we've got running at the moment is of course the one in Viet-Nam, and we have our difficulties here, quite obviously.
> 
> PRESIDENT KENNEDY. I don't think that unless a greater effort is made by the Government to win popular support that the war can be won out there. In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win itthe people of Viet-Namagainst the Communists. We are prepared to continue to assist them, but I don't think that the war can be won unless the people support the effort, and, in my opinion, in the last 2 months the Government has gotten out of touch with the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again...context is important here...what Kennedy is talking about is the internal battle that the Catholic Diem brothers were waging against the Buddhist majority in South Vietnam.  What Kennedy is referring to when he speaks about the Government getting out of touch with the people over the prior two months were Government led attacks on Buddhist monks and monasteries that resulted in thousands of deaths.  Kennedy at this point has come to the realization that Diem is corrupt and incompetent and needs to be replaced for South Vietnam to have a chance at defeating the communist insurgents.
> 
> The REASON Kennedy cares about maintaining the support of the people in South Vietnam is that he is still committed to keeping the communists OUT of the South.  *THAT* policy is still in effect when JFK is killed and *THAT* policy would have precluded Kennedy from withdrawing troops just as it had led him to increase troop levels from under a thousand to over sixteen thousand.
Click to expand...


You are projecting your hawkish ignorance on JFK. You don't know the man, and you dismiss the people who knew him best, the ones who were close to him, as liars. You really haven't done anywhere near the reading and research on Jack Kennedy that I have. At EVERY turn in his presidency when confronted with the option of mass military intervention, he took a lesser route...Cuba twice, Berlin and Laos. He did increase our presence in Vietnam, but it a HUGE, GIGANTIC, VAST leap to say Kennedy would have Americanized the Vietnam war. In his second term, JFK was planning on changes in his administration. Secretary of State Dean Rusk who was a hawk would have been out and replaced with McNamara, the man Kennedy felt would and could stand up to the Joint Chiefs. Kennedy had explored the same approach he defused the Cuban Missile Crisis with...negotiations and diplomacy.

Papers reveal JFK efforts on Vietnam

By Bryan Bender
The Boston Globe

Monday, June 06, 2005

WASHINGTON -- Newly uncovered documents from both American and Polish archives show that President John F. Kennedy and the Soviet Union secretly sought ways to find a diplomatic settlement to the war in Vietnam, starting three years before the United States sent combat troops.

Kennedy, relying on his ambassador to India, John Kenneth Galbraith, planned to reach out to the North Vietnamese in April 1962 through a senior Indian diplomat, according to a secret State Department cable that was never dispatched.

Back-channel discussions also were attempted in January 1963, this time through the Polish government, which relayed the overture to Soviet leaders. New Polish records indicate Moscow was much more open than previously thought to using its influence with North Vietnam to cool a Cold War flash point.


The Galbraith I knew:  His biographer recalls how the late economist warned JFK about Vietnam -- and faulted conservative policies for worsening inequality in America.

By Richard Parker

Monday, May 01, 2006

Galbraith began warning President Kennedy of the dangers Vietnam posed in the summer of 1961, before the first U.S. troops were dispatched there. Kennedy heard him, and amazingly agreed with him, but was in a sense boxed in by the near unanimity of his top advisors that Vietnam was a place where America must "take a stand." Through recently declassified State and Defense Department documents, I was able to learn just how in tune JFK was with Galbraith's warning. The two men understood that this was no mere "foreign misadventure," but could become a quagmire that would not only blow back to the United States but destabilize its economy, delegitimize the Democratic Party and ultimately destroy the confidence of the American people in government itself.

What these newly released documents make clear is that by the spring of 1963 -- after barely avoiding nuclear war in the Cuban missile crisis the previous fall -- Kennedy was ready to act decisively. He ordered the Pentagon to prepare for the removal of the few thousand U.S. troops JFK had reluctantly authorized, with the final withdrawal immediately after the 1964 presidential election. Kennedy assumed he would face -- and defeat -- Sen. Barry Goldwater that fall, and didn't want to be "red-baited" by the hawkish Republican during the campaign. To make sure the Pentagon knew he was serious in his intentions, he ordered that the first troops be brought home in November 1963 -- the month he was assassinated in Dallas.


----------



## Oldstyle

Kennedy "defused" the Cuban Missile Crisis by employing an illegal *military* blockade of Cuba...he didn't make Nikita K. back down with diplomacy and if you think that DID take place then you need to go back and do some more reading up on the subject.

And Richard Parker needs to bone up on the subject as well!  Kennedy didn't "reluctantly" send a few thousand US troops to South Vietnam...he sent an additional *15,000* troops!  He also totally changed the role of the "advisers" that were in country from training, which is what they were doing under Ike, to actual combat missions.  He also instigated the widespread use of both napalm, defoliation and the forced relocation of South Vietnamese villagers.  Hardly the record of the "dove" that people like you are now trying to paint Kennedy as.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Kennedy "defused" the Cuban Missile Crisis by employing an illegal *military* blockade of Cuba...he didn't make Nikita K. back down with diplomacy and if you think that DID take place then you need to go back and do some more reading up on the subject.
> 
> And Richard Parker needs to bone up on the subject as well!  Kennedy didn't "reluctantly" send a few thousand US troops to South Vietnam...he sent an additional *15,000* troops!  He also totally changed the role of the "advisers" that were in country from training, which is what they were doing under Ike, to actual combat missions.  He also instigated the widespread use of both napalm, defoliation and the forced relocation of South Vietnamese villagers.  Hardly the record of the "dove" that people like you are now trying to paint Kennedy as.



You can try to slander, deride and dismiss Kennedy as much as you want, but the FACTS remain that the blockade was the least aggressive option in a room full of blood hungry grunts who wanted to 'fry Cuba'. And it is a FACT the official US policy on the day Kennedy died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965. You have failed in your attempt to disprove that fact. AND it is also a FACT the vast escalation of Vietnam into an American war was on LBJ, not Kennedy. 

In the very beginning I provided proof that the CIA tried to sabotage peace talks between Eisenhower and Khrushchev in 1960. It prompted Ike to issue his dark, dire military/industrial complex warning in a farewell speech that should have been all bouquets and roses. 

One of the first questions LBJ asked J Edgar Hoover in a phone conversation on November 29, 1963 after Hoover said 3 shots were fired: "Any of them fired at me?"

LBJ 'heard' those shots in every foreign policy decision he made moving forward. He did not have the guts and courage that jack Kennedy had.

The Farewell Address - President Eisenhower delivered the speech on January 17, 1961.

"Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military/industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.

Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.


----------



## thanatos144

Why is it that you progressives always act like you don't want war get your the first going to another country and killing 

tapatalk post


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Why is it that you progressives always act like you don't want war get your the first going to another country and killing
> 
> tapatalk post



Why is it that right wingers are as deep as a puddle? Not able to follow along, 'eh?


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy "defused" the Cuban Missile Crisis by employing an illegal *military* blockade of Cuba...he didn't make Nikita K. back down with diplomacy and if you think that DID take place then you need to go back and do some more reading up on the subject.
> 
> And Richard Parker needs to bone up on the subject as well!  Kennedy didn't "reluctantly" send a few thousand US troops to South Vietnam...he sent an additional *15,000* troops!  He also totally changed the role of the "advisers" that were in country from training, which is what they were doing under Ike, to actual combat missions.  He also instigated the widespread use of both napalm, defoliation and the forced relocation of South Vietnamese villagers.  Hardly the record of the "dove" that people like you are now trying to paint Kennedy as.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can try to slander, deride and dismiss Kennedy as much as you want, but the FACTS remain that the blockade was the least aggressive option in a room full of blood hungry grunts who wanted to 'fry Cuba'. And it is a FACT the official US policy on the day Kennedy died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965. You have failed in your attempt to disprove that fact. AND it is also a FACT the vast escalation of Vietnam into an American war was on LBJ, not Kennedy.
> 
> In the very beginning I provided proof that the CIA tried to sabotage peace talks between Eisenhower and Khrushchev in 1960. It prompted Ike to issue his dark, dire military/industrial complex warning in a farewell speech that should have been all bouquets and roses.
> 
> One of the first questions LBJ asked J Edgar Hoover in a phone conversation on November 29, 1963 after Hoover said 3 shots were fired: "Any of them fired at me?"
> 
> LBJ 'heard' those shots in every foreign policy decision he made moving forward. He did not have the guts and courage that jack Kennedy had.
> 
> The Farewell Address - President Eisenhower delivered the speech on January 17, 1961.
> 
> "Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
> 
> Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
> 
> This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
> 
> In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military/industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
> 
> We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
> 
> Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.
> 
> Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.
Click to expand...


Oh, for God's sake!  Where did I ever "slander" Kennedy?  I simply pointed out what he DID.  Not what he told someone he'd LIKE to do!  Not what his acolytes decided years later that they would like to believe he WOULD have done!  I simply pointed out what he *DID*!

You keep blathering on about US "policy" in regards to South Vietnam.  Please show me where official US policy changed to call for an abandonment of the South?  Where is THAT policy spelled out?

I can show you where Kennedy REPEATEDLY asserts his determination to stop the spread on communism and support those countries under assault FROM communism and especially South Vietnam from communism.  But THAT policy doesn't jibe with your belief that Kennedy would have gotten us out of Vietnam...does it?  So you avert your eyes and totally ignore THAT policy!


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy "defused" the Cuban Missile Crisis by employing an illegal *military* blockade of Cuba...he didn't make Nikita K. back down with diplomacy and if you think that DID take place then you need to go back and do some more reading up on the subject.
> 
> And Richard Parker needs to bone up on the subject as well!  Kennedy didn't "reluctantly" send a few thousand US troops to South Vietnam...he sent an additional *15,000* troops!  He also totally changed the role of the "advisers" that were in country from training, which is what they were doing under Ike, to actual combat missions.  He also instigated the widespread use of both napalm, defoliation and the forced relocation of South Vietnamese villagers.  Hardly the record of the "dove" that people like you are now trying to paint Kennedy as.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can try to slander, deride and dismiss Kennedy as much as you want, but the FACTS remain that the blockade was the least aggressive option in a room full of blood hungry grunts who wanted to 'fry Cuba'. And it is a FACT the official US policy on the day Kennedy died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965. You have failed in your attempt to disprove that fact. AND it is also a FACT the vast escalation of Vietnam into an American war was on LBJ, not Kennedy.
> 
> In the very beginning I provided proof that the CIA tried to sabotage peace talks between Eisenhower and Khrushchev in 1960. It prompted Ike to issue his dark, dire military/industrial complex warning in a farewell speech that should have been all bouquets and roses.
> 
> One of the first questions LBJ asked J Edgar Hoover in a phone conversation on November 29, 1963 after Hoover said 3 shots were fired: "Any of them fired at me?"
> 
> LBJ 'heard' those shots in every foreign policy decision he made moving forward. He did not have the guts and courage that jack Kennedy had.
> 
> The Farewell Address - President Eisenhower delivered the speech on January 17, 1961.
> 
> "Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.
> 
> Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
> 
> This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.
> 
> In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military/industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
> 
> We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
> 
> Disarmament, with mutual honor and confidence, is a continuing imperative. Together we must learn how to compose differences, not with arms, but with intellect and decent purpose. Because this need is so sharp and apparent I confess that I lay down my official responsibilities in this field with a definite sense of disappointment. As one who has witnessed the horror and the lingering sadness of war -- as one who knows that another war could utterly destroy this civilization which has been so slowly and painfully built over thousands of years -- I wish I could say tonight that a lasting peace is in sight.
> 
> Happily, I can say that war has been avoided. Steady progress toward our ultimate goal has been made. But, so much remains to be done. As a private citizen, I shall never cease to do what little I can to help the world advance along that road.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh, for God's sake!  Where did I ever "slander" Kennedy?  I simply pointed out what he DID.  Not what he told someone he'd LIKE to do!  Not what his acolytes decided years later that they would like to believe he WOULD have done!  I simply pointed out what he *DID*!
> 
> You keep blathering on about US "policy" in regards to South Vietnam.  Please show me where official US policy changed to call for an abandonment of the South?  Where is THAT policy spelled out?
> 
> I can show you where Kennedy REPEATEDLY asserts his determination to stop the spread on communism and support those countries under assault FROM communism and especially South Vietnam from communism.  But THAT policy doesn't jibe with your belief that Kennedy would have gotten us out of Vietnam...does it?  So you avert your eyes and totally ignore THAT policy!
Click to expand...


You are most definitely slandering Kennedy. You are attributing what happened AFTER he was dead to him and not the man who changed policy...LBJ. It is a FACT the official US policy on the day Kennedy died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965. You have failed in your attempt to disprove that fact. AND it is also a FACT the vast escalation of Vietnam into an American war was on LBJ, not Kennedy. 

You have proven one thing; you will continue to project what you believe Kennedy WOULD have done. I have proven what JFK DID. He set and signed official US policy on Vietnam; withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965...and only 2 days before his assassination it was reiterated.


And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem. 
President John F. Kennedy


----------



## Oldstyle

What Kennedy *DID* was increase the number of troops in Vietnam from under a thousand to over sixteen thousand in the three short years he was in office!  What Kennedy *DID* was totally change the mission of those additional troops from the training that they were doing under Eisenhower to having them flying the bulk of combat air missions!  What Kennedy *DID* was introduce widespread use of napalm!  What Kennedy *DID* was introduce the use of Agent Orange in his "defoliation" program!  What Kennedy *DID* was start forced relocation of peasants!

Those are the FACTS about what John F. Kennedy *DID* in Vietnam!  His actions set the blueprint for everything that followed.

I'm still waiting for your proof that US policy had changed as to the support that South Vietnam would be receiving.  The "plan" that you naively think was policy set in stone by Kennedy was simply that...a plan.  A plan that was referred to by one of Kennedy's own cabinet members as a "pipe dream".  A plan that was drawn up because Kennedy was receiving assurances that the war in Vietnam was succeeding wonderfully and all that was left was a "mop up" operation that could be handled by the South Vietnamese.  So what happened between when that plan was commissioned and when Kennedy was assassinated?  For starters, the leadership of South Vietnam.  Both Diem brothers were dead from a coup backed by Kennedy.  Also the rosy predictions of imminent victory had been replaced by more realistic appraisals of what we were facing in Vietnam.  Put quite simply...THERE IS NO WAY THAT KENNEDY WITHDRAWS US TROOPS FROM SOUTH VIETNAM AT THAT JUNCTURE WITHOUT THE SOUTH FALLING TO THE COMMUNISTS AND THERE IS NO WAY THAT HE IS GOING TO ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN!


----------



## Oldstyle

And as I showed from the speech that Kennedy would have given *THAT VERY DAY* in Dallas...he was still committed to keeping South Vietnam from falling to the communists...something else that you choose to totally ignore.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> What Kennedy *DID* was increase the number of troops in Vietnam from under a thousand to over sixteen thousand in the three short years he was in office!  What Kennedy *DID* was totally change the mission of those additional troops from the training that they were doing under Eisenhower to having them flying the bulk of combat air missions!  What Kennedy *DID* was introduce widespread use of napalm!  What Kennedy *DID* was introduce the use of Agent Orange in his "defoliation" program!  What Kennedy *DID* was start forced relocation of peasants!
> 
> Those are the FACTS about what John F. Kennedy *DID* in Vietnam!  His actions set the blueprint for everything that followed.
> 
> I'm still waiting for your proof that US policy had changed as to the support that South Vietnam would be receiving.  The "plan" that you naively think was policy set in stone by Kennedy was simply that...a plan.  A plan that was referred to by one of Kennedy's own cabinet members as a "pipe dream".  A plan that was drawn up because Kennedy was receiving assurances that the war in Vietnam was succeeding wonderfully and all that was left was a "mop up" operation that could be handled by the South Vietnamese.  So what happened between when that plan was commissioned and when Kennedy was assassinated?  For starters, the leadership of South Vietnam.  Both Diem brothers were dead from a coup backed by Kennedy.  Also the rosy predictions of imminent victory had been replaced by more realistic appraisals of what we were facing in Vietnam.  Put quite simply...THERE IS NO WAY THAT KENNEDY WITHDRAWS US TROOPS FROM SOUTH VIETNAM AT THAT JUNCTURE WITHOUT THE SOUTH FALLING TO THE COMMUNISTS AND THERE IS NO WAY THAT HE IS GOING TO ALLOW THAT TO HAPPEN!



I have already admitted that Kennedy escalated our involvement in Vietnam. But you refuse to admit that the policy on the day Kennedy died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965. You don't believe official documents, you don't believe the Secretary of Defense, you don't believe President Johnson's Deputy National Security Adviser, you don't believe ANY author who doesn't conform to YOUR unfounded beliefs of what would have happened had Kennedy lived.

We now know that you spell John F. Kennedy; Lyndon B. Johnson.

Kennedy would have withdrawn, realizing "that it was South Vietnam's war and the people there had to win it... We couldn't win the war for them."
Robert McNamara

"Professor Galbraith is correct that there was a plan to withdraw US forces from Vietnam, beginning with the first thousand by December 1963, and almost all of the rest by the end of 1965. President Kennedy had approved that plan. It was the actual policy of the United States on the day Kennedy died."
Francis Bator-President Johnson's Deputy National Security Adviser


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> And as I showed from the speech that Kennedy would have given *THAT VERY DAY* in Dallas...he was still committed to keeping South Vietnam from falling to the communists...something else that you choose to totally ignore.



And I have shown that Kennedy did not make the withdrawal plan public until he was re-elected.


----------



## Papageorgio

Bobby Kennedy is on record as saying that his brother would not have pulled out from Vietnam.


----------



## Oldstyle

Papageorgio said:


> Bobby Kennedy is on record as saying that his brother would not have pulled out from Vietnam.



JFK is on record saying he won't pull out of Vietnam!  He was giving a speech in Dallas the day he was assassinated that once again stated that clearly.  That doesn't matter to Bfgrn because he chooses to ignore EVERYTHING but the "plan" because he thinks planning to do something is the same thing as actually doing it!


----------



## thanatos144

Papageorgio said:


> Bobby Kennedy is on record as saying that his brother would not have pulled out from Vietnam.



Because a Kennedy wouldn't lie?  Lol 

tapatalk post


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as I showed from the speech that Kennedy would have given *THAT VERY DAY* in Dallas...he was still committed to keeping South Vietnam from falling to the communists...something else that you choose to totally ignore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I have shown that Kennedy did not make the withdrawal plan public until he was re-elected.
Click to expand...


What you have REALLY shown is that Kennedy can't be taken at his word.  He's willing to lie to get reelected.  So if he's so willing to lie?  Why do you accept so willingly that he's being honest about going through with the troop withdrawals?  He assured the Cuban ex-pats who went ashore at the Bay of Pigs that they would have air support to take out the Cuban air force only to change his mind at the last moment and cancel half of the planes assigned for that task.  Why are you so convinced that he wouldn't have done the EXACT same thing in Vietnam if he was faced with the very real prospect of the South falling to the communists as a result of his pulling out the troops?


----------



## Bfgrn

papageorgio said:


> bobby kennedy is on record as saying that his brother would not have pulled out from vietnam.



lie


----------



## Papageorgio

Bfgrn said:


> papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> bobby kennedy is on record as saying that his brother would not have pulled out from vietnam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lie
Click to expand...


http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/vietnam.htm

FTI:
*Martin:
It's generally true all over the world, whether it's in a shooting war or a different kind of a war. But the president was convinced that we had to keep, had to stay in there . . .
Kennedy:
Yes.
Martin:
. . . and couldn't lose it.
Kennedy:
Yes.
*

Oops, I guess you don't know history.


----------



## Oldstyle

He only knows a certain "version" of it...


----------



## thanatos144

Oldstyle said:


> He only knows a certain "version" of it...



Yep.  Kennedy is a democrat saint. Obama is messiah and Lincoln was a great democrat lol 

tapatalk post


----------



## Bfgrn

Papageorgio said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> bobby kennedy is on record as saying that his brother would not have pulled out from vietnam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> lie
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Was John Kennedy Going to Pull Out of Vietnam?
> 
> FTI:
> *Martin:
> It's generally true all over the world, whether it's in a shooting war or a different kind of a war. But the president was convinced that we had to keep, had to stay in there . . .
> Kennedy:
> Yes.
> Martin:
> . . . and couldn't lose it.
> Kennedy:
> Yes.
> *
> 
> Oops, I guess you don't know history.
Click to expand...


Funny, you left out this part...

Martin:
    There was never any consideration given to pulling out?

Kennedy:
    No.

Martin:
*But the same time, no disposition to go in all . . .
*
Kennedy:
* No . . .*

Martin:
    . . . in an all out way as we went into Korea. *We were trying to avoid a Korea, is that correct?
*
Kennedy:
*Yes, because I, everybody including General MacArthur felt that land conflict between our troops, white troops and Asian, would only lead to, end in disaster. So it was. . . . We went in as advisers, but to try to get the Vietnamese to fight themselves, because we couldn't win the war for them. They had to win the war for themselves. *


----------



## Papageorgio

Bfgrn said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> lie
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Was John Kennedy Going to Pull Out of Vietnam?
> 
> FTI:
> *Martin:
> It's generally true all over the world, whether it's in a shooting war or a different kind of a war. But the president was convinced that we had to keep, had to stay in there . . .
> Kennedy:
> Yes.
> Martin:
> . . . and couldn't lose it.
> Kennedy:
> Yes.
> *
> 
> Oops, I guess you don't know history.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny, you left out this part...
> 
> Martin:
> There was never any consideration given to pulling out?
> 
> Kennedy:
> No.
> 
> Martin:
> *But the same time, no disposition to go in all . . .
> *
> Kennedy:
> * No . . .*
> 
> Martin:
> . . . in an all out way as we went into Korea. *We were trying to avoid a Korea, is that correct?
> *
> Kennedy:
> *Yes, because I, everybody including General MacArthur felt that land conflict between our troops, white troops and Asian, would only lead to, end in disaster. So it was. . . . We went in as advisers, but to try to get the Vietnamese to fight themselves, because we couldn't win the war for them. They had to win the war for themselves. *
Click to expand...


And if they were going to use land troops or air troops, it had not been decided. Sounds like he wasn't ready to withdraw.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as I showed from the speech that Kennedy would have given *THAT VERY DAY* in Dallas...he was still committed to keeping South Vietnam from falling to the communists...something else that you choose to totally ignore.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And I have shown that Kennedy did not make the withdrawal plan public until he was re-elected.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you have REALLY shown is that Kennedy can't be taken at his word.  He's willing to lie to get reelected.  So if he's so willing to lie?  Why do you accept so willingly that he's being honest about going through with the troop withdrawals?  He assured the Cuban ex-pats who went ashore at the Bay of Pigs that they would have air support to take out the Cuban air force only to change his mind at the last moment and cancel half of the planes assigned for that task.  Why are you so convinced that he wouldn't have done the EXACT same thing in Vietnam if he was faced with the very real prospect of the South falling to the communists as a result of his pulling out the troops?
Click to expand...


Kennedy wasn't going to give right wing hawks any ammo for the '64 election. This was a speech in southern DALLAS Texas, a conservative bastion. It was a fund raising luncheon of wealthy businessmen in the heart of the space program. 

There is nothing in that speech that is says he would send in 200,000 American soldiers into Vietnam and 60,000 of them to their deaths. And there are some shots taken in that speech that I surmise were directed at the Joint Chiefs and the hawks he had to fend off almost daily. It reminds me of what he said during the height of the Cuban Missile Crisis to Ken O'Donnell about the Joint Chiefs only soultion to ever problem...if we do what they want us to do, no one will be alive to tell them they were wrong.

Trade Mart speech

"This link between leadership and learning is not only essential at the community level. It is even more indispensable in world affairs. Ignorance and misinformation can handicap the progress of a city or a company, but they can, if allowed to prevail in foreign policy, handicap this country's security. In a world of complex and continuing problems, in a world full of frustrations and irritations, America's leadership must be guided by the lights of learning and reason -- or else those who confuse rhetoric with reality and the plausible with the possible will gain the popular ascendancy with their seemingly swift and simple solutions to every world problem.

There will always be dissident voices heard in the land, expressing opposition without alternative, finding fault but never favor, perceiving gloom on every side and seeking influence without responsibility. Those voices are inevitable."

_And here is how he would have ended that speech:_

"The strength will never be used in pursuit of aggressive ambitions -- it will always be used in pursuit of peace. It will never be used to promote provocations -- it will always be used to promote the peaceful settlement of disputes.

We, in this country, in this generation, are -- by destiny rather than by choice -- the watchmen on the walls of world freedom. We ask, therefore, that we may be worthy of our power and responsibility, that we may exercise our strength with wisdom and restraint, and that we may achieve in our time and for all time the ancient vision of "peace on earth, good will toward men." That must always be our goal, and the righteousness of our cause must always underlie our strength. For as was written long ago: "except the Lord keep the city, the watchmen waketh but in vain."


----------



## Bfgrn

Papageorgio said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Was John Kennedy Going to Pull Out of Vietnam?
> 
> FTI:
> *Martin:
> It's generally true all over the world, whether it's in a shooting war or a different kind of a war. But the president was convinced that we had to keep, had to stay in there . . .
> Kennedy:
> Yes.
> Martin:
> . . . and couldn't lose it.
> Kennedy:
> Yes.
> *
> 
> Oops, I guess you don't know history.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, you left out this part...
> 
> Martin:
> There was never any consideration given to pulling out?
> 
> Kennedy:
> No.
> 
> Martin:
> *But the same time, no disposition to go in all . . .
> *
> Kennedy:
> * No . . .*
> 
> Martin:
> . . . in an all out way as we went into Korea. *We were trying to avoid a Korea, is that correct?
> *
> Kennedy:
> *Yes, because I, everybody including General MacArthur felt that land conflict between our troops, white troops and Asian, would only lead to, end in disaster. So it was. . . . We went in as advisers, but to try to get the Vietnamese to fight themselves, because we couldn't win the war for them. They had to win the war for themselves. *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And if they were going to use land troops or air troops, it had not been decided. Sounds like he wasn't ready to withdraw.
Click to expand...


RFK is saying they WOULDN'T Americanize the war as LBJ did.


----------



## Papageorgio

Bfgrn said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny, you left out this part...
> 
> Martin:
> There was never any consideration given to pulling out?
> 
> Kennedy:
> No.
> 
> Martin:
> *But the same time, no disposition to go in all . . .
> *
> Kennedy:
> * No . . .*
> 
> Martin:
> . . . in an all out way as we went into Korea. *We were trying to avoid a Korea, is that correct?
> *
> Kennedy:
> *Yes, because I, everybody including General MacArthur felt that land conflict between our troops, white troops and Asian, would only lead to, end in disaster. So it was. . . . We went in as advisers, but to try to get the Vietnamese to fight themselves, because we couldn't win the war for them. They had to win the war for themselves. *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And if they were going to use land troops or air troops, it had not been decided. Sounds like he wasn't ready to withdraw.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> RFK is saying they WOULDN'T Americanize the war as LBJ did.
Click to expand...


He said Kennedy was not going to pull out or lose the war. Spin it, but he wasn't ready to withdraw and give up. He was staying.


----------



## Bfgrn

Papageorgio said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> And if they were going to use land troops or air troops, it had not been decided. Sounds like he wasn't ready to withdraw.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RFK is saying they WOULDN'T Americanize the war as LBJ did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He said Kennedy was not going to pull out or lose the war. Spin it, but he wasn't ready to withdraw and give up. He was staying.
Click to expand...


President Kennedy said he wouldn't withdraw, even though the policy of the United States was to withdraw 1,000 men by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965. AND, he instructed his administration to keep that policy from the public until after the 1964 election.

On April 30, 1964, Robert Kennedy was the Attorney General of the United States. Which means he was an official member of the Johnson administration. He would still be constrained by any directive from LBJ, AND the 1964 election was still 7 months away.

Had President Kennedy lived, is it possible he would have modified the withdrawal policy? Yes, but it does not mean that he would have ever committed 200,000 troops, Americanize the war and send almost 60,000 young men to their demise.


----------



## Papageorgio

Bfgrn said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> RFK is saying they WOULDN'T Americanize the war as LBJ did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He said Kennedy was not going to pull out or lose the war. Spin it, but he wasn't ready to withdraw and give up. He was staying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> President Kennedy said he wouldn't withdraw, even though the policy of the United States was to withdraw 1,000 men by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965. AND, he instructed his administration to keep that policy from the public until after the 1964 election.
> 
> On April 30, 1964, Robert Kennedy was the Attorney General of the United States. Which means he was an official member of the Johnson administration. He would still be constrained by any directive from LBJ, AND the 1964 election was still 7 months away.
> 
> Had President Kennedy lived, is it possible he would have modified the withdrawal policy? Yes, but it does not mean that he would have ever committed 200,000 troops, Americanize the war and send almost 60,000 young men to their demise.
Click to expand...


 I'll shit, the Kennedy brothers were close and shared a lot. Just because the policy says...doesn't mean shit. We have immigration policies that we have ignored for decades. Sorry, your assumption doesn't pass the litmus test. Nice try though.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> RFK is saying they WOULDN'T Americanize the war as LBJ did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He said Kennedy was not going to pull out or lose the war. Spin it, but he wasn't ready to withdraw and give up. He was staying.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> President Kennedy said he wouldn't withdraw, even though the policy of the United States was to withdraw 1,000 men by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965. AND, he instructed his administration to keep that policy from the public until after the 1964 election.
> 
> On April 30, 1964, Robert Kennedy was the Attorney General of the United States. Which means he was an official member of the Johnson administration. He would still be constrained by any directive from LBJ, AND the 1964 election was still 7 months away.
> 
> Had President Kennedy lived, is it possible he would have modified the withdrawal policy? Yes, but it does not mean that he would have ever committed 200,000 troops, Americanize the war and send almost 60,000 young men to their demise.
Click to expand...


Wait a second...now you've TOTALLY changed your argument from saying that Kennedy would definitely have withdrawn all of the troops from South Vietnam to saying that even though it's possible he would have modified the withdrawal policy (Gee, really?) it doesn't mean that he would have committed 200,000 troops to South Vietnam.

I take it that you've FINALLY come to the realization that Kennedy's "plan" to withdraw troops simply doesn't stand up to his commitment to prevent the spread of communism?


----------



## Oldstyle

And the truth of the matter, Bfgrn...is that you are only GUESSING what Kennedy's response would have been to the increased number of North Vietnamese troops that introduced into the conflict in South Vietnam.  That was what Johnson faced and that was why he increased US troop levels.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> He said Kennedy was not going to pull out or lose the war. Spin it, but he wasn't ready to withdraw and give up. He was staying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Kennedy said he wouldn't withdraw, even though the policy of the United States was to withdraw 1,000 men by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965. AND, he instructed his administration to keep that policy from the public until after the 1964 election.
> 
> On April 30, 1964, Robert Kennedy was the Attorney General of the United States. Which means he was an official member of the Johnson administration. He would still be constrained by any directive from LBJ, AND the 1964 election was still 7 months away.
> 
> Had President Kennedy lived, is it possible he would have modified the withdrawal policy? Yes, but it does not mean that he would have ever committed 200,000 troops, Americanize the war and send almost 60,000 young men to their demise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Wait a second...now you've TOTALLY changed your argument from saying that Kennedy would definitely have withdrawn all of the troops from South Vietnam to saying that even though it's possible he would have modified the withdrawal policy (Gee, really?) it doesn't mean that he would have committed 200,000 troops to South Vietnam.
> 
> I take it that you've FINALLY come to the realization that Kennedy's "plan" to withdraw troops simply doesn't stand up to his commitment to prevent the spread of communism?
Click to expand...


I have defended your right to your opinion all along. What you have refused to do is admit that the official US policy on the day Kennedy died was withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965, even after the Diem coup.

Of course Kennedy could have modified that policy, but I am supremely confident that if he had survived, Vietnam would have never become America's war. If you know the man and his beliefs about war there is no doubt in my mind he would have never plunged America into another Korea. LBJ showed he didn't hold any of JFK's beliefs 2 days after Kennedy died. 

The policy change in Vietnam were made by LBJ, not Kennedy...

*20 Nov 1963* - Honolulu Meeting Briefing Book, Part I. See also Part II.
The briefing books prepared for a Vietnam meeting in Honolulu reaffirmed the timetables for complete withdrawal from Vietnam, as well as the initial 1,000 main withdrawal, despite the recent coup in Vietnam.

*22 Nov 1963* - President Kennedy assassinated.

*24 Nov 1963* - Memorandum for the Record of a Meeting, Executive Office Building, Washington, November 24, 1963, 3 p.m.
Within two days of President Kennedy's death, on Sunday afternoon, President Johnson already began receiving advice that "we could not at this point or time give a particularly optimistic appraisal of the future" regarding Vietnam. President Johnson expressed dissatisfaction with the present course and particularly its emphasis on social reforms, and stated that "He was anxious to get along, win the war..."


----------



## Bfgrn

Papageorgio said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> He said Kennedy was not going to pull out or lose the war. Spin it, but he wasn't ready to withdraw and give up. He was staying.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Kennedy said he wouldn't withdraw, even though the policy of the United States was to withdraw 1,000 men by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965. AND, he instructed his administration to keep that policy from the public until after the 1964 election.
> 
> On April 30, 1964, Robert Kennedy was the Attorney General of the United States. Which means he was an official member of the Johnson administration. He would still be constrained by any directive from LBJ, AND the 1964 election was still 7 months away.
> 
> Had President Kennedy lived, is it possible he would have modified the withdrawal policy? Yes, but it does not mean that he would have ever committed 200,000 troops, Americanize the war and send almost 60,000 young men to their demise.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'll shit, the Kennedy brothers were close and shared a lot. Just because the policy says...doesn't mean shit. We have immigration policies that we have ignored for decades. Sorry, your assumption doesn't pass the litmus test. Nice try though.
Click to expand...


Total lack of understanding of policy, protocol, and how things work...

Pure emotes.


----------



## Papageorgio

Bfgrn said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> President Kennedy said he wouldn't withdraw, even though the policy of the United States was to withdraw 1,000 men by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965. AND, he instructed his administration to keep that policy from the public until after the 1964 election.
> 
> On April 30, 1964, Robert Kennedy was the Attorney General of the United States. Which means he was an official member of the Johnson administration. He would still be constrained by any directive from LBJ, AND the 1964 election was still 7 months away.
> 
> Had President Kennedy lived, is it possible he would have modified the withdrawal policy? Yes, but it does not mean that he would have ever committed 200,000 troops, Americanize the war and send almost 60,000 young men to their demise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'll shit, the Kennedy brothers were close and shared a lot. Just because the policy says...doesn't mean shit. We have immigration policies that we have ignored for decades. Sorry, your assumption doesn't pass the litmus test. Nice try though.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Total lack of understanding of policy, protocol, and how things work...
> 
> Pure emotes.
Click to expand...


Faced with the truth, you still maintain your idiotic stand. 

You don't like being wrong, too bad.

Can't get anymore point blank than what I posted. If you aren't that smart, not my problem.


----------



## Bfgrn

Papageorgio said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'll shit, the Kennedy brothers were close and shared a lot. Just because the policy says...doesn't mean shit. We have immigration policies that we have ignored for decades. Sorry, your assumption doesn't pass the litmus test. Nice try though.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Total lack of understanding of policy, protocol, and how things work...
> 
> Pure emotes.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Faced with the truth, you still maintain your idiotic stand.
> 
> You don't like being wrong, too bad.
> 
> Can't get anymore point blank than what I posted. If you aren't that smart, not my problem.
Click to expand...


The polarized right wing mind, black or white, all or none child brain...


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> President Kennedy said he wouldn't withdraw, even though the policy of the United States was to withdraw 1,000 men by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965. AND, he instructed his administration to keep that policy from the public until after the 1964 election.
> 
> On April 30, 1964, Robert Kennedy was the Attorney General of the United States. Which means he was an official member of the Johnson administration. He would still be constrained by any directive from LBJ, AND the 1964 election was still 7 months away.
> 
> Had President Kennedy lived, is it possible he would have modified the withdrawal policy? Yes, but it does not mean that he would have ever committed 200,000 troops, Americanize the war and send almost 60,000 young men to their demise.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Wait a second...now you've TOTALLY changed your argument from saying that Kennedy would definitely have withdrawn all of the troops from South Vietnam to saying that even though it's possible he would have modified the withdrawal policy (Gee, really?) it doesn't mean that he would have committed 200,000 troops to South Vietnam.
> 
> I take it that you've FINALLY come to the realization that Kennedy's "plan" to withdraw troops simply doesn't stand up to his commitment to prevent the spread of communism?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have defended your right to your opinion all along. What you have refused to do is admit that the official US policy on the day Kennedy died was withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965, even after the Diem coup.
> 
> Of course Kennedy could have modified that policy, but I am supremely confident that if he had survived, Vietnam would have never become America's war. If you know the man and his beliefs about war there is no doubt in my mind he would have never plunged America into another Korea. LBJ showed he didn't hold any of JFK's beliefs 2 days after Kennedy died.
> 
> The policy change in Vietnam were made by LBJ, not Kennedy...
> 
> *20 Nov 1963* - Honolulu Meeting Briefing Book, Part I. See also Part II.
> The briefing books prepared for a Vietnam meeting in Honolulu reaffirmed the timetables for complete withdrawal from Vietnam, as well as the initial 1,000 main withdrawal, despite the recent coup in Vietnam.
> 
> *22 Nov 1963* - President Kennedy assassinated.
> 
> *24 Nov 1963* - Memorandum for the Record of a Meeting, Executive Office Building, Washington, November 24, 1963, 3 p.m.
> Within two days of President Kennedy's death, on Sunday afternoon, President Johnson already began receiving advice that "we could not at this point or time give a particularly optimistic appraisal of the future" regarding Vietnam. President Johnson expressed dissatisfaction with the present course and particularly its emphasis on social reforms, and stated that "He was anxious to get along, win the war..."
Click to expand...


So you basically don't know one way or the other what Kennedy would have done but because you're so heavily invested in the "Camelot" myth, you choose to believe that Kennedy would have pulled out US troops and let South Vietnam fall to the communists, even though up to THAT point he had chosen to escalate the war rather dramatically?  

And on this point you are "*supremely*" confident because YOU *know* Kennedy so well?  Really?


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wait a second...now you've TOTALLY changed your argument from saying that Kennedy would definitely have withdrawn all of the troops from South Vietnam to saying that even though it's possible he would have modified the withdrawal policy (Gee, really?) it doesn't mean that he would have committed 200,000 troops to South Vietnam.
> 
> I take it that you've FINALLY come to the realization that Kennedy's "plan" to withdraw troops simply doesn't stand up to his commitment to prevent the spread of communism?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have defended your right to your opinion all along. What you have refused to do is admit that the official US policy on the day Kennedy died was withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965, even after the Diem coup.
> 
> Of course Kennedy could have modified that policy, but I am supremely confident that if he had survived, Vietnam would have never become America's war. If you know the man and his beliefs about war there is no doubt in my mind he would have never plunged America into another Korea. LBJ showed he didn't hold any of JFK's beliefs 2 days after Kennedy died.
> 
> The policy change in Vietnam were made by LBJ, not Kennedy...
> 
> *20 Nov 1963* - Honolulu Meeting Briefing Book, Part I. See also Part II.
> The briefing books prepared for a Vietnam meeting in Honolulu reaffirmed the timetables for complete withdrawal from Vietnam, as well as the initial 1,000 main withdrawal, despite the recent coup in Vietnam.
> 
> *22 Nov 1963* - President Kennedy assassinated.
> 
> *24 Nov 1963* - Memorandum for the Record of a Meeting, Executive Office Building, Washington, November 24, 1963, 3 p.m.
> Within two days of President Kennedy's death, on Sunday afternoon, President Johnson already began receiving advice that "we could not at this point or time give a particularly optimistic appraisal of the future" regarding Vietnam. President Johnson expressed dissatisfaction with the present course and particularly its emphasis on social reforms, and stated that "He was anxious to get along, win the war..."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you basically don't know one way or the other what Kennedy would have done but because you're so heavily invested in the "Camelot" myth, you choose to believe that Kennedy would have pulled out US troops and let South Vietnam fall to the communists, even though up to THAT point he had chosen to escalate the war rather dramatically?
> 
> And on this point you are "*supremely*" confident because YOU *know* Kennedy so well?  Really?
Click to expand...


The policy on the day he died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965. 

So you basically don't know one way or the other what Kennedy would have done but because you so heavily despise Kennedy, love Nixon and are a right wing warmonger, you choose to believe that Kennedy would have done exactly what LBJ did; send 200,000 men and the full force of our military into a civil war, Americanize the war and seal the fate of 60,000 young men.

"In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win it&#8212;the people of Vietnam"
President John F. Kennedy

"Yes, because I, everybody including General MacArthur felt that land conflict between our troops, white troops and Asian, would only lead to, end in disaster. So it was. . . . We went in as advisers, but to try to get the Vietnamese to fight themselves, because we couldn't win the war for them. They had to win the war for themselves."
Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy

Kennedy would have withdrawn, realizing "that it was South Vietnam's war and the people there had to win it... We couldn't win the war for them."
Secretary of Defense Robert s. McNamara


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have defended your right to your opinion all along. What you have refused to do is admit that the official US policy on the day Kennedy died was withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965, even after the Diem coup.
> 
> Of course Kennedy could have modified that policy, but I am supremely confident that if he had survived, Vietnam would have never become America's war. If you know the man and his beliefs about war there is no doubt in my mind he would have never plunged America into another Korea. LBJ showed he didn't hold any of JFK's beliefs 2 days after Kennedy died.
> 
> The policy change in Vietnam were made by LBJ, not Kennedy...
> 
> *20 Nov 1963* - Honolulu Meeting Briefing Book, Part I. See also Part II.
> The briefing books prepared for a Vietnam meeting in Honolulu reaffirmed the timetables for complete withdrawal from Vietnam, as well as the initial 1,000 main withdrawal, despite the recent coup in Vietnam.
> 
> *22 Nov 1963* - President Kennedy assassinated.
> 
> *24 Nov 1963* - Memorandum for the Record of a Meeting, Executive Office Building, Washington, November 24, 1963, 3 p.m.
> Within two days of President Kennedy's death, on Sunday afternoon, President Johnson already began receiving advice that "we could not at this point or time give a particularly optimistic appraisal of the future" regarding Vietnam. President Johnson expressed dissatisfaction with the present course and particularly its emphasis on social reforms, and stated that "He was anxious to get along, win the war..."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So you basically don't know one way or the other what Kennedy would have done but because you're so heavily invested in the "Camelot" myth, you choose to believe that Kennedy would have pulled out US troops and let South Vietnam fall to the communists, even though up to THAT point he had chosen to escalate the war rather dramatically?
> 
> And on this point you are "*supremely*" confident because YOU *know* Kennedy so well?  Really?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The policy on the day he died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965.
> 
> So you basically don't know one way or the other what Kennedy would have done but because you so heavily despise Kennedy, love Nixon and are a right wing warmonger, you choose to believe that Kennedy would have done exactly what LBJ did; send 200,000 men and the full force of our military into a civil war, Americanize the war and seal the fate of 60,000 young men.
> 
> "In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win itthe people of Vietnam"
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> "Yes, because I, everybody including General MacArthur felt that land conflict between our troops, white troops and Asian, would only lead to, end in disaster. So it was. . . . We went in as advisers, but to try to get the Vietnamese to fight themselves, because we couldn't win the war for them. They had to win the war for themselves."
> Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy
> 
> Kennedy would have withdrawn, realizing "that it was South Vietnam's war and the people there had to win it... We couldn't win the war for them."
> Secretary of Defense Robert s. McNamara
Click to expand...


Please...I don't "despise" Kennedy...nor did I ever "love" Nixon.  Unlike you however, I view what each man DID in Vietnam not what I or someone else thinks they MIGHT have done.  You can fault Richard Nixon on many things but when it comes to Vietnam...he is the one who *actually* pulled out...John F. Kennedy is the one who *might* have pulled out.

I actually doubt that Kennedy would have escalated the conflict to the level that LBJ did but at the same time I've seen little to convince me that Kennedy was going to pull out if it meant that South Vietnam would fall to the communists.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you basically don't know one way or the other what Kennedy would have done but because you're so heavily invested in the "Camelot" myth, you choose to believe that Kennedy would have pulled out US troops and let South Vietnam fall to the communists, even though up to THAT point he had chosen to escalate the war rather dramatically?
> 
> And on this point you are "*supremely*" confident because YOU *know* Kennedy so well?  Really?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The policy on the day he died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965.
> 
> So you basically don't know one way or the other what Kennedy would have done but because you so heavily despise Kennedy, love Nixon and are a right wing warmonger, you choose to believe that Kennedy would have done exactly what LBJ did; send 200,000 men and the full force of our military into a civil war, Americanize the war and seal the fate of 60,000 young men.
> 
> "In the final analysis, it is their war. They are the ones who have to win it or lose it. We can help them, we can give them equipment, we can send our men out there as advisers, but they have to win itthe people of Vietnam"
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> "Yes, because I, everybody including General MacArthur felt that land conflict between our troops, white troops and Asian, would only lead to, end in disaster. So it was. . . . We went in as advisers, but to try to get the Vietnamese to fight themselves, because we couldn't win the war for them. They had to win the war for themselves."
> Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy
> 
> Kennedy would have withdrawn, realizing "that it was South Vietnam's war and the people there had to win it... We couldn't win the war for them."
> Secretary of Defense Robert s. McNamara
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Please...I don't "despise" Kennedy...nor did I ever "love" Nixon.  Unlike you however, I view what each man DID in Vietnam not what I or someone else thinks they MIGHT have done.  You can fault Richard Nixon on many things but when it comes to Vietnam...he is the one who *actually* pulled out...John F. Kennedy is the one who *might* have pulled out.
> 
> I actually doubt that Kennedy would have escalated the conflict to the level that LBJ did but at the same time I've seen little to convince me that Kennedy was going to pull out if it meant that South Vietnam would fall to the communists.
Click to expand...


Actually there is plenty of evidence that Kennedy would have never escalated the war as LBJ did, but you either refuse to accept it (myth making) or you have tried to paint decisions he made that were the least aggressive options and defiant of the advise of hawks in as negative a light as possible (blockade).

President Kennedy gave the most provocative speech about "peace" in American history. At the very height of the cold war, he talked about the Russians in human terms, and challenged the American people to "re-examine our own attitudes, as individuals and as a nation". His American University Commencement Address on June 10, 1963 has been called 'The peace speech" and  "The Speech That Got JFK Murdered".

The speech so moved Premier Khrushchev, he excluded it from being jammed to allow the Soviets to listen to it. In addition the full content of the speech was printed in Pravda, a Russian political newspaper associated with the communist party at the time. Izvestiya, another Russian newspaper in Moscow also printed it.







The Speech That Got JFK Murdered?

American University Commencement Address
Delivered June 10, 1963 

President John F. Kennedy's speech, "A Strategy of Peace," was the American University commencement address delivered on June 10, 1963, in Washington, DC. The president announced the development of the Nuclear Test-Ban Treaty and his decision to unilaterally suspend all atmospheric nuclear weapons testing so long as all other nations did the same. His peaceful outreach to the Soviet Union was unusual, coming at the height of the Cold War. Kennedy was outlining a new direction for his administration.

As author/researchers Peter Janney and James W. Douglass have made clear, Kennedy prepared this speech with only a handful of close, trusted aides ,and were careful to keep its contents secret from the national security establishment. As Janney says: "The powerful speech marked an abrupt departure from Cold War bluster and announced a new era of cooperation and coexistence."

This is remembered as one of Kennedys finest and most important speeches, and the changes it heralded, many scholars believe, was the catalyst for the conspiracy that ended his life, and changed for the worse the course of American and world history.

Transcript and video: Commencement Address at American University, June 10, 1963 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum


----------



## Oldstyle

I didn't "paint" a military blockade...I simply pointed out that Kennedy did in fact resort to a totally illegal *military* action in response to the Cuban Missile Crisis after you made the dubious claim that Kennedy always took the most peaceful alternative available.

As for Kennedy's speech?  I'm not seeing what you find so remarkable about it, Bfgrn.  Kennedy is obviously concerned about the dangers of the nuclear world that we were then living in.  He knows from first hand experience how close we came to a nuclear confrontation over Cuban missiles.  So he is proposing steps to back away from the theory of "mutually assured destruction".

He does *not *however back away from the view that communism is the enemy of free people and actually chastises the Soviet leadership for the lies it tells in the pursuit of expanding communism around the world.  This *IS* in some ways a "peace speech" but in many ways it's simply a declaration that nuclear weapons can't be used in the battle between free people and those that would seek to take that freedom away through communism...and that Kennedy proposes to have that struggle without the threat of nuclear war.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> I didn't "paint" a military blockade...I simply pointed out that Kennedy did in fact resort to a totally illegal *military* action in response to the Cuban Missile Crisis after you made the dubious claim that Kennedy always took the most peaceful alternative available.
> 
> As for Kennedy's speech?  I'm not seeing what you find so remarkable about it, Bfgrn.  Kennedy is obviously concerned about the dangers of the nuclear world that we were then living in.  He knows from first hand experience how close we came to a nuclear confrontation over Cuban missiles.  So he is proposing steps to back away from the theory of "mutually assured destruction".
> 
> He does *not *however back away from the view that communism is the enemy of free people and actually chastises the Soviet leadership for the lies it tells in the pursuit of expanding communism around the world.  This *IS* in some ways a "peace speech" but in many ways it's simply a declaration that nuclear weapons can't be used in the battle between free people and those that would seek to take that freedom away through communism...and that Kennedy proposes to have that struggle without the threat of nuclear war.



The dominant consensus Kennedy received during the missile crisis from the Joint Chiefs, Senators and Congressmen was an invasion of Cuba. Or as General Curtis LeMay put it "fry Cuba". But Kennedy refused to invade Cuba. The blockade was not an aggressive military action, and you just continue to try to twist it into something it wasn't. Admit it, you despise Kennedy. You are a right wing war monger. Kennedy wasn't a hawk. I have studied the man for over 50 years, he hated war. It was devastating to his family. And a hawk would never utter these words: "War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today"


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't "paint" a military blockade...I simply pointed out that Kennedy did in fact resort to a totally illegal *military* action in response to the Cuban Missile Crisis after you made the dubious claim that Kennedy always took the most peaceful alternative available.
> 
> As for Kennedy's speech?  I'm not seeing what you find so remarkable about it, Bfgrn.  Kennedy is obviously concerned about the dangers of the nuclear world that we were then living in.  He knows from first hand experience how close we came to a nuclear confrontation over Cuban missiles.  So he is proposing steps to back away from the theory of "mutually assured destruction".
> 
> He does *not *however back away from the view that communism is the enemy of free people and actually chastises the Soviet leadership for the lies it tells in the pursuit of expanding communism around the world.  This *IS* in some ways a "peace speech" but in many ways it's simply a declaration that nuclear weapons can't be used in the battle between free people and those that would seek to take that freedom away through communism...and that Kennedy proposes to have that struggle without the threat of nuclear war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dominant consensus Kennedy received during the missile crisis from the Joint Chiefs, Senators and Congressmen was an invasion of Cuba. Or as General Curtis LeMay put it "fry Cuba". But Kennedy refused to invade Cuba. The blockade was not an aggressive military action, and you just continue to try to twist it into something it wasn't. Admit it, you despise Kennedy. You are a right wing war monger. Kennedy wasn't a hawk. I have studied the man for over 50 years, he hated war. It was devastating to his family. And a hawk would never utter these words: "War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today"
Click to expand...


An illegal blockade in International waters isn't an "aggressive military action"?  I hate to disagree, Bfgrn...but that's EXACTLY what it is!

I "despise" Kennedy and I'm a right wing war monger because I simply point out that Kennedy escalated the conflict in Vietnam?

Funny, I wept when Kennedy was killed and I rejoiced when Nixon ended the Vietnam war.  Strange behavior for a Kennedy hating war monger!!!  I'm FROM Massachusetts...where the Kennedy name was accorded the same status as royalty.  I thought the man walked on water until I took some college level history classes that dealt less with the myth of JFK and more with the reality of the man.

As for what words came out of Kennedy's mouth?  JFK had some very talented speechwriters working for him...as do most Presidents...what he said in a speech was more than likely the thoughts of someone else that was being paid a large amount of money to write the soaring rhetoric that you now feel "proves" that Kennedy was a dove at heart.  My father, who was involved in politics always told me not to put too much stock in what politicians *say*...the only thing that counts is what they actually *do*.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I didn't "paint" a military blockade...I simply pointed out that Kennedy did in fact resort to a totally illegal *military* action in response to the Cuban Missile Crisis after you made the dubious claim that Kennedy always took the most peaceful alternative available.
> 
> As for Kennedy's speech?  I'm not seeing what you find so remarkable about it, Bfgrn.  Kennedy is obviously concerned about the dangers of the nuclear world that we were then living in.  He knows from first hand experience how close we came to a nuclear confrontation over Cuban missiles.  So he is proposing steps to back away from the theory of "mutually assured destruction".
> 
> He does *not *however back away from the view that communism is the enemy of free people and actually chastises the Soviet leadership for the lies it tells in the pursuit of expanding communism around the world.  This *IS* in some ways a "peace speech" but in many ways it's simply a declaration that nuclear weapons can't be used in the battle between free people and those that would seek to take that freedom away through communism...and that Kennedy proposes to have that struggle without the threat of nuclear war.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The dominant consensus Kennedy received during the missile crisis from the Joint Chiefs, Senators and Congressmen was an invasion of Cuba. Or as General Curtis LeMay put it "fry Cuba". But Kennedy refused to invade Cuba. The blockade was not an aggressive military action, and you just continue to try to twist it into something it wasn't. Admit it, you despise Kennedy. You are a right wing war monger. Kennedy wasn't a hawk. I have studied the man for over 50 years, he hated war. It was devastating to his family. And a hawk would never utter these words: "War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An illegal blockade in International waters isn't an "aggressive military action"?  I hate to disagree, Bfgrn...but that's EXACTLY what it is!
> 
> I "despise" Kennedy and I'm a right wing war monger because I simply point out that Kennedy escalated the conflict in Vietnam?
> 
> Funny, I wept when Kennedy was killed and I rejoiced when Nixon ended the Vietnam war.  Strange behavior for a Kennedy hating war monger!!!  I'm FROM Massachusetts...where the Kennedy name was accorded the same status as royalty.  I thought the man walked on water until I took some college level history classes that dealt less with the myth of JFK and more with the reality of the man.
> 
> As for what words came out of Kennedy's mouth?  JFK had some very talented speechwriters working for him...as do most Presidents...what he said in a speech was more than likely the thoughts of someone else that was being paid a large amount of money to write the soaring rhetoric that you now feel "proves" that Kennedy was a dove at heart.  My father, who was involved in politics always told me not to put too much stock in what politicians *say*...the only thing that counts is what they actually *do*.
Click to expand...


A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing. 
Oscar Wilde 

You right wingers LOVE that word "illegal". You are the master of denial, deception and hypocrisy.

Where would you place an "illegal" blockade vs an all out invasion on the scale of military aggression and "legality"???

So please give me an example of a hawk who would ever utter the words "War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today"? Because Jack Kennedy wrote those words in a letter to a Navy friend long before he ever had speechwriters working for him.

And BTW Einstein, who the hell wrote the words to that last speech you put so much stock in? OH, THAT was the REAL Kennedy, not the man who gave the peace speech.

And the REAL Kennedy is the one who escalated our troop level in Vietnam, but NOT the Kennedy who ordered 1,000 troops withdrawn by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965.

WOW, you sure have found a way to totally dismiss every shred of evidence that doesn't support your warmongering hatred of Kennedy.

Massachusetts? I thought you ran a lodge in Colorado and was ordered not to rent to Kennedys?

Your story is starting to reek of not only of hypocrisy, but of dishonesty.
























JFK's Last Hundred Days: The Transformation of a Man and the Emergence of a Great President

The statesman who yields to war fever...is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.
Winston Churchill


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The dominant consensus Kennedy received during the missile crisis from the Joint Chiefs, Senators and Congressmen was an invasion of Cuba. Or as General Curtis LeMay put it "fry Cuba". But Kennedy refused to invade Cuba. The blockade was not an aggressive military action, and you just continue to try to twist it into something it wasn't. Admit it, you despise Kennedy. You are a right wing war monger. Kennedy wasn't a hawk. I have studied the man for over 50 years, he hated war. It was devastating to his family. And a hawk would never utter these words: "War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today"
> 
> 
> 
> 
> An illegal blockade in International waters isn't an "aggressive military action"?  I hate to disagree, Bfgrn...but that's EXACTLY what it is!
> 
> I "despise" Kennedy and I'm a right wing war monger because I simply point out that Kennedy escalated the conflict in Vietnam?
> 
> Funny, I wept when Kennedy was killed and I rejoiced when Nixon ended the Vietnam war.  Strange behavior for a Kennedy hating war monger!!!  I'm FROM Massachusetts...where the Kennedy name was accorded the same status as royalty.  I thought the man walked on water until I took some college level history classes that dealt less with the myth of JFK and more with the reality of the man.
> 
> As for what words came out of Kennedy's mouth?  JFK had some very talented speechwriters working for him...as do most Presidents...what he said in a speech was more than likely the thoughts of someone else that was being paid a large amount of money to write the soaring rhetoric that you now feel "proves" that Kennedy was a dove at heart.  My father, who was involved in politics always told me not to put too much stock in what politicians *say*...the only thing that counts is what they actually *do*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
> Oscar Wilde
> 
> You right wingers LOVE that word "illegal". You are the master of denial, deception and hypocrisy.
> 
> Where would you place an "illegal" blockade vs an all out invasion on the scale of military aggression and "legality"???
> 
> So please give me an example of a hawk who would ever utter the words "War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today"? Because Jack Kennedy wrote those words in a letter to a Navy friend long before he ever had speechwriters working for him.
> 
> And BTW Einstein, who the hell wrote the words to that last speech you put so much stock in? OH, THAT was the REAL Kennedy, not the man who gave the peace speech.
> 
> And the REAL Kennedy is the one who escalated our troop level in Vietnam, but NOT the Kennedy who ordered 1,000 troops withdrawn by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965.
> 
> WOW, you sure have found a way to totally dismiss every shred of evidence that doesn't support your warmongering hatred of Kennedy.
> 
> Massachusetts? I thought you ran a lodge in Colorado and was ordered not to rent to Kennedys?
> 
> Your story is starting to reek of not only of hypocrisy, but of dishonesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFK's Last Hundred Days: The Transformation of a Man and the Emergence of a Great President
> 
> The statesman who yields to war fever...is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.
> Winston Churchill
Click to expand...


So I'm not only a Kennedy "hater" and a "warmonger"...now I'm the "master of denial, deception and hypocrisy" for pointing out that Kennedy's blockade of Cuba WAS an illegal military action?

You know what, Bfgrn?  When you have to resort to hyperbole like that it announces quite loudly that you don't have an intelligent response to what I've posted.

I said that I'm FROM Massachusetts...I've lived in many different places, including Aspen, Colorado for ten years.  It's a wonderful world out there...anyone who stays in one place their entire life is missing out on it.


----------



## Oldstyle

And as I've said before and you've grudgingly admitted...all that was in place was a "plan" to withdraw American troops...a plan that was put in place because of overly optimistic appraisals of South Vietnam's ability to fight on their own.  You give Kennedy credit for doing something that he very likely wouldn't have done.

As my father always said...don't put too much credence in politicians "promises"...the only thing that counts is what they have DONE not what they say they WILL DO.


----------



## whitehall

Maher ain't exactly an impartial historian. He is a freaking comedian. "Camelot" didn't exist except in the minds of fool pop-culture liberal media types. It's generally acknowledged that JFK's Pulitizer Prize award for his book "Profiles in Courage" was fraudulent. The book was written by a family friend. JFK's use (abuse) of the CIA to train an equip an invasion army to storm the beaches of Cuba is on the top ten of bad decisions in American history.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> An illegal blockade in International waters isn't an "aggressive military action"?  I hate to disagree, Bfgrn...but that's EXACTLY what it is!
> 
> I "despise" Kennedy and I'm a right wing war monger because I simply point out that Kennedy escalated the conflict in Vietnam?
> 
> Funny, I wept when Kennedy was killed and I rejoiced when Nixon ended the Vietnam war.  Strange behavior for a Kennedy hating war monger!!!  I'm FROM Massachusetts...where the Kennedy name was accorded the same status as royalty.  I thought the man walked on water until I took some college level history classes that dealt less with the myth of JFK and more with the reality of the man.
> 
> As for what words came out of Kennedy's mouth?  JFK had some very talented speechwriters working for him...as do most Presidents...what he said in a speech was more than likely the thoughts of someone else that was being paid a large amount of money to write the soaring rhetoric that you now feel "proves" that Kennedy was a dove at heart.  My father, who was involved in politics always told me not to put too much stock in what politicians *say*...the only thing that counts is what they actually *do*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
> Oscar Wilde
> 
> You right wingers LOVE that word "illegal". You are the master of denial, deception and hypocrisy.
> 
> Where would you place an "illegal" blockade vs an all out invasion on the scale of military aggression and "legality"???
> 
> So please give me an example of a hawk who would ever utter the words "War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today"? Because Jack Kennedy wrote those words in a letter to a Navy friend long before he ever had speechwriters working for him.
> 
> And BTW Einstein, who the hell wrote the words to that last speech you put so much stock in? OH, THAT was the REAL Kennedy, not the man who gave the peace speech.
> 
> And the REAL Kennedy is the one who escalated our troop level in Vietnam, but NOT the Kennedy who ordered 1,000 troops withdrawn by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965.
> 
> WOW, you sure have found a way to totally dismiss every shred of evidence that doesn't support your warmongering hatred of Kennedy.
> 
> Massachusetts? I thought you ran a lodge in Colorado and was ordered not to rent to Kennedys?
> 
> Your story is starting to reek of not only of hypocrisy, but of dishonesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFK's Last Hundred Days: The Transformation of a Man and the Emergence of a Great President
> 
> The statesman who yields to war fever...is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.
> Winston Churchill
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So I'm not only a Kennedy "hater" and a "warmonger"...now I'm the "master of denial, deception and hypocrisy" for pointing out that Kennedy's blockade of Cuba WAS an illegal military action?
> 
> You know what, Bfgrn?  When you have to resort to hyperbole like that it announces quite loudly that you don't have an intelligent response to what I've posted.
> 
> I said that I'm FROM Massachusetts...I've lived in many different places, including Aspen, Colorado for ten years.  It's a wonderful world out there...anyone who stays in one place their entire life is missing out on it.
Click to expand...


You continue the denial, deception and hypocrisy. 

Where would you place an "illegal" blockade vs an all out invasion on the scale of military aggression and "legality"?

Who wrote the words to that last speech you put so much stock in?

Are you going to answer my questions?


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> A cynic is a man who knows the price of everything but the value of nothing.
> Oscar Wilde
> 
> You right wingers LOVE that word "illegal". You are the master of denial, deception and hypocrisy.
> 
> Where would you place an "illegal" blockade vs an all out invasion on the scale of military aggression and "legality"???
> 
> So please give me an example of a hawk who would ever utter the words "War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today"? Because Jack Kennedy wrote those words in a letter to a Navy friend long before he ever had speechwriters working for him.
> 
> And BTW Einstein, who the hell wrote the words to that last speech you put so much stock in? OH, THAT was the REAL Kennedy, not the man who gave the peace speech.
> 
> And the REAL Kennedy is the one who escalated our troop level in Vietnam, but NOT the Kennedy who ordered 1,000 troops withdrawn by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965.
> 
> WOW, you sure have found a way to totally dismiss every shred of evidence that doesn't support your warmongering hatred of Kennedy.
> 
> Massachusetts? I thought you ran a lodge in Colorado and was ordered not to rent to Kennedys?
> 
> Your story is starting to reek of not only of hypocrisy, but of dishonesty.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> JFK's Last Hundred Days: The Transformation of a Man and the Emergence of a Great President
> 
> The statesman who yields to war fever...is no longer the master of policy but the slave of unforeseeable and uncontrollable events.
> Winston Churchill
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I'm not only a Kennedy "hater" and a "warmonger"...now I'm the "master of denial, deception and hypocrisy" for pointing out that Kennedy's blockade of Cuba WAS an illegal military action?
> 
> You know what, Bfgrn?  When you have to resort to hyperbole like that it announces quite loudly that you don't have an intelligent response to what I've posted.
> 
> I said that I'm FROM Massachusetts...I've lived in many different places, including Aspen, Colorado for ten years.  It's a wonderful world out there...anyone who stays in one place their entire life is missing out on it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You continue the denial, deception and hypocrisy.
> 
> Where would you place an "illegal" blockade vs an all out invasion on the scale of military aggression and "legality"?
> 
> Who wrote the words to that last speech you put so much stock in?
> 
> Are you going to answer my questions?
Click to expand...


Just admit you don't know shit about how JFK really was and your the picture of a low information voter 

tapatalk post


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> And as I've said before and you've grudgingly admitted...all that was in place was a "plan" to withdraw American troops...a plan that was put in place because of overly optimistic appraisals of South Vietnam's ability to fight on their own.  You give Kennedy credit for doing something that he very likely wouldn't have done.
> 
> As my father always said...don't put too much credence in politicians "promises"...the only thing that counts is what they have DONE not what they say they WILL DO.



And you have refused to admit that the policy on the day Kennedy died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965.

Kennedy knew the war was not going well, his policy decision wasn't dependent on "overly optimistic appraisals of South Vietnam's ability to fight on their own". He was not going to commit our blood and treasure to a land war in Asia. He knew how it would end.

And after 10 years, 58,220 U.S. service members were dead, 800,000 Vietnamese were dead, 200,000300,000 Cambodians were dead, 20,000200,000 Laotians were dead.

And America was a torn nation.

Direct U.S. military involvement ended on 15 August 1973 as a result of the CaseChurch Amendment passed by the U.S. Congress. The capture of Saigon by the North Vietnamese Army in April 1975 marked the end of the war, and North and South Vietnam were reunified the following year.

And what did Nixon end up proposing?

Nixon Doctrine / Vietnamization

Severe communist losses during the Tet Offensive allowed U.S. President Richard Nixon to begin troop withdrawals. His plan, called the Nixon Doctrine, was to build up the ARVN, so that they could take over the defense of South Vietnam. The policy became known as "Vietnamization". Vietnamization had much in common with the policies of the Kennedy administration. One important difference, however, remained. While Kennedy insisted that the South Vietnamese fight the war themselves, he attempted to limit the scope of the conflict. ref

And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem. 
President John F. Kennedy


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> So I'm not only a Kennedy "hater" and a "warmonger"...now I'm the "master of denial, deception and hypocrisy" for pointing out that Kennedy's blockade of Cuba WAS an illegal military action?
> 
> You know what, Bfgrn?  When you have to resort to hyperbole like that it announces quite loudly that you don't have an intelligent response to what I've posted.
> 
> I said that I'm FROM Massachusetts...I've lived in many different places, including Aspen, Colorado for ten years.  It's a wonderful world out there...anyone who stays in one place their entire life is missing out on it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You continue the denial, deception and hypocrisy.
> 
> Where would you place an "illegal" blockade vs an all out invasion on the scale of military aggression and "legality"?
> 
> Who wrote the words to that last speech you put so much stock in?
> 
> Are you going to answer my questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just admit you don't know shit about how JFK really was and your the picture of a low information voter
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


I know more about Jack Kennedy than anyone on this board. Care to debate me?


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You continue the denial, deception and hypocrisy.
> 
> Where would you place an "illegal" blockade vs an all out invasion on the scale of military aggression and "legality"?
> 
> Who wrote the words to that last speech you put so much stock in?
> 
> Are you going to answer my questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just admit you don't know shit about how JFK really was and your the picture of a low information voter
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know more about Jack Kennedy than anyone on this board. Care to debate me?
Click to expand...


Apparently not 

tapatalk post


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as I've said before and you've grudgingly admitted...all that was in place was a "plan" to withdraw American troops...a plan that was put in place because of overly optimistic appraisals of South Vietnam's ability to fight on their own.  You give Kennedy credit for doing something that he very likely wouldn't have done.
> 
> As my father always said...don't put too much credence in politicians "promises"...the only thing that counts is what they have DONE not what they say they WILL DO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you have refused to admit that the policy on the day Kennedy died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965.
> 
> Kennedy knew the war was not going well, his policy decision wasn't dependent on "overly optimistic appraisals of South Vietnam's ability to fight on their own". He was not going to commit our blood and treasure to a land war in Asia. He knew how it would end.
> 
> And after 10 years, 58,220 U.S. service members were dead, 800,000 Vietnamese were dead, 200,000300,000 Cambodians were dead, 20,000200,000 Laotians were dead.
> 
> And America was a torn nation.
> 
> Direct U.S. military involvement ended on 15 August 1973 as a result of the CaseChurch Amendment passed by the U.S. Congress. The capture of Saigon by the North Vietnamese Army in April 1975 marked the end of the war, and North and South Vietnam were reunified the following year.
> 
> And what did Nixon end up proposing?
> 
> Nixon Doctrine / Vietnamization
> 
> Severe communist losses during the Tet Offensive allowed U.S. President Richard Nixon to begin troop withdrawals. His plan, called the Nixon Doctrine, was to build up the ARVN, so that they could take over the defense of South Vietnam. The policy became known as "Vietnamization". Vietnamization had much in common with the policies of the Kennedy administration. One important difference, however, remained. While Kennedy insisted that the South Vietnamese fight the war themselves, he attempted to limit the scope of the conflict. ref
> 
> And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.
> President John F. Kennedy
Click to expand...


If Kennedy "insisted" that the Vietnamese fight the war themselves...then kindly explain why he increased the number of Americans there from under a thousand when he took office to over 16,000 when he was assassinated?

Once again...that is what Kennedy DID in South Vietnam!  The "plan" to withdraw troops is just that...a "plan"...something to be done in the future.  Kennedy had a "plan" to take out the Cuban air forces with 16 bombers but he changed that "plan" at the last moment sending only 8 bombers which didn't accomplish the task and doomed the Bay of Pigs invasion to failure.  You, of course see that as proof that Kennedy is at heart a dove but what it REALLY shows is that Kennedy had a habit of indecisiveness.  When he commissioned the "plan" to withdraw a thousand troops by the end of '63 and all of them by the end of '65 it was on the basis of overly optimistic intelligence about the capabilities of the South Vietnamese to fight the communists.  It became abundantly clear however that South Vietnam was NOT capable of carrying on that fight alone and that a withdrawal of the scope that Kennedy had been proposing would mean a communist victory in South Vietnam.  At THAT point the "plan" (that you for some unknown reason think is now "iron clad policy") becomes unworkable because Kennedy is still fully committed to stopping the spread of communism.

Which brings us full circle to you admitting that you don't really know WHAT Kennedy would have done in South Vietnam if he hadn't been assassinated in 1963.  Somehow you make the leap in logic that Kennedy had the ability to see into the future and avoid the disaster that Vietnam became.  Funny how he didn't have the ability to do that when he was upping the number of American troops in South Vietnam drastically and changing their role from that of training (as it was under Ike) to active involvement in combat missions!  Your contention is that Johnson "altered" Kennedy's plans.  The argument could be made that Johnson simply carried on with what Kennedy had started in South Vietnam just as he carried on with Kennedy's domestic agenda at home.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as I've said before and you've grudgingly admitted...all that was in place was a "plan" to withdraw American troops...a plan that was put in place because of overly optimistic appraisals of South Vietnam's ability to fight on their own.  You give Kennedy credit for doing something that he very likely wouldn't have done.
> 
> As my father always said...don't put too much credence in politicians "promises"...the only thing that counts is what they have DONE not what they say they WILL DO.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> And you have refused to admit that the policy on the day Kennedy died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965.
> 
> Kennedy knew the war was not going well, his policy decision wasn't dependent on "overly optimistic appraisals of South Vietnam's ability to fight on their own". He was not going to commit our blood and treasure to a land war in Asia. He knew how it would end.
> 
> And after 10 years, 58,220 U.S. service members were dead, 800,000 Vietnamese were dead, 200,000300,000 Cambodians were dead, 20,000200,000 Laotians were dead.
> 
> And America was a torn nation.
> 
> Direct U.S. military involvement ended on 15 August 1973 as a result of the CaseChurch Amendment passed by the U.S. Congress. The capture of Saigon by the North Vietnamese Army in April 1975 marked the end of the war, and North and South Vietnam were reunified the following year.
> 
> And what did Nixon end up proposing?
> 
> Nixon Doctrine / Vietnamization
> 
> Severe communist losses during the Tet Offensive allowed U.S. President Richard Nixon to begin troop withdrawals. His plan, called the Nixon Doctrine, was to build up the ARVN, so that they could take over the defense of South Vietnam. The policy became known as "Vietnamization". Vietnamization had much in common with the policies of the Kennedy administration. One important difference, however, remained. While Kennedy insisted that the South Vietnamese fight the war themselves, he attempted to limit the scope of the conflict. ref
> 
> And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If Kennedy "insisted" that the Vietnamese fight the war themselves...then kindly explain why he increased the number of Americans there from under a thousand when he took office to over 16,000 when he was assassinated?
> 
> Once again...that is what Kennedy DID in South Vietnam!  The "plan" to withdraw troops is just that...a "plan"...something to be done in the future.  Kennedy had a "plan" to take out the Cuban air forces with 16 bombers but he changed that "plan" at the last moment sending only 8 bombers which didn't accomplish the task and doomed the Bay of Pigs invasion to failure.  You, of course see that as proof that Kennedy is at heart a dove but what it REALLY shows is that Kennedy had a habit of indecisiveness.  When he commissioned the "plan" to withdraw a thousand troops by the end of '63 and all of them by the end of '65 it was on the basis of overly optimistic intelligence about the capabilities of the South Vietnamese to fight the communists.  It became abundantly clear however that South Vietnam was NOT capable of carrying on that fight alone and that a withdrawal of the scope that Kennedy had been proposing would mean a communist victory in South Vietnam.  At THAT point the "plan" (that you for some unknown reason think is now "iron clad policy") becomes unworkable because Kennedy is still fully committed to stopping the spread of communism.
> 
> Which brings us full circle to you admitting that you don't really know WHAT Kennedy would have done in South Vietnam if he hadn't been assassinated in 1963.  Somehow you make the leap in logic that Kennedy had the ability to see into the future and avoid the disaster that Vietnam became.  Funny how he didn't have the ability to do that when he was upping the number of American troops in South Vietnam drastically and changing their role from that of training (as it was under Ike) to active involvement in combat missions!  Your contention is that Johnson "altered" Kennedy's plans.  The argument could be made that Johnson simply carried on with what Kennedy had started in South Vietnam just as he carried on with Kennedy's domestic agenda at home.
Click to expand...


SO, I take it you are not going to answer my questions. 

You started squealing when I accused you of denial, deception and hypocrisy. Do you have a better definition of why you refuse to answer my questions?

You used the term 'naive' about my beliefs. Naive would be someone who believes 8 more antiquated WWII bombers would have turned the tide in 1961 against massive Cuban forces.


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you have refused to admit that the policy on the day Kennedy died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965.
> 
> Kennedy knew the war was not going well, his policy decision wasn't dependent on "overly optimistic appraisals of South Vietnam's ability to fight on their own". He was not going to commit our blood and treasure to a land war in Asia. He knew how it would end.
> 
> And after 10 years, 58,220 U.S. service members were dead, 800,000 Vietnamese were dead, 200,000300,000 Cambodians were dead, 20,000200,000 Laotians were dead.
> 
> And America was a torn nation.
> 
> Direct U.S. military involvement ended on 15 August 1973 as a result of the CaseChurch Amendment passed by the U.S. Congress. The capture of Saigon by the North Vietnamese Army in April 1975 marked the end of the war, and North and South Vietnam were reunified the following year.
> 
> And what did Nixon end up proposing?
> 
> Nixon Doctrine / Vietnamization
> 
> Severe communist losses during the Tet Offensive allowed U.S. President Richard Nixon to begin troop withdrawals. His plan, called the Nixon Doctrine, was to build up the ARVN, so that they could take over the defense of South Vietnam. The policy became known as "Vietnamization". Vietnamization had much in common with the policies of the Kennedy administration. One important difference, however, remained. While Kennedy insisted that the South Vietnamese fight the war themselves, he attempted to limit the scope of the conflict. ref
> 
> And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Kennedy "insisted" that the Vietnamese fight the war themselves...then kindly explain why he increased the number of Americans there from under a thousand when he took office to over 16,000 when he was assassinated?
> 
> Once again...that is what Kennedy DID in South Vietnam!  The "plan" to withdraw troops is just that...a "plan"...something to be done in the future.  Kennedy had a "plan" to take out the Cuban air forces with 16 bombers but he changed that "plan" at the last moment sending only 8 bombers which didn't accomplish the task and doomed the Bay of Pigs invasion to failure.  You, of course see that as proof that Kennedy is at heart a dove but what it REALLY shows is that Kennedy had a habit of indecisiveness.  When he commissioned the "plan" to withdraw a thousand troops by the end of '63 and all of them by the end of '65 it was on the basis of overly optimistic intelligence about the capabilities of the South Vietnamese to fight the communists.  It became abundantly clear however that South Vietnam was NOT capable of carrying on that fight alone and that a withdrawal of the scope that Kennedy had been proposing would mean a communist victory in South Vietnam.  At THAT point the "plan" (that you for some unknown reason think is now "iron clad policy") becomes unworkable because Kennedy is still fully committed to stopping the spread of communism.
> 
> Which brings us full circle to you admitting that you don't really know WHAT Kennedy would have done in South Vietnam if he hadn't been assassinated in 1963.  Somehow you make the leap in logic that Kennedy had the ability to see into the future and avoid the disaster that Vietnam became.  Funny how he didn't have the ability to do that when he was upping the number of American troops in South Vietnam drastically and changing their role from that of training (as it was under Ike) to active involvement in combat missions!  Your contention is that Johnson "altered" Kennedy's plans.  The argument could be made that Johnson simply carried on with what Kennedy had started in South Vietnam just as he carried on with Kennedy's domestic agenda at home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SO, I take it you are not going to answer my questions.
> 
> You started squealing when I accused you of denial, deception and hypocrisy. Do you have a better definition of why you refuse to answer my questions?
> 
> You used the term 'naive' about my beliefs. Naive would be someone who believes 8 more antiquated WWII bombers would have turned the tide in 1961 against massive Cuban forces.
Click to expand...


He has answered you time and time again but you just ignore him personally we should just forget about it because you're never ever ever going to admit that  Camelot was a fake

tapatalk post


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> And you have refused to admit that the policy on the day Kennedy died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965.
> 
> Kennedy knew the war was not going well, his policy decision wasn't dependent on "overly optimistic appraisals of South Vietnam's ability to fight on their own". He was not going to commit our blood and treasure to a land war in Asia. He knew how it would end.
> 
> And after 10 years, 58,220 U.S. service members were dead, 800,000 Vietnamese were dead, 200,000300,000 Cambodians were dead, 20,000200,000 Laotians were dead.
> 
> And America was a torn nation.
> 
> Direct U.S. military involvement ended on 15 August 1973 as a result of the CaseChurch Amendment passed by the U.S. Congress. The capture of Saigon by the North Vietnamese Army in April 1975 marked the end of the war, and North and South Vietnam were reunified the following year.
> 
> And what did Nixon end up proposing?
> 
> Nixon Doctrine / Vietnamization
> 
> Severe communist losses during the Tet Offensive allowed U.S. President Richard Nixon to begin troop withdrawals. His plan, called the Nixon Doctrine, was to build up the ARVN, so that they could take over the defense of South Vietnam. The policy became known as "Vietnamization". Vietnamization had much in common with the policies of the Kennedy administration. One important difference, however, remained. While Kennedy insisted that the South Vietnamese fight the war themselves, he attempted to limit the scope of the conflict. ref
> 
> And we must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent or omniscient - that we are only six percent of the world's population - that we cannot impose our will upon the other ninety-four percent of mankind - that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity - and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem.
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If Kennedy "insisted" that the Vietnamese fight the war themselves...then kindly explain why he increased the number of Americans there from under a thousand when he took office to over 16,000 when he was assassinated?
> 
> Once again...that is what Kennedy DID in South Vietnam!  The "plan" to withdraw troops is just that...a "plan"...something to be done in the future.  Kennedy had a "plan" to take out the Cuban air forces with 16 bombers but he changed that "plan" at the last moment sending only 8 bombers which didn't accomplish the task and doomed the Bay of Pigs invasion to failure.  You, of course see that as proof that Kennedy is at heart a dove but what it REALLY shows is that Kennedy had a habit of indecisiveness.  When he commissioned the "plan" to withdraw a thousand troops by the end of '63 and all of them by the end of '65 it was on the basis of overly optimistic intelligence about the capabilities of the South Vietnamese to fight the communists.  It became abundantly clear however that South Vietnam was NOT capable of carrying on that fight alone and that a withdrawal of the scope that Kennedy had been proposing would mean a communist victory in South Vietnam.  At THAT point the "plan" (that you for some unknown reason think is now "iron clad policy") becomes unworkable because Kennedy is still fully committed to stopping the spread of communism.
> 
> Which brings us full circle to you admitting that you don't really know WHAT Kennedy would have done in South Vietnam if he hadn't been assassinated in 1963.  Somehow you make the leap in logic that Kennedy had the ability to see into the future and avoid the disaster that Vietnam became.  Funny how he didn't have the ability to do that when he was upping the number of American troops in South Vietnam drastically and changing their role from that of training (as it was under Ike) to active involvement in combat missions!  Your contention is that Johnson "altered" Kennedy's plans.  The argument could be made that Johnson simply carried on with what Kennedy had started in South Vietnam just as he carried on with Kennedy's domestic agenda at home.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> SO, I take it you are not going to answer my questions.
> 
> You started squealing when I accused you of denial, deception and hypocrisy. Do you have a better definition of why you refuse to answer my questions?
> 
> You used the term 'naive' about my beliefs. Naive would be someone who believes 8 more antiquated WWII bombers would have turned the tide in 1961 against massive Cuban forces.
Click to expand...


What questions are those?  

About Nixon?  We keep going back to the same starting point...JFK had a "plan" to withdraw troops from Vietnam but actually increased the number of troops there quite dramatically.  Nixon on the other hand came into office promising to end our involvement in Vietnam and actually DID withdraw troops steadily.

I'm sorry but a "plan" that may or may not have been seen through by a President who had a reputation for being indecisive doesn't compare well to an actual accomplished fact.  Kennedy planned something...Nixon accomplished it.


----------



## Oldstyle

As for what would or would not have turned the tide at the Bay of Pigs?  You can't land on a beach head without control of the air and expect a favorable outcome.  The air strikes to take out Castro's fighters was crucial and JFK depleted the force that was delivering those strikes by 50% at the last moment...a huge strategic blunder.  Kennedy sent those men to their deaths.  He either should have provided the air support that was originally called for...or he should have called off the invasion.  His "waffling" on how it would look politically is what doomed the entire operation.  Like anyone with half a brain wouldn't have known without question that the US was behind the invasion?


----------



## MaryL

Is there an point in all that drabble? Kennedy got us in all sorts of messes: Bay of pigs,  Vietnam and had Deim (look it up) assassinated.  We lost 52,000 kids for nothing. I knew some of those kids. Prestige lost. Real people gone. For imaginary causes. McNamara  was like  Cheney.  Anyway, 1983, Regan minimized the  Muslim extremist  that resulted in hezbollah killing 250 American Marines . Regan  sent them  there to enforce the peace, like  lambs to slaughter.  MR. Regan then turned and ran .  Remind anyone of Somalia ? Do we ever learn? Then, remember  1990? George Bush sent us in to "protect" Kuwait from Saddam husein, our otherwise  friend against the nasty Iranians. Even though we knew  all this  about Saddam,  He who had all those  invisible WMD's. Verification? Sadam  was  the  guy that gassed the Kurds, and THEN...whilst the Russian Bear invaded Afghanistan we actually helped the Mujihadeen fight the Russians. We helped bin Laden , in effect.   Then we  pissed him off, because our soldiers were in  the Saudi holy land fighting Sadam in 1990...which lead to 9/11. Twisted mixed up  garbage.  I am getting to where I don&#8217;t care anymore,  because I  haven't a clue what "we" are anymore. I stopped voting.  I don&#8217;t care anymore.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Kennedy "insisted" that the Vietnamese fight the war themselves...then kindly explain why he increased the number of Americans there from under a thousand when he took office to over 16,000 when he was assassinated?
> 
> Once again...that is what Kennedy DID in South Vietnam!  The "plan" to withdraw troops is just that...a "plan"...something to be done in the future.  Kennedy had a "plan" to take out the Cuban air forces with 16 bombers but he changed that "plan" at the last moment sending only 8 bombers which didn't accomplish the task and doomed the Bay of Pigs invasion to failure.  You, of course see that as proof that Kennedy is at heart a dove but what it REALLY shows is that Kennedy had a habit of indecisiveness.  When he commissioned the "plan" to withdraw a thousand troops by the end of '63 and all of them by the end of '65 it was on the basis of overly optimistic intelligence about the capabilities of the South Vietnamese to fight the communists.  It became abundantly clear however that South Vietnam was NOT capable of carrying on that fight alone and that a withdrawal of the scope that Kennedy had been proposing would mean a communist victory in South Vietnam.  At THAT point the "plan" (that you for some unknown reason think is now "iron clad policy") becomes unworkable because Kennedy is still fully committed to stopping the spread of communism.
> 
> Which brings us full circle to you admitting that you don't really know WHAT Kennedy would have done in South Vietnam if he hadn't been assassinated in 1963.  Somehow you make the leap in logic that Kennedy had the ability to see into the future and avoid the disaster that Vietnam became.  Funny how he didn't have the ability to do that when he was upping the number of American troops in South Vietnam drastically and changing their role from that of training (as it was under Ike) to active involvement in combat missions!  Your contention is that Johnson "altered" Kennedy's plans.  The argument could be made that Johnson simply carried on with what Kennedy had started in South Vietnam just as he carried on with Kennedy's domestic agenda at home.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SO, I take it you are not going to answer my questions.
> 
> You started squealing when I accused you of denial, deception and hypocrisy. Do you have a better definition of why you refuse to answer my questions?
> 
> You used the term 'naive' about my beliefs. Naive would be someone who believes 8 more antiquated WWII bombers would have turned the tide in 1961 against massive Cuban forces.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What questions are those?
> 
> About Nixon?  We keep going back to the same starting point...JFK had a "plan" to withdraw troops from Vietnam but actually increased the number of troops there quite dramatically.  Nixon on the other hand came into office promising to end our involvement in Vietnam and actually DID withdraw troops steadily.
> 
> I'm sorry but a "plan" that may or may not have been seen through by a President who had a reputation for being indecisive doesn't compare well to an actual accomplished fact.  Kennedy planned something...Nixon accomplished it.
Click to expand...


Well we have reached the point where you are either dishonest or obtuse. Which one is it? I will make it real simple for you.

QUESTIONS:

Question #1- Where would you place an "illegal" blockade vs an all out invasion on the scale of military aggression and "legality"???

Question #2- So please give me an example of a hawk who would ever utter the words "War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today"? Because Jack Kennedy wrote those words in a letter to a Navy friend long before he ever had speechwriters working for him.

Question #3- Who wrote the words to that last speech you put so much stock in?


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> SO, I take it you are not going to answer my questions.
> 
> You started squealing when I accused you of denial, deception and hypocrisy. Do you have a better definition of why you refuse to answer my questions?
> 
> You used the term 'naive' about my beliefs. Naive would be someone who believes 8 more antiquated WWII bombers would have turned the tide in 1961 against massive Cuban forces.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What questions are those?
> 
> About Nixon?  We keep going back to the same starting point...JFK had a "plan" to withdraw troops from Vietnam but actually increased the number of troops there quite dramatically.  Nixon on the other hand came into office promising to end our involvement in Vietnam and actually DID withdraw troops steadily.
> 
> I'm sorry but a "plan" that may or may not have been seen through by a President who had a reputation for being indecisive doesn't compare well to an actual accomplished fact.  Kennedy planned something...Nixon accomplished it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well we have reached the point where you are either dishonest or obtuse. Which one is it? I will make it real simple for you.
> 
> QUESTIONS:
> 
> Question #1- Where would you place an "illegal" blockade vs an all out invasion on the scale of military aggression and "legality"???
> 
> Question #2- So please give me an example of a hawk who would ever utter the words "War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today"? Because Jack Kennedy wrote those words in a letter to a Navy friend long before he ever had speechwriters working for him.
> 
> Question #3- Who wrote the words to that last speech you put so much stock in?
Click to expand...


Obviously I would place a military blockade *lower* on a scale of military aggression compared to an all out invasion.  Does that in anyway make it NOT an aggressive military action?  I fail to see your point.

As for question #2?  This "dove" is still the man who increased the number of US troops in South Vietnam by 16 fold, changed their primary mission from training to actual combat missions, introduced the wide spread use of napalm and Agent Orange?   How do you explain how THAT man fits in any way the "dove" label that you've chosen to give him despite his actual record?

#3  What speech do I put "stock" in?  What are you referring to?  As I've said many times...the words of politicians generally have about the same value and durability of a puff of smoke in a high wind.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> What questions are those?
> 
> About Nixon?  We keep going back to the same starting point...JFK had a "plan" to withdraw troops from Vietnam but actually increased the number of troops there quite dramatically.  Nixon on the other hand came into office promising to end our involvement in Vietnam and actually DID withdraw troops steadily.
> 
> I'm sorry but a "plan" that may or may not have been seen through by a President who had a reputation for being indecisive doesn't compare well to an actual accomplished fact.  Kennedy planned something...Nixon accomplished it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well we have reached the point where you are either dishonest or obtuse. Which one is it? I will make it real simple for you.
> 
> QUESTIONS:
> 
> Question #1- Where would you place an "illegal" blockade vs an all out invasion on the scale of military aggression and "legality"???
> 
> Question #2- So please give me an example of a hawk who would ever utter the words "War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today"? Because Jack Kennedy wrote those words in a letter to a Navy friend long before he ever had speechwriters working for him.
> 
> Question #3- Who wrote the words to that last speech you put so much stock in?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Obviously I would place a military blockade *lower* on a scale of military aggression compared to an all out invasion.  Does that in anyway make it NOT an aggressive military action?  I fail to see your point.
> 
> As for question #2?  This "dove" is still the man who increased the number of US troops in South Vietnam by 16 fold, changed their primary mission from training to actual combat missions, introduced the wide spread use of napalm and Agent Orange?   How do you explain how THAT man fits in any way the "dove" label that you've chosen to give him despite his actual record?
> 
> #3  What speech do I put "stock" in?  What are you referring to?  As I've said many times...the words of politicians generally have about the same value and durability of a puff of smoke in a high wind.
Click to expand...


First of all, going back to the Bay of Pigs, the CIA set a trap for the new President. Dulles and Bissell KNEW the invasion has ZERO chance of success even with 8 more aircraft unless Kennedy started a war and invaded Cuba. Kennedy showed he was VERY decisive. He was not going to be bullied into a war. People like you don't even consider the whole picture and what Eisenhower and Kennedy faced. I go back to Ike's dire warning about the military/industrial complex. But you seem to believe the CIA and the military are just benign institutions. Your dad should have told you that nothing is as simple as it may seem.

#1- How can you fail to see the point? ALL Kennedy's military advisers, most of his cabinet and many of the leaders in Congress supported an invasion to take out the missiles. AGAIN, Kennedy refused to start a war. He found a peaceful solution. 

What we NOW know is had Kennedy listened to the hawks, numerous American cities would have been reduced to radioactive rubble. The Joint Chiefs had assured Kennedy during the crisis that "no nuclear warheads were in Cuba at the time," They were wrong. If Kennedy had bowed to his military advisers' pressure, a vast swath of the urban U.S. within missile range of the Soviet installations in Cuba would have been destroyed. And WWIII would have begun.

#2- I have already admitted Kennedy increased our troop level, but the first American combat troops were never deployed until 1965. The "wide spread" use of napalm and Agent Orange also began in 1965.

#3- 



Oldstyle said:


> And as I showed from the speech that Kennedy would have given THAT VERY DAY in Dallas...he was still committed to keeping South Vietnam from falling to the communists...something else that you choose to totally ignore.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well we have reached the point where you are either dishonest or obtuse. Which one is it? I will make it real simple for you.
> 
> QUESTIONS:
> 
> Question #1- Where would you place an "illegal" blockade vs an all out invasion on the scale of military aggression and "legality"???
> 
> Question #2- So please give me an example of a hawk who would ever utter the words "War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today"? Because Jack Kennedy wrote those words in a letter to a Navy friend long before he ever had speechwriters working for him.
> 
> Question #3- Who wrote the words to that last speech you put so much stock in?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously I would place a military blockade *lower* on a scale of military aggression compared to an all out invasion.  Does that in anyway make it NOT an aggressive military action?  I fail to see your point.
> 
> As for question #2?  This "dove" is still the man who increased the number of US troops in South Vietnam by 16 fold, changed their primary mission from training to actual combat missions, introduced the wide spread use of napalm and Agent Orange?   How do you explain how THAT man fits in any way the "dove" label that you've chosen to give him despite his actual record?
> 
> #3  What speech do I put "stock" in?  What are you referring to?  As I've said many times...the words of politicians generally have about the same value and durability of a puff of smoke in a high wind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First of all, going back to the Bay of Pigs, the CIA set a trap for the new President. Dulles and Bissell KNEW the invasion has ZERO chance of success even with 8 more aircraft unless Kennedy started a war and invaded Cuba. Kennedy showed he was VERY decisive. He was not going to be bullied into a war. People like you don't even consider the whole picture and what Eisenhower and Kennedy faced. I go back to Ike's dire warning about the military/industrial complex. But you seem to believe the CIA and the military are just benign institutions. Your dad should have told you that nothing is as simple as it may seem.
> 
> #1- How can you fail to see the point? ALL Kennedy's military advisers, most of his cabinet and many of the leaders in Congress supported an invasion to take out the missiles. AGAIN, Kennedy refused to start a war. He found a peaceful solution.
> 
> What we NOW know is had Kennedy listened to the hawks, numerous American cities would have been reduced to radioactive rubble. The Joint Chiefs had assured Kennedy during the crisis that "no nuclear warheads were in Cuba at the time," They were wrong. If Kennedy had bowed to his military advisers' pressure, a vast swath of the urban U.S. within missile range of the Soviet installations in Cuba would have been destroyed. And WWIII would have begun.
> 
> #2- I have already admitted Kennedy increased our troop level, but the first American combat troops were never deployed until 1965. The "wide spread" use of napalm and Agent Orange also began in 1965.
> 
> #3-
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as I showed from the speech that Kennedy would have given THAT VERY DAY in Dallas...he was still committed to keeping South Vietnam from falling to the communists...something else that you choose to totally ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


The CIA set trap for the new President?  LOL  Really?  But Kennedy showed "decisiveness" when he allowed the invasion to go forward but with such a limited amount of air support that it was doomed before it even began?  That's an inane argument even for you, Bfrgn!  Kennedy should have either backed the invasion with sufficient air support to pull it off or scotched the plan altogether.  His INDECISION is what led to the disaster the Bay of Pigs became.

Yes, there were nuclear warheads present in Cuba.  No, they were not in any way, shape or form ready to launch.

Your contention that "combat troops" were not in Vietnam until 1965 is laughable.  US troops under Kennedy were taking part in combat missions...you can LABEL them "advisers" but that doesn't make them any less combat troops.  Kennedy is the one who approved the use of napalm and defoliants...Johnson simply increased that use.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

A liberal supposedly kills  Kennedy and now liberals want to clam him?


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Obviously I would place a military blockade *lower* on a scale of military aggression compared to an all out invasion.  Does that in anyway make it NOT an aggressive military action?  I fail to see your point.
> 
> As for question #2?  This "dove" is still the man who increased the number of US troops in South Vietnam by 16 fold, changed their primary mission from training to actual combat missions, introduced the wide spread use of napalm and Agent Orange?   How do you explain how THAT man fits in any way the "dove" label that you've chosen to give him despite his actual record?
> 
> #3  What speech do I put "stock" in?  What are you referring to?  As I've said many times...the words of politicians generally have about the same value and durability of a puff of smoke in a high wind.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, going back to the Bay of Pigs, the CIA set a trap for the new President. Dulles and Bissell KNEW the invasion has ZERO chance of success even with 8 more aircraft unless Kennedy started a war and invaded Cuba. Kennedy showed he was VERY decisive. He was not going to be bullied into a war. People like you don't even consider the whole picture and what Eisenhower and Kennedy faced. I go back to Ike's dire warning about the military/industrial complex. But you seem to believe the CIA and the military are just benign institutions. Your dad should have told you that nothing is as simple as it may seem.
> 
> #1- How can you fail to see the point? ALL Kennedy's military advisers, most of his cabinet and many of the leaders in Congress supported an invasion to take out the missiles. AGAIN, Kennedy refused to start a war. He found a peaceful solution.
> 
> What we NOW know is had Kennedy listened to the hawks, numerous American cities would have been reduced to radioactive rubble. The Joint Chiefs had assured Kennedy during the crisis that "no nuclear warheads were in Cuba at the time," They were wrong. If Kennedy had bowed to his military advisers' pressure, a vast swath of the urban U.S. within missile range of the Soviet installations in Cuba would have been destroyed. And WWIII would have begun.
> 
> #2- I have already admitted Kennedy increased our troop level, but the first American combat troops were never deployed until 1965. The "wide spread" use of napalm and Agent Orange also began in 1965.
> 
> #3-
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And as I showed from the speech that Kennedy would have given THAT VERY DAY in Dallas...he was still committed to keeping South Vietnam from falling to the communists...something else that you choose to totally ignore.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The CIA set trap for the new President?  LOL  Really?  But Kennedy showed "decisiveness" when he allowed the invasion to go forward but with such a limited amount of air support that it was doomed before it even began?  That's an inane argument even for you, Bfrgn!  Kennedy should have either backed the invasion with sufficient air support to pull it off or scotched the plan altogether.  His INDECISION is what led to the disaster the Bay of Pigs became.
> 
> Yes, there were nuclear warheads present in Cuba.  No, they were not in any way, shape or form ready to launch.
> 
> Your contention that "combat troops" were not in Vietnam until 1965 is laughable.  US troops under Kennedy were taking part in combat missions...you can LABEL them "advisers" but that doesn't make them any less combat troops.  Kennedy is the one who approved the use of napalm and defoliants...Johnson simply increased that use.
Click to expand...


What we now know is that the CIA task force planning the invasion had predicted that the invasion's goals unachievable without U.S. military involvement. Kennedy was never given that crucial information. Neither Dulles nor Bissell revealed that to the president. And there was one more point they failed to mention: with 200,000 troops and militia at his disposal, Castro would have no trouble disposing of 1,300 volunteers, most of whom had no battlefield experience.

The CIA believed that President Kennedy would allow the American military to intervene in Cuba on their behalf. However, the president was resolute: As much as he did not want to "abandon Cuba to the communists," he said, he would not start a fight that might end in World War III.

If that was not a trap, what would you call it?


"Yes, there were nuclear warheads present in Cuba"...REALLY? That is NOT what the Joint Chiefs told Kennedy.

National Security Archive-The Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962: Press Release, 11 October 2002, 5:00 PM

US intelligence never located the nuclear warheads for the Soviet missiles in Cuba during the crisis, and only 33 of what photography later showed was a total of 42 medium-range ballistic missiles.

The Cuban Missile Crisis | Arms Control Association

In early 1992, it was confirmed that Soviet forces in Cuba had, by the time the crisis broke, received tactical nuclear warheads for their artillery rockets and Il-28 bombers. Castro stated that he would have recommended their use if the US invaded despite knowing Cuba would be destroyed.

The first American combat troops were never deployed until 1965. That is not opinion or speculation, it is documented history.

Tell me OS, is there ANYTHING about Kennedy you don't despise?


----------



## Bfgrn

bigrebnc1775 said:


> A liberal supposedly kills  Kennedy and now liberals want to clam him?



A liberal supposedly killed Kennedy?


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> As for what would or would not have turned the tide at the Bay of Pigs?  You can't land on a beach head without control of the air and expect a favorable outcome.  The air strikes to take out Castro's fighters was crucial and JFK depleted the force that was delivering those strikes by 50% at the last moment...a huge strategic blunder.  Kennedy sent those men to their deaths.  He either should have provided the air support that was originally called for...or he should have called off the invasion.  His "waffling" on how it would look politically is what doomed the entire operation.  Like anyone with half a brain wouldn't have known without question that the US was behind the invasion?



Castro knew about the raid and had moved his planes out of harm's way.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> First of all, going back to the Bay of Pigs, the CIA set a trap for the new President. Dulles and Bissell KNEW the invasion has ZERO chance of success even with 8 more aircraft unless Kennedy started a war and invaded Cuba. Kennedy showed he was VERY decisive. He was not going to be bullied into a war. People like you don't even consider the whole picture and what Eisenhower and Kennedy faced. I go back to Ike's dire warning about the military/industrial complex. But you seem to believe the CIA and the military are just benign institutions. Your dad should have told you that nothing is as simple as it may seem.
> 
> #1- How can you fail to see the point? ALL Kennedy's military advisers, most of his cabinet and many of the leaders in Congress supported an invasion to take out the missiles. AGAIN, Kennedy refused to start a war. He found a peaceful solution.
> 
> What we NOW know is had Kennedy listened to the hawks, numerous American cities would have been reduced to radioactive rubble. The Joint Chiefs had assured Kennedy during the crisis that "no nuclear warheads were in Cuba at the time," They were wrong. If Kennedy had bowed to his military advisers' pressure, a vast swath of the urban U.S. within missile range of the Soviet installations in Cuba would have been destroyed. And WWIII would have begun.
> 
> #2- I have already admitted Kennedy increased our troop level, but the first American combat troops were never deployed until 1965. The "wide spread" use of napalm and Agent Orange also began in 1965.
> 
> #3-
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The CIA set trap for the new President?  LOL  Really?  But Kennedy showed "decisiveness" when he allowed the invasion to go forward but with such a limited amount of air support that it was doomed before it even began?  That's an inane argument even for you, Bfrgn!  Kennedy should have either backed the invasion with sufficient air support to pull it off or scotched the plan altogether.  His INDECISION is what led to the disaster the Bay of Pigs became.
> 
> Yes, there were nuclear warheads present in Cuba.  No, they were not in any way, shape or form ready to launch.
> 
> Your contention that "combat troops" were not in Vietnam until 1965 is laughable.  US troops under Kennedy were taking part in combat missions...you can LABEL them "advisers" but that doesn't make them any less combat troops.  Kennedy is the one who approved the use of napalm and defoliants...Johnson simply increased that use.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What we now know is that the CIA task force planning the invasion had predicted that the invasion's goals unachievable without U.S. military involvement. Kennedy was never given that crucial information. Neither Dulles nor Bissell revealed that to the president. And there was one more point they failed to mention: with 200,000 troops and militia at his disposal, Castro would have no trouble disposing of 1,300 volunteers, most of whom had no battlefield experience.
> 
> The CIA believed that President Kennedy would allow the American military to intervene in Cuba on their behalf. However, the president was resolute: As much as he did not want to "abandon Cuba to the communists," he said, he would not start a fight that might end in World War III.
> 
> If that was not a trap, what would you call it?
> 
> 
> "Yes, there were nuclear warheads present in Cuba"...REALLY? That is NOT what the Joint Chiefs told Kennedy.
> 
> National Security Archive-The Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962: Press Release, 11 October 2002, 5:00 PM
> 
> US intelligence never located the nuclear warheads for the Soviet missiles in Cuba during the crisis, and only 33 of what photography later showed was a total of 42 medium-range ballistic missiles.
> 
> The Cuban Missile Crisis | Arms Control Association
> 
> In early 1992, it was confirmed that Soviet forces in Cuba had, by the time the crisis broke, received tactical nuclear warheads for their artillery rockets and Il-28 bombers. Castro stated that he would have recommended their use if the US invaded despite knowing Cuba would be destroyed.
> 
> The first American combat troops were never deployed until 1965. That is not opinion or speculation, it is documented history.
> 
> Tell me OS, is there ANYTHING about Kennedy you don't despise?
Click to expand...


I'm curious...are you naive enough to believe that an "adviser" flying a combat mission somehow becomes a non-combatant simply because of the TITLE of "adviser"?  Or that Green Beret units conducting combat operations against the Vietcong were "non-combatants" because THEY had the title of "advisers"?  American combat troops were in Vietnam and *FIGHTING* in Vietnam because John F. Kennedy sent them there to do just that.  Trying to maintain that Johnson was the one who introduced combat troops to the conflict and not Kennedy is laughably untrue.


----------



## Oldstyle

For starters, I have always admired John Kennedy for his courageous stand on the issue of racial injustice.  I don't despise John F. Kennedy.  I'm simply not ready to canonize him based on a fifty year long whitewashing of who and what he was.


----------



## thanatos144

Oldstyle said:


> For starters, I have always admired John Kennedy for his courageous stand on the issue of racial injustice.  I don't despise John F. Kennedy.  I'm simply not ready to canonize him based on a fifty year long whitewashing of who and what he was.



He stood  so firm on racial justice  that he voted no for civil rights

tapatalk post


----------



## thanatos144

Also lets not forget having MLK arrested 

tapatalk post


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Also lets not forget having MLK arrested
> 
> tapatalk post



???

*Presidential Vote and Party Identi&#64257;cation of African Americans, 1956-1964*






As you can see, over the course of just eight years, African American support for the Republican Party practically evaporated.

How did this happen? It can be tied directly to the acts and leadership of three men: Martin Luther King, Jr., who was the leader of the Civil Rights movement; John F. Kennedy, the nation&#8217;s president from 1961 through November, 1963, when he was assassinated; and Lyndon Baines Johnson, Kennedy&#8217;s successor as president.

Most know who Martin Luther King, Jr, was, and probably President Kennedy as well; President Johnson, although pivotal in the passage of civil rights laws, is undoubtedly the lesser known and least revered among these three historical figures.

But they were all key players in eliminating segregation and legalized discrimination in the South.

How these three men were linked in changing the face of African American politics:

    In October of 1960, less then three weeks before the presidential election, Martin Luther King Jr., already recognized as Black America&#8217;s most prominent civil rights leader, had been arrested in Georgia on a traffic technicality: he was still using his Alabama license, although by then he had lived in Georgia for three months.

    A swift series of moves by the state&#8217;s segregationist power structure resulted in King being sentenced to four months of hard labor on a Georgia chain gang. He was quickly spirited away to the state&#8217;s maximum security prison, and many of his supporters, fearing for his life, urgently called both the Nixon and Kennedy camps for help.

    Nixon, about to campaign in South Carolina in hopes of capturing the state&#8217;s normally solid Democratic vote, took no action. Kennedy took swift action. He made a brief telephone call to a frantic Coretta Scott King, speaking in soothing generalities and telling her, &#8220;If there&#8217;s anything I can do to help, please feel free to call on me.&#8221;

    It&#8217;s likely that Kennedy did not at that moment realize the political implications of that call. Ever the pragmatist, he had resisted the pleas of several aides throughout the campaign that he take bolder public stands on civil rights issues. The telephone call came because one aide caught him late at night after a hard day of campaigning and staff meetings as he was about to turn in. The aide, Harris Wofford, pitched it as just a call to calm King&#8217;s fearful spouse. Kennedy replied, &#8220;What the hell. That&#8217;s a decent thing to do. Why not? Get her on the phone.&#8221;

    King was soon released, unharmed, due to a groundswell of pressure directed by blacks and whites in numerous quarters toward Georgia officials (Robert F. Kennedy himself, who was managing his brother&#8217;s campaign called the judge who sentenced King to prison). At the time, the white media paid little attention to the call, which suited the Kennedys fine. But it likely transformed the black vote. King&#8217;s father, Martin Luther King Sr., a dominating, fire-and-brimstone preacher with wide influence throughout Black America, had, like many black Southerners, always been a Republican and until that moment had said he couldn&#8217;t vote for Kennedy because he was a Catholic.

    (But) the day his son was released from prison, the elder King thundered from the pulpit of his famed Ebenezer Baptist Church in Atlanta: &#8220;I had expected to vote against Senator Kennedy because of his religion. But now he can be my president, Catholic or whatever he is&#8230; He has the moral courage to stand up for what he knows is right. I&#8217;ve got all my votes and I&#8217;ve got a suitcase, and I&#8217;m going to take them up there and dump them in his lap.&#8221;

Why Do Blacks Vote for Democrats? MLK, JFK, and LBJ


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The CIA set trap for the new President?  LOL  Really?  But Kennedy showed "decisiveness" when he allowed the invasion to go forward but with such a limited amount of air support that it was doomed before it even began?  That's an inane argument even for you, Bfrgn!  Kennedy should have either backed the invasion with sufficient air support to pull it off or scotched the plan altogether.  His INDECISION is what led to the disaster the Bay of Pigs became.
> 
> Yes, there were nuclear warheads present in Cuba.  No, they were not in any way, shape or form ready to launch.
> 
> Your contention that "combat troops" were not in Vietnam until 1965 is laughable.  US troops under Kennedy were taking part in combat missions...you can LABEL them "advisers" but that doesn't make them any less combat troops.  Kennedy is the one who approved the use of napalm and defoliants...Johnson simply increased that use.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What we now know is that the CIA task force planning the invasion had predicted that the invasion's goals unachievable without U.S. military involvement. Kennedy was never given that crucial information. Neither Dulles nor Bissell revealed that to the president. And there was one more point they failed to mention: with 200,000 troops and militia at his disposal, Castro would have no trouble disposing of 1,300 volunteers, most of whom had no battlefield experience.
> 
> The CIA believed that President Kennedy would allow the American military to intervene in Cuba on their behalf. However, the president was resolute: As much as he did not want to "abandon Cuba to the communists," he said, he would not start a fight that might end in World War III.
> 
> If that was not a trap, what would you call it?
> 
> 
> "Yes, there were nuclear warheads present in Cuba"...REALLY? That is NOT what the Joint Chiefs told Kennedy.
> 
> National Security Archive-The Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962: Press Release, 11 October 2002, 5:00 PM
> 
> US intelligence never located the nuclear warheads for the Soviet missiles in Cuba during the crisis, and only 33 of what photography later showed was a total of 42 medium-range ballistic missiles.
> 
> The Cuban Missile Crisis | Arms Control Association
> 
> In early 1992, it was confirmed that Soviet forces in Cuba had, by the time the crisis broke, received tactical nuclear warheads for their artillery rockets and Il-28 bombers. Castro stated that he would have recommended their use if the US invaded despite knowing Cuba would be destroyed.
> 
> The first American combat troops were never deployed until 1965. That is not opinion or speculation, it is documented history.
> 
> Tell me OS, is there ANYTHING about Kennedy you don't despise?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm curious...are you naive enough to believe that an "adviser" flying a combat mission somehow becomes a non-combatant simply because of the TITLE of "adviser"?  Or that Green Beret units conducting combat operations against the Vietcong were "non-combatants" because THEY had the title of "advisers"?  American combat troops were in Vietnam and *FIGHTING* in Vietnam because John F. Kennedy sent them there to do just that.  Trying to maintain that Johnson was the one who introduced combat troops to the conflict and not Kennedy is laughably untrue.
Click to expand...


What I am curious about is how you can continue to try to place blame on a man who was dead and no longer had any say in our policy? Had Kennedy lived, and not ordered the withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965, and kept the status quo, you and I probably wouldn't be talking about Vietnam.

Mansfield and Vietnam







LBJ expanded America's involvement in Vietnam into a full-scale war. He Americanized a war Kennedy determined was the Vietnamese to win or lose.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we now know is that the CIA task force planning the invasion had predicted that the invasion's goals unachievable without U.S. military involvement. Kennedy was never given that crucial information. Neither Dulles nor Bissell revealed that to the president. And there was one more point they failed to mention: with 200,000 troops and militia at his disposal, Castro would have no trouble disposing of 1,300 volunteers, most of whom had no battlefield experience.
> 
> The CIA believed that President Kennedy would allow the American military to intervene in Cuba on their behalf. However, the president was resolute: As much as he did not want to "abandon Cuba to the communists," he said, he would not start a fight that might end in World War III.
> 
> If that was not a trap, what would you call it?
> 
> 
> "Yes, there were nuclear warheads present in Cuba"...REALLY? That is NOT what the Joint Chiefs told Kennedy.
> 
> National Security Archive-The Cuban Missile Crisis, 1962: Press Release, 11 October 2002, 5:00 PM
> 
> US intelligence never located the nuclear warheads for the Soviet missiles in Cuba during the crisis, and only 33 of what photography later showed was a total of 42 medium-range ballistic missiles.
> 
> The Cuban Missile Crisis | Arms Control Association
> 
> In early 1992, it was confirmed that Soviet forces in Cuba had, by the time the crisis broke, received tactical nuclear warheads for their artillery rockets and Il-28 bombers. Castro stated that he would have recommended their use if the US invaded despite knowing Cuba would be destroyed.
> 
> The first American combat troops were never deployed until 1965. That is not opinion or speculation, it is documented history.
> 
> Tell me OS, is there ANYTHING about Kennedy you don't despise?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious...are you naive enough to believe that an "adviser" flying a combat mission somehow becomes a non-combatant simply because of the TITLE of "adviser"?  Or that Green Beret units conducting combat operations against the Vietcong were "non-combatants" because THEY had the title of "advisers"?  American combat troops were in Vietnam and *FIGHTING* in Vietnam because John F. Kennedy sent them there to do just that.  Trying to maintain that Johnson was the one who introduced combat troops to the conflict and not Kennedy is laughably untrue.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What I am curious about is how you can continue to try to place blame on a man who was dead and no longer had any say in our policy? Had Kennedy lived, and not ordered the withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965, and kept the status quo, you and I probably wouldn't be talking about Vietnam.
> 
> Mansfield and Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LBJ expanded America's involvement in Vietnam into a full-scale war. He Americanized a war Kennedy determined was the Vietnamese to win or lose.
Click to expand...


LOL...what the heck does all THAT have to do with your claim that US troops were not involved in combat in Vietnam until 1965, Bfrgn?  That was one of the weakest attempts at trying to change the subject I've seen in some time.

Again...are you SO naive that you think simply because US troops in South Vietnam were called "advisers" by both the Eisenhower Administration and the Kennedy Administration that all they did was train the South Vietnamese?  Kennedy TOTALLY changed the role of US troops in Vietnam from what they were doing under Ike.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious...are you naive enough to believe that an "adviser" flying a combat mission somehow becomes a non-combatant simply because of the TITLE of "adviser"?  Or that Green Beret units conducting combat operations against the Vietcong were "non-combatants" because THEY had the title of "advisers"?  American combat troops were in Vietnam and *FIGHTING* in Vietnam because John F. Kennedy sent them there to do just that.  Trying to maintain that Johnson was the one who introduced combat troops to the conflict and not Kennedy is laughably untrue.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What I am curious about is how you can continue to try to place blame on a man who was dead and no longer had any say in our policy? Had Kennedy lived, and not ordered the withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965, and kept the status quo, you and I probably wouldn't be talking about Vietnam.
> 
> Mansfield and Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LBJ expanded America's involvement in Vietnam into a full-scale war. He Americanized a war Kennedy determined was the Vietnamese to win or lose.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> LOL...what the heck does all THAT have to do with your claim that US troops were not involved in combat in Vietnam until 1965, Bfrgn?  That was one of the weakest attempts at trying to change the subject I've seen in some time.
> 
> Again...are you SO naive that you think simply because US troops in South Vietnam were called "advisers" by both the Eisenhower Administration and the Kennedy Administration that all they did was train the South Vietnamese?  Kennedy TOTALLY changed the role of US troops in Vietnam from what they were doing under Ike.
Click to expand...


I am not naive. That would be you. Are you that ignorant that you don't know history? Did you ever hear of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution? Do you know what it was?? Do you understand Congressional approval for war powers? Do you know WHY it is important? Do you know what regular troops are? Do you know what battalions are?

"It was under President Johnson that the U.S. escalated the conflict to a full scale war"
Bill Moyers

During the Kennedy Administration, Moyers was first appointed as associate director of public affairs for the newly created Peace Corps in 1961. He served as Deputy Director from 1962 to 1963. When Lyndon B. Johnson took office after the Kennedy assassination, Moyers became a special assistant to Johnson, serving from 1963 to 1967. He played a key role in organizing and supervising the 1964 Great Society legislative task forces and was a principal architect of Johnson's 1964 presidential campaign. Moyers acted as the President's informal chief of staff from October 1964 until 1966. From July 1965 to February 1967, he also served as White House press secretary. -wiki


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What I am curious about is how you can continue to try to place blame on a man who was dead and no longer had any say in our policy? Had Kennedy lived, and not ordered the withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965, and kept the status quo, you and I probably wouldn't be talking about Vietnam.
> 
> Mansfield and Vietnam
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LBJ expanded America's involvement in Vietnam into a full-scale war. He Americanized a war Kennedy determined was the Vietnamese to win or lose.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...what the heck does all THAT have to do with your claim that US troops were not involved in combat in Vietnam until 1965, Bfrgn?  That was one of the weakest attempts at trying to change the subject I've seen in some time.
> 
> Again...are you SO naive that you think simply because US troops in South Vietnam were called "advisers" by both the Eisenhower Administration and the Kennedy Administration that all they did was train the South Vietnamese?  Kennedy TOTALLY changed the role of US troops in Vietnam from what they were doing under Ike.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am not naive. That would be you. Are you that ignorant that you don't know history? Did you ever hear of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution? Do you know what it was?? Do you understand Congressional approval for war powers? Do you know WHY it is important? Do you know what regular troops are? Do you know what battalions are?
> 
> "It was under President Johnson that the U.S. escalated the conflict to a full scale war"
> Bill Moyers
> 
> During the Kennedy Administration, Moyers was first appointed as associate director of public affairs for the newly created Peace Corps in 1961. He served as Deputy Director from 1962 to 1963. When Lyndon B. Johnson took office after the Kennedy assassination, Moyers became a special assistant to Johnson, serving from 1963 to 1967. He played a key role in organizing and supervising the 1964 Great Society legislative task forces and was a principal architect of Johnson's 1964 presidential campaign. Moyers acted as the President's informal chief of staff from October 1964 until 1966. From July 1965 to February 1967, he also served as White House press secretary. -wiki
Click to expand...


Once again, you've dodged the issue at hand...namely that US forces were very much involved in COMBAT under the Kennedy Administration.  Just admit it, Bfgrn...it's quite obvious that Kennedy escalated the war from Eisenhower's "advisers" training South Vietnam troops to US troops flying hundreds of combat missions and engaging in counter-insurgency missions with the Green Berets.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...what the heck does all THAT have to do with your claim that US troops were not involved in combat in Vietnam until 1965, Bfrgn?  That was one of the weakest attempts at trying to change the subject I've seen in some time.
> 
> Again...are you SO naive that you think simply because US troops in South Vietnam were called "advisers" by both the Eisenhower Administration and the Kennedy Administration that all they did was train the South Vietnamese?  Kennedy TOTALLY changed the role of US troops in Vietnam from what they were doing under Ike.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am not naive. That would be you. Are you that ignorant that you don't know history? Did you ever hear of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution? Do you know what it was?? Do you understand Congressional approval for war powers? Do you know WHY it is important? Do you know what regular troops are? Do you know what battalions are?
> 
> "It was under President Johnson that the U.S. escalated the conflict to a full scale war"
> Bill Moyers
> 
> During the Kennedy Administration, Moyers was first appointed as associate director of public affairs for the newly created Peace Corps in 1961. He served as Deputy Director from 1962 to 1963. When Lyndon B. Johnson took office after the Kennedy assassination, Moyers became a special assistant to Johnson, serving from 1963 to 1967. He played a key role in organizing and supervising the 1964 Great Society legislative task forces and was a principal architect of Johnson's 1964 presidential campaign. Moyers acted as the President's informal chief of staff from October 1964 until 1966. From July 1965 to February 1967, he also served as White House press secretary. -wiki
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again, you've dodged the issue at hand...namely that US forces were very much involved in COMBAT under the Kennedy Administration.  Just admit it, Bfgrn...it's quite obvious that Kennedy escalated the war from Eisenhower's "advisers" training South Vietnam troops to US troops flying hundreds of combat missions and engaging in counter-insurgency missions with the Green Berets.
Click to expand...


I have already admitted Kennedy escalated our involvement MORE than once. The 'issue at hand' is would Kennedy have escalated Vietnam into a full scale war.

What you continue to 'dodge' is:

If Kennedy had lived and even if he had decided to keep our commitment at the 1962-3 levels, Vietnam would have never metastasized into a national tragedy.

When are you going to admit that the official US policy on the day he died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965?

When are you going to admit that the official US policy was changed two days after Kennedy died and official US policy became Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam policy?

You have admitted NOTHING except to continue to spell JFK LBJ.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not naive. That would be you. Are you that ignorant that you don't know history? Did you ever hear of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution? Do you know what it was?? Do you understand Congressional approval for war powers? Do you know WHY it is important? Do you know what regular troops are? Do you know what battalions are?
> 
> "It was under President Johnson that the U.S. escalated the conflict to a full scale war"
> Bill Moyers
> 
> During the Kennedy Administration, Moyers was first appointed as associate director of public affairs for the newly created Peace Corps in 1961. He served as Deputy Director from 1962 to 1963. When Lyndon B. Johnson took office after the Kennedy assassination, Moyers became a special assistant to Johnson, serving from 1963 to 1967. He played a key role in organizing and supervising the 1964 Great Society legislative task forces and was a principal architect of Johnson's 1964 presidential campaign. Moyers acted as the President's informal chief of staff from October 1964 until 1966. From July 1965 to February 1967, he also served as White House press secretary. -wiki
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you've dodged the issue at hand...namely that US forces were very much involved in COMBAT under the Kennedy Administration.  Just admit it, Bfgrn...it's quite obvious that Kennedy escalated the war from Eisenhower's "advisers" training South Vietnam troops to US troops flying hundreds of combat missions and engaging in counter-insurgency missions with the Green Berets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have already admitted Kennedy escalated our involvement MORE than once. The 'issue at hand' is would Kennedy have escalated Vietnam into a full scale war.
> 
> What you continue to 'dodge' is:
> *
> If Kennedy had lived and even if he had decided to keep our commitment at the 1962-3 levels, Vietnam would have never metastasized into a national tragedy.*
> 
> When are you going to admit that the official US policy on the day he died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965?
> 
> When are you going to admit that the official US policy was changed two days after Kennedy died and official US policy became Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam policy?
> 
> You have admitted NOTHING except to continue to spell JFK LBJ.
Click to expand...


Once again...you have no idea what Kennedy WOULD have done in regards to Vietnam...you're assuming he would gone ahead with a "plan" that was formulated with bad intelligence that he had subsequently learned WAS bad.  Repeatedly declaring that it was "official US policy" does not mean it would have happened.  Kennedy was committed to stopping the spread of communism as his speech that would have been given that very day in Dallas clearly showed.  LBJ simply continued the trajectory that JFK started...just as he continued the rest of Kennedy's New Frontier programs.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am not naive. That would be you. Are you that ignorant that you don't know history? Did you ever hear of the Gulf of Tonkin Resolution? Do you know what it was?? Do you understand Congressional approval for war powers? Do you know WHY it is important? Do you know what regular troops are? Do you know what battalions are?
> 
> "It was under President Johnson that the U.S. escalated the conflict to a full scale war"
> Bill Moyers
> 
> During the Kennedy Administration, Moyers was first appointed as associate director of public affairs for the newly created Peace Corps in 1961. He served as Deputy Director from 1962 to 1963. When Lyndon B. Johnson took office after the Kennedy assassination, Moyers became a special assistant to Johnson, serving from 1963 to 1967. He played a key role in organizing and supervising the 1964 Great Society legislative task forces and was a principal architect of Johnson's 1964 presidential campaign. Moyers acted as the President's informal chief of staff from October 1964 until 1966. From July 1965 to February 1967, he also served as White House press secretary. -wiki
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you've dodged the issue at hand...namely that US forces were very much involved in COMBAT under the Kennedy Administration.  Just admit it, Bfgrn...it's quite obvious that Kennedy escalated the war from Eisenhower's "advisers" training South Vietnam troops to US troops flying hundreds of combat missions and engaging in counter-insurgency missions with the Green Berets.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I have already admitted Kennedy escalated our involvement MORE than once. The 'issue at hand' is would Kennedy have escalated Vietnam into a full scale war.*
> 
> What you continue to 'dodge' is:
> 
> If Kennedy had lived and even if he had decided to keep our commitment at the 1962-3 levels, Vietnam would have never metastasized into a national tragedy.
> 
> When are you going to admit that the official US policy on the day he died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965?
> 
> When are you going to admit that the official US policy was changed two days after Kennedy died and official US policy became Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam policy?
> 
> You have admitted NOTHING except to continue to spell JFK LBJ.
Click to expand...


Kennedy had already escalated the conflict in Vietnam into "war"...you continue to hide behind the "advisers" label that was affixed to the 16,000 troops Kennedy had in South Vietnam...troops whose mission was drastically changed under Kennedy from the training it had been under Ike to actual combat.  You STILL don't want to admit that Kennedy escalated our involvement from simple training to active combat because you KNOW that it blows your "Kennedy was really a dove!" theory right out the window!


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you've dodged the issue at hand...namely that US forces were very much involved in COMBAT under the Kennedy Administration.  Just admit it, Bfgrn...it's quite obvious that Kennedy escalated the war from Eisenhower's "advisers" training South Vietnam troops to US troops flying hundreds of combat missions and engaging in counter-insurgency missions with the Green Berets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have already admitted Kennedy escalated our involvement MORE than once. The 'issue at hand' is would Kennedy have escalated Vietnam into a full scale war.
> 
> What you continue to 'dodge' is:
> *
> If Kennedy had lived and even if he had decided to keep our commitment at the 1962-3 levels, Vietnam would have never metastasized into a national tragedy.*
> 
> When are you going to admit that the official US policy on the day he died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965?
> 
> When are you going to admit that the official US policy was changed two days after Kennedy died and official US policy became Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam policy?
> 
> You have admitted NOTHING except to continue to spell JFK LBJ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Once again...you have no idea what Kennedy WOULD have done in regards to Vietnam.*..you're assuming he would gone ahead with a "plan" that was formulated with bad intelligence that he had subsequently learned WAS bad.  Repeatedly declaring that it was "official US policy" does not mean it would have happened.  Kennedy was committed to stopping the spread of communism as his speech that would have been given that very day in Dallas clearly showed.  LBJ simply continued the trajectory that JFK started...just as he continued the rest of Kennedy's New Frontier programs.
Click to expand...


But *YOU* do.

It has become perfectly clear that you are unable to be honest. 

AGAIN...you have two sets of standards. Ones for me and ones for you.



			
				Oldstyle said:
			
		

> #3 What speech do I put "stock" in? What are you referring to? As I've said many times...the words of politicians generally have about the same value and durability of a puff of smoke in a high wind.



Oldstyle in THIS post- "Kennedy was committed to stopping the spread of communism as his speech that would have been given that very day in Dallas clearly showed." 

PLEASE tell what the "official US policy" on Vietnam was the day Kennedy was violently removed for office. I expect details and facts, not opinions.

AGAIN, you continue to spell JFK with an L, a B, and a J


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again, you've dodged the issue at hand...namely that US forces were very much involved in COMBAT under the Kennedy Administration.  Just admit it, Bfgrn...it's quite obvious that Kennedy escalated the war from Eisenhower's "advisers" training South Vietnam troops to US troops flying hundreds of combat missions and engaging in counter-insurgency missions with the Green Berets.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I have already admitted Kennedy escalated our involvement MORE than once. The 'issue at hand' is would Kennedy have escalated Vietnam into a full scale war.*
> 
> What you continue to 'dodge' is:
> 
> If Kennedy had lived and even if he had decided to keep our commitment at the 1962-3 levels, Vietnam would have never metastasized into a national tragedy.
> 
> When are you going to admit that the official US policy on the day he died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965?
> 
> When are you going to admit that the official US policy was changed two days after Kennedy died and official US policy became Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam policy?
> 
> You have admitted NOTHING except to continue to spell JFK LBJ.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kennedy had already escalated the conflict in Vietnam into "war"...you continue to hide behind the "advisers" label that was affixed to the 16,000 troops Kennedy had in South Vietnam...troops whose mission was drastically changed under Kennedy from the training it had been under Ike to actual combat.  You STILL don't want to admit that Kennedy escalated our involvement from simple training to active combat because you KNOW that it blows your "Kennedy was really a dove!" theory right out the window!
Click to expand...


AGAIN you need to lie. I never said "Kennedy was really a dove!" I never used the word 'dove' YOU are the ONLY one who has use that word. I said Kennedy was not a 'hawk'

I don't see Kennedy as a 'dove', I see him as a man who despised war so much that it would ALWAYS be the VERY LAST option. Kennedy was never in danger of catching the 'war fever' that was so septic among military advisers and some cabinet members like Dean Rusk. Kennedy was going to replace Rusk with McNamara in his second term.


----------



## Oldstyle

And yet the man you declare isn't a "hawk" increased the number of troops in South Vietnam from under a thousand to over sixteen thousand when he was killed.  The man you declare isn't a "hawk" changed the mission of those US troops from training (as it was under Eisenhower) to combat missions.  The man you declare isn't a "hawk" approved the use of both napalm and defoliants.  The man you declare isn't a "hawk" approved an invasion of Cuba.  The man you declare isn't a "hawk" approved a military blockade of Cuba.

You DON'T see Kennedy as a dove...but you do see him as a man who despised war so much that it would ALWAYS be the VERY LAST option?  What is a dove if it isn't someone for whom war would ALWAYS be the VERY LAST option?  Your own argument contradicts itself...


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> And yet the man you declare isn't a "hawk" increased the number of troops in South Vietnam from under a thousand to over sixteen thousand when he was killed.  The man you declare isn't a "hawk" changed the mission of those US troops from training (as it was under Eisenhower) to combat missions.  The man you declare isn't a "hawk" approved the use of both napalm and defoliants.  The man you declare isn't a "hawk" approved an invasion of Cuba.  The man you declare isn't a "hawk" approved a military blockade of Cuba.
> 
> You DON'T see Kennedy as a dove...but you do see him as a man who despised war so much that it would ALWAYS be the VERY LAST option?  What is a dove if it isn't someone for whom war would ALWAYS be the VERY LAST option?  Your own argument contradicts itself...



Would a hawk as the Bay of Pigs invasion failed follow up with an air and naval invasion or refuse to start a war?

Would a hawk invade Cuba when missiles were discovered on that island, especially when the prevailing opinion was to 'fry' Cuba or chose a blockade?

Would a hawk set official US policy in Vietnam to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965? 

Your own argument contradicts itself...NONE of those decisions Kennedy made would be the path a 'hawk' would chose.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And yet the man you declare isn't a "hawk" increased the number of troops in South Vietnam from under a thousand to over sixteen thousand when he was killed.  The man you declare isn't a "hawk" changed the mission of those US troops from training (as it was under Eisenhower) to combat missions.  The man you declare isn't a "hawk" approved the use of both napalm and defoliants.  The man you declare isn't a "hawk" approved an invasion of Cuba.  The man you declare isn't a "hawk" approved a military blockade of Cuba.
> 
> You DON'T see Kennedy as a dove...but you do see him as a man who despised war so much that it would ALWAYS be the VERY LAST option?  What is a dove if it isn't someone for whom war would ALWAYS be the VERY LAST option?  Your own argument contradicts itself...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Would a hawk as the Bay of Pigs invasion failed follow up with an air and naval invasion or refuse to start a war?
> 
> Would a hawk invade Cuba when missiles were discovered on that island, especially when the prevailing opinion was to 'fry' Cuba or chose a blockade?
> 
> Would a hawk set official US policy in Vietnam to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965?
> 
> Your own argument contradicts itself...NONE of those decisions Kennedy made would be the path a 'hawk' would chose.
Click to expand...


You've just pointed out the indecisiveness that characterized so much of the Kennedy foreign policy, Bfgrn!  This is a man who adopts a "plan" to draw down troop levels after increasing them dramatically in the short time he was in office.  This is a man who changed the role of US troops in Vietnam from training to performing hundreds of combat missions in the place of South Vietnamese troops even as he declares that South Vietnam needed to take a larger part in the defense of their country.  This is a man who makes plans to withdraw troops even as he declares repeatedly that the US will not abandon it's allies to communist control.  Kennedy is neither a hawk nor a dove...because he can't make up his mind what he's doing.  That's what led to the debacle that was The Bay of Pigs.  Kennedy wanted to show he wasn't going to back down from the communists but he also didn't want the US to come across as a regional "bully".  So he changed the battle plan at the last moment and totally FUBARED the entire thing.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have already admitted Kennedy escalated our involvement MORE than once. The 'issue at hand' is would Kennedy have escalated Vietnam into a full scale war.
> 
> What you continue to 'dodge' is:
> *
> If Kennedy had lived and even if he had decided to keep our commitment at the 1962-3 levels, Vietnam would have never metastasized into a national tragedy.*
> 
> When are you going to admit that the official US policy on the day he died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965?
> 
> When are you going to admit that the official US policy was changed two days after Kennedy died and official US policy became Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam policy?
> 
> You have admitted NOTHING except to continue to spell JFK LBJ.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Once again...you have no idea what Kennedy WOULD have done in regards to Vietnam.*..you're assuming he would gone ahead with a "plan" that was formulated with bad intelligence that he had subsequently learned WAS bad.  Repeatedly declaring that it was "official US policy" does not mean it would have happened.  Kennedy was committed to stopping the spread of communism as his speech that would have been given that very day in Dallas clearly showed.  LBJ simply continued the trajectory that JFK started...just as he continued the rest of Kennedy's New Frontier programs.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> But *YOU* do.
> 
> It has become perfectly clear that you are unable to be honest.
> 
> AGAIN...you have two sets of standards. Ones for me and ones for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> #3 What speech do I put "stock" in? What are you referring to? As I've said many times...the words of politicians generally have about the same value and durability of a puff of smoke in a high wind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oldstyle in THIS post- "Kennedy was committed to stopping the spread of communism as his speech that would have been given that very day in Dallas clearly showed."
> 
> PLEASE tell what the "official US policy" on Vietnam was the day Kennedy was violently removed for office. I expect details and facts, not opinions.
> 
> AGAIN, you continue to spell JFK with an L, a B, and a J
Click to expand...


I have one standard and I think I've stated it quite a few times now...I don't hold the "words" of politicians in very high regard...what I look at is what they have DONE...not what they SAY they will do.

I bring up the content of Kennedy's speech that day in Dallas simply to point out that what a politician *says* or what a politician *plans* is very seldom what they DO!  Bush I's policy was "No new taxes!"  Then he raised taxes.  Obama's policy was "If you like your health plan...you can keep your health plan!"  Then he passed the ACA.  Kennedy had a plan drawn up to withdraw a thousand troops.  That does NOT mean that plan might have been amended or abandoned with evolving situations in Vietnam.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Once again...you have no idea what Kennedy WOULD have done in regards to Vietnam.*..you're assuming he would gone ahead with a "plan" that was formulated with bad intelligence that he had subsequently learned WAS bad.  Repeatedly declaring that it was "official US policy" does not mean it would have happened.  Kennedy was committed to stopping the spread of communism as his speech that would have been given that very day in Dallas clearly showed.  LBJ simply continued the trajectory that JFK started...just as he continued the rest of Kennedy's New Frontier programs.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But *YOU* do.
> 
> It has become perfectly clear that you are unable to be honest.
> 
> AGAIN...you have two sets of standards. Ones for me and ones for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> #3 What speech do I put "stock" in? What are you referring to? As I've said many times...the words of politicians generally have about the same value and durability of a puff of smoke in a high wind.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oldstyle in THIS post- "Kennedy was committed to stopping the spread of communism as his speech that would have been given that very day in Dallas clearly showed."
> 
> PLEASE tell what the "official US policy" on Vietnam was the day Kennedy was violently removed for office. I expect details and facts, not opinions.
> 
> AGAIN, you continue to spell JFK with an L, a B, and a J
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have one standard and I think I've stated it quite a few times now...I don't hold the "words" of politicians in very high regard...what I look at is what they have DONE...not what they SAY they will do.
> 
> I bring up the content of Kennedy's speech that day in Dallas simply to point out that what a politician *says* or what a politician *plans* is very seldom what they DO!  Bush I's policy was "No new taxes!"  Then he raised taxes.  Obama's policy was "If you like your health plan...you can keep your health plan!"  Then he passed the ACA.  Kennedy had a plan drawn up to withdraw a thousand troops.  That does NOT mean that plan might have been amended or abandoned with evolving situations in Vietnam.
Click to expand...


I can agree, had he lived, the official policy of the United States on Vietnam may have changed under JFK, but he didn't change the plan before he died. The official US policy on the day he died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965. It was Johnson, not Kennedy who changed that policy. The moment Kennedy died, Vietnam became Johnson's. And everything that followed became Johnson's, NOT Kennedy's Vietnam. 

Kennedy had explored negotiations with the Soviet Union to help end the conflict in Vietnam. He had begun secret negotiations to normalize relations with Cuba. I am very confident had Kennedy lived, Vietnam would have never metastasized into a full scale war and a national tragedy.

Kennedy and Johnson were two totally different men, with totally different values and viewpoints. Kennedy didn't trust the Joint Chiefs, McNamara said Johnson wrote a "blank check" to the Joint Chiefs of Staff that turned over Vietnam to their strategists.


----------



## Kosh

The Bay of Pigs Invasion, known in Hispanic America as Invasión de Bahía de Cochinos (or Invasión de Playa Girón or Batalla de Girón), was an unsuccessful military invasion of Cuba undertaken by the CIA-sponsored paramilitary group Brigade 2506 on 17 April 1961. A counter-revolutionary military, trained and funded by the United States government's Central Intelligence Agency (CIA), Brigade 2506 fronted the armed wing of the Democratic Revolutionary Front (DRF) and intended to overthrow the revolutionary left wing government of Fidel Castro. Launched from Guatemala, the invading force was defeated within three days by the Cuban armed forces, under the direct command of Prime Minister Fidel Castro.

Bay of Pigs Invasion - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Kennedy advisors Maxwell Taylor and Walt Rostow recommended that U.S. troops be sent to South Vietnam disguised as flood relief workers. Kennedy rejected the idea but increased military assistance yet again. In April 1962, John Kenneth Galbraith warned Kennedy of the "danger we shall replace the French as a colonial force in the area and bleed as the French did."[144] By 1963, there were 16,000 American military personnel in South Vietnam, up from Eisenhower's 900 advisors.

Vietnam War - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> But *YOU* do.
> 
> It has become perfectly clear that you are unable to be honest.
> 
> AGAIN...you have two sets of standards. Ones for me and ones for you.
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle in THIS post- "Kennedy was committed to stopping the spread of communism as his speech that would have been given that very day in Dallas clearly showed."
> 
> PLEASE tell what the "official US policy" on Vietnam was the day Kennedy was violently removed for office. I expect details and facts, not opinions.
> 
> AGAIN, you continue to spell JFK with an L, a B, and a J
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have one standard and I think I've stated it quite a few times now...I don't hold the "words" of politicians in very high regard...what I look at is what they have DONE...not what they SAY they will do.
> 
> I bring up the content of Kennedy's speech that day in Dallas simply to point out that what a politician *says* or what a politician *plans* is very seldom what they DO!  Bush I's policy was "No new taxes!"  Then he raised taxes.  Obama's policy was "If you like your health plan...you can keep your health plan!"  Then he passed the ACA.  Kennedy had a plan drawn up to withdraw a thousand troops.  That does NOT mean that plan might have been amended or abandoned with evolving situations in Vietnam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I can agree, had he lived, the official policy of the United States on Vietnam may have changed under JFK*, but he didn't change the plan before he died. The official US policy on the day he died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965. It was Johnson, not Kennedy who changed that policy. The moment Kennedy died, Vietnam became Johnson's. And everything that followed became Johnson's, NOT Kennedy's Vietnam.
> 
> Kennedy had explored negotiations with the Soviet Union to help end the conflict in Vietnam. He had begun secret negotiations to normalize relations with Cuba. I am very confident had Kennedy lived, Vietnam would have never metastasized into a full scale war and a national tragedy.
> 
> Kennedy and Johnson were two totally different men, with totally different values and viewpoints. Kennedy didn't trust the Joint Chiefs, McNamara said Johnson wrote a "blank check" to the Joint Chiefs of Staff that turned over Vietnam to their strategists.
Click to expand...


The highlighted portion of your response pretty much shoots a massive hole in your "official policy" theory, Bfgrn!  

Do you agree or disagree that the official policy of the US was to contest the spread of communism?  If so...then you've got conflicting "policies"!  OBVIOUSLY something has to give.  Kennedy can't contest the spread of communism AND walk away from South Vietnam.  He may have WANTED to get us out of Vietnam (God knows it was a mess under the Diem brothers!) but that in no way means that it's definite that he WOULD have allowed an ally of ours to be defeated by the communists.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have one standard and I think I've stated it quite a few times now...I don't hold the "words" of politicians in very high regard...what I look at is what they have DONE...not what they SAY they will do.
> 
> I bring up the content of Kennedy's speech that day in Dallas simply to point out that what a politician *says* or what a politician *plans* is very seldom what they DO!  Bush I's policy was "No new taxes!"  Then he raised taxes.  Obama's policy was "If you like your health plan...you can keep your health plan!"  Then he passed the ACA.  Kennedy had a plan drawn up to withdraw a thousand troops.  That does NOT mean that plan might have been amended or abandoned with evolving situations in Vietnam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I can agree, had he lived, the official policy of the United States on Vietnam may have changed under JFK*, but he didn't change the plan before he died. The official US policy on the day he died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965. It was Johnson, not Kennedy who changed that policy. The moment Kennedy died, Vietnam became Johnson's. And everything that followed became Johnson's, NOT Kennedy's Vietnam.
> 
> Kennedy had explored negotiations with the Soviet Union to help end the conflict in Vietnam. He had begun secret negotiations to normalize relations with Cuba. I am very confident had Kennedy lived, Vietnam would have never metastasized into a full scale war and a national tragedy.
> 
> Kennedy and Johnson were two totally different men, with totally different values and viewpoints. Kennedy didn't trust the Joint Chiefs, McNamara said Johnson wrote a "blank check" to the Joint Chiefs of Staff that turned over Vietnam to their strategists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The highlighted portion of your response pretty much shoots a massive hole in your "official policy" theory, Bfgrn!
> 
> Do you agree or disagree that the official policy of the US was to contest the spread of communism?  If so...then you've got conflicting "policies"!  OBVIOUSLY something has to give.  Kennedy can't contest the spread of communism AND walk away from South Vietnam.  He may have WANTED to get us out of Vietnam (God knows it was a mess under the Diem brothers!) but that in no way means that it's definite that he WOULD have allowed an ally of ours to be defeated by the communists.
Click to expand...


It doesn't shoot any holes in my contention that JFK would have never escalated Vietnam into a full blown war. 

What is becoming clear is you are so insecure you are unable to accept any facts. You are drowning and refuse to grab the ring. I have proven that the official US policy on the day Kennedy died was withdrawal. He was about to replace war hawk Dean Rusk as Secretary of State with McNamara, who already believed Vietnam would not end in victory.

The fact remains and will always remain that the official US policy on the day Kennedy died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965.

Kennedy would never make another decision in regards to Vietnam. The blame for what followed falls COMPLETELY on Lyndon Johnson.


----------



## Oldstyle

And was the official US policy on the day that Kennedy died ALSO to prevent the spread of communism?  If so...kindly explain how Kennedy fulfills THAT policy if he abandons South Vietnam to the communists?

Your problem is that Kennedy DID escalate our involvement in South Vietnam from the less than a thousand US servicemen that were there exclusively to train South Vietnamese troops...to over sixteen thousand US troops that were flying hundreds of combat air missions and conducting widespread counter insurgency missions on the ground.  The ONLY difference between what Johnson did and what Kennedy did were the numbers of troops Johnson sent.  We weren't "officially" at war under Kennedy and we weren't "officially" at war under Johnson but we WERE in reality fighting a war under both!


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> *I can agree, had he lived, the official policy of the United States on Vietnam may have changed under JFK*, but he didn't change the plan before he died. The official US policy on the day he died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965. It was Johnson, not Kennedy who changed that policy. The moment Kennedy died, Vietnam became Johnson's. And everything that followed became Johnson's, NOT Kennedy's Vietnam.
> 
> Kennedy had explored negotiations with the Soviet Union to help end the conflict in Vietnam. He had begun secret negotiations to normalize relations with Cuba. I am very confident had Kennedy lived, Vietnam would have never metastasized into a full scale war and a national tragedy.
> 
> Kennedy and Johnson were two totally different men, with totally different values and viewpoints. Kennedy didn't trust the Joint Chiefs, McNamara said Johnson wrote a "blank check" to the Joint Chiefs of Staff that turned over Vietnam to their strategists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The highlighted portion of your response pretty much shoots a massive hole in your "official policy" theory, Bfgrn!
> 
> Do you agree or disagree that the official policy of the US was to contest the spread of communism?  If so...then you've got conflicting "policies"!  OBVIOUSLY something has to give.  Kennedy can't contest the spread of communism AND walk away from South Vietnam.  He may have WANTED to get us out of Vietnam (God knows it was a mess under the Diem brothers!) but that in no way means that it's definite that he WOULD have allowed an ally of ours to be defeated by the communists.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't shoot any holes in my contention that JFK would have never escalated Vietnam into a full blown war.
> 
> What is becoming clear is you are so insecure you are unable to accept any facts. You are drowning and refuse to grab the ring. *I have proven that the official US policy on the day Kennedy died was withdrawal.* He was about to replace war hawk Dean Rusk as Secretary of State with McNamara, who already believed Vietnam would not end in victory.
> 
> The fact remains and will always remain that the official US policy on the day Kennedy died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965.
> 
> Kennedy would never make another decision in regards to Vietnam. The blame for what followed falls COMPLETELY on Lyndon Johnson.
Click to expand...


And then you have admitted that policies change.  So why don't you simply admit that you have no way of knowing whether or not Kennedy would have gone ahead and withdrawn all US troops by 1965?  You're making a *guess*, based on what you'd like to THINK Kennedy would have done and you base that guess not on what Kennedy had done up to that point (which was to escalate the war substantially!) but on a "policy" that had been drawn up under the guidance of faulty information regarding South Vietnam's ability to defend itself without US troops.

And you STILL haven't explained how Kennedy's withdrawal "plan" would have fit in with his goal of stopping the spread of communism!

The fact is...Kennedy and McNamara were still committed to keeping South Vietnam from falling to the communists in 1963 despite McNamara's "Monday morning quarterbacking" years later.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The highlighted portion of your response pretty much shoots a massive hole in your "official policy" theory, Bfgrn!
> 
> Do you agree or disagree that the official policy of the US was to contest the spread of communism?  If so...then you've got conflicting "policies"!  OBVIOUSLY something has to give.  Kennedy can't contest the spread of communism AND walk away from South Vietnam.  He may have WANTED to get us out of Vietnam (God knows it was a mess under the Diem brothers!) but that in no way means that it's definite that he WOULD have allowed an ally of ours to be defeated by the communists.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It doesn't shoot any holes in my contention that JFK would have never escalated Vietnam into a full blown war.
> 
> What is becoming clear is you are so insecure you are unable to accept any facts. You are drowning and refuse to grab the ring. *I have proven that the official US policy on the day Kennedy died was withdrawal.* He was about to replace war hawk Dean Rusk as Secretary of State with McNamara, who already believed Vietnam would not end in victory.
> 
> The fact remains and will always remain that the official US policy on the day Kennedy died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965.
> 
> Kennedy would never make another decision in regards to Vietnam. The blame for what followed falls COMPLETELY on Lyndon Johnson.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And then you have admitted that policies change.  So why don't you simply admit that you have no way of knowing whether or not Kennedy would have gone ahead and withdrawn all US troops by 1965?  You're making a *guess*, based on what you'd like to THINK Kennedy would have done and you base that guess not on what Kennedy had done up to that point (which was to escalate the war substantially!) but on a "policy" that had been drawn up under the guidance of faulty information regarding South Vietnam's ability to defend itself without US troops.
> 
> And you STILL haven't explained how Kennedy's withdrawal "plan" would have fit in with his goal of stopping the spread of communism!
> 
> The fact is...Kennedy and McNamara were still committed to keeping South Vietnam from falling to the communists in 1963 despite McNamara's "Monday morning quarterbacking" years later.
Click to expand...


You are reaching the desperate stage. 

Policies do change. Lyndon Johnson changed our policy on Vietnam. NOT Kennedy. It is really that simple. As I said in the beginning, you have a right to an opinion on what Kennedy would have done. But the official policy the day Kennedy died will never be changed by Kennedy. EVERYTHING that followed falls on Johnson.


----------



## Oldstyle

Which official policy?  The one that calls for troop withdrawals from Vietnam as we turn the fight over to an obviously unprepared South Vietnam...or the one that says we won't let our allies fall to communism?

You STILL haven't addressed how Kennedy would have achieved both...


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Which official policy?  The one that calls for troop withdrawals from Vietnam as we turn the fight over to an obviously unprepared South Vietnam...or the one that says we won't let our allies fall to communism?
> 
> You STILL haven't addressed how Kennedy would have achieved both...



John F. Kennedy had formally decided to withdraw from Vietnam, whether we were winning or not. Robert McNamara, who did not believe we were winning, supported this decision. The first stage of withdrawal had been ordered. The final date, two years later, had been specified.

Kennedy was assassinated.

At 1pm CST on November 22, 1963, Vietnam became WHOLLY Johnson's, NOT Kennedy's.


----------



## thanatos144

Blah blah blah fact is John Fitzgerald Kennedy is not what  the media prayed for him to be. He was just another progressive pansy just happened to be forced to lower taxes

tapatalk post


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Blah blah blah fact is John Fitzgerald Kennedy is not what  the media prayed for him to be. He was just another progressive pansy just happened to be forced to lower taxes
> 
> tapatalk post



"Blah blah blah" is all you are capable of bringing to this thread. You are a typical right wing mental midget.


----------



## Papageorgio

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah fact is John Fitzgerald Kennedy is not what  the media prayed for him to be. He was just another progressive pansy just happened to be forced to lower taxes
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Blah blah blah" is all you are capable of bringing to this thread. You are a typical right wing mental midget.
Click to expand...


Funny how the "right wing mental midget" towers over you.


----------



## Bfgrn

Papageorgio said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Blah blah blah fact is John Fitzgerald Kennedy is not what  the media prayed for him to be. He was just another progressive pansy just happened to be forced to lower taxes
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Blah blah blah" is all you are capable of bringing to this thread. You are a typical right wing mental midget.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Funny how the "right wing mental midget" towers over you.
Click to expand...


Only in your dreams pea brain. I have forgotten more about Kennedy than any of you right wingers will ever know.

The right wing mind has the depth of a mud puddle.


----------



## Papageorgio

Bfgrn said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Blah blah blah" is all you are capable of bringing to this thread. You are a typical right wing mental midget.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the "right wing mental midget" towers over you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Only in your dreams pea brain. I have forgotten more about Kennedy than any of you right wingers will ever know.
> 
> The right wing mind has the depth of a mud puddle.
Click to expand...


Nice comeback....you sure show your great mind in the great comeback.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which official policy?  The one that calls for troop withdrawals from Vietnam as we turn the fight over to an obviously unprepared South Vietnam...or the one that says we won't let our allies fall to communism?
> 
> You STILL haven't addressed how Kennedy would have achieved both...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John F. Kennedy had formally decided to withdraw from Vietnam, whether we were winning or not. Robert McNamara, who did not believe we were winning, supported this decision. The first stage of withdrawal had been ordered. The final date, two years later, had been specified.
> 
> Kennedy was assassinated.
> 
> At 1pm CST on November 22, 1963, Vietnam became WHOLLY Johnson's, NOT Kennedy's.
Click to expand...


Once again...Kennedy made the decision to withdraw troops from Vietnam because he was told that the war was going so well that the South Vietnamese were capable of "mopping up" by themselves.  He had *not* made a decision to abandon South Vietnam to the communists.

Unless you can show me that Kennedy HAD changed his policy of preventing the spread of communism then all your talk about what Kennedy would have done is simply a guess.  Your contention that Robert McNamara supported abandoning the South Vietnamese is not backed up by his actions.  You've chosen to believe McNamara's "version" of history that he wrote decades later in a valiant effort to buff up his good friend JFK's legacy.


----------



## Bfgrn

Papageorgio said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Funny how the "right wing mental midget" towers over you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Only in your dreams pea brain. I have forgotten more about Kennedy than any of you right wingers will ever know.
> 
> The right wing mind has the depth of a mud puddle.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nice comeback....you sure show your great mind in the great comeback.
Click to expand...


You and thanatos have added NOTHING of substance to this thread. ZERO, zilch, nothing. You don't deserve anything but scorn and mocking.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Which official policy?  The one that calls for troop withdrawals from Vietnam as we turn the fight over to an obviously unprepared South Vietnam...or the one that says we won't let our allies fall to communism?
> 
> You STILL haven't addressed how Kennedy would have achieved both...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> John F. Kennedy had formally decided to withdraw from Vietnam, whether we were winning or not. Robert McNamara, who did not believe we were winning, supported this decision. The first stage of withdrawal had been ordered. The final date, two years later, had been specified.
> 
> Kennedy was assassinated.
> 
> At 1pm CST on November 22, 1963, Vietnam became WHOLLY Johnson's, NOT Kennedy's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Once again...Kennedy made the decision to withdraw troops from Vietnam because he was told that the war was going so well that the South Vietnamese were capable of "mopping up" by themselves.  He had *not* made a decision to abandon South Vietnam to the communists.
> 
> Unless you can show me that Kennedy HAD changed his policy of preventing the spread of communism then all your talk about what Kennedy would have done is simply a guess.  Your contention that Robert McNamara supported abandoning the South Vietnamese is not backed up by his actions.  You've chosen to believe McNamara's "version" of history that he wrote decades later in a valiant effort to buff up his good friend JFK's legacy.
Click to expand...


Declassified official documents and tape recordings support McNamara's claims.

Joint Chief of Staff documents show that Kennedy was well aware of the evidence that South Vietnam was, in fact, losing the war. But it hardly matters. The withdrawal decided on was unconditional, and did not depend on military progress or lack of it.


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only in your dreams pea brain. I have forgotten more about Kennedy than any of you right wingers will ever know.
> 
> The right wing mind has the depth of a mud puddle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice comeback....you sure show your great mind in the great comeback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and thanatos have added NOTHING of substance to this thread. ZERO, zilch, nothing. You don't deserve anything but scorn and mocking.
Click to expand...


It must hurt that people see your god JFK as what he is and not what you want us to see him as.

tapatalk post


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nice comeback....you sure show your great mind in the great comeback.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You and thanatos have added NOTHING of substance to this thread. ZERO, zilch, nothing. You don't deserve anything but scorn and mocking.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It must hurt that people see your god JFK as what he is and not what you want us to see him as.
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


I have a very good understanding of who Jack Kennedy was and who is wasn't. Do you? How much have you studied the man?


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You and thanatos have added NOTHING of substance to this thread. ZERO, zilch, nothing. You don't deserve anything but scorn and mocking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It must hurt that people see your god JFK as what he is and not what you want us to see him as.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have a very good understanding of who Jack Kennedy was and who is wasn't. Do you? How much have you studied the man?
Click to expand...


Yes I do because his voting record is there for all of us to see. All his actions are there fir you to see. He was a racist womanizer and drunk who was easily out maneuvered by the Cubans and Russians

tapatalk post


----------



## Papageorgio

Bfgrn said:


> Papageorgio said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only in your dreams pea brain. I have forgotten more about Kennedy than any of you right wingers will ever know.
> 
> The right wing mind has the depth of a mud puddle.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Nice comeback....you sure show your great mind in the great comeback.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You and thanatos have added NOTHING of substance to this thread. ZERO, zilch, nothing. You don't deserve anything but scorn and mocking.
Click to expand...


All you have done is gone back and forth saying the same damn thing for hundreds of posts and you have one point and it fails miserably. So why take an idiot like you seriously?


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It must hurt that people see your god JFK as what he is and not what you want us to see him as.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have a very good understanding of who Jack Kennedy was and who is wasn't. Do you? How much have you studied the man?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yes I do because his voting record is there for all of us to see. All his actions are there fir you to see. He was a racist womanizer and drunk who was easily out maneuvered by the Cubans and Russians
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Yes we do have his voting record, the agenda of the New Frontier and Kennedy's introduction of what became the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A womanizer? Yes. A racist? No. A drunk? No. Easily maneuvered by the Cubans and Russians? No. Kennedy's courage, determination strength and intelligence kept us from a nuclear WWIII.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> John F. Kennedy had formally decided to withdraw from Vietnam, whether we were winning or not. Robert McNamara, who did not believe we were winning, supported this decision. The first stage of withdrawal had been ordered. The final date, two years later, had been specified.
> 
> Kennedy was assassinated.
> 
> At 1pm CST on November 22, 1963, Vietnam became WHOLLY Johnson's, NOT Kennedy's.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Once again...Kennedy made the decision to withdraw troops from Vietnam because he was told that the war was going so well that the South Vietnamese were capable of "mopping up" by themselves.  He had *not* made a decision to abandon South Vietnam to the communists.
> 
> Unless you can show me that Kennedy HAD changed his policy of preventing the spread of communism then all your talk about what Kennedy would have done is simply a guess.  Your contention that Robert McNamara supported abandoning the South Vietnamese is not backed up by his actions.  You've chosen to believe McNamara's "version" of history that he wrote decades later in a valiant effort to buff up his good friend JFK's legacy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Declassified official documents and tape recordings support McNamara's claims.
> 
> Joint Chief of Staff documents show that Kennedy was well aware of the evidence that South Vietnam was, in fact, losing the war. But it hardly matters. The withdrawal decided on was unconditional, and did not depend on military progress or lack of it.
Click to expand...


You keep talking about the plan to withdraw as if it was somehow written in stone and couldn't change in any way...which is complete and utter fantasy on your part!  The withdrawal plan was TOTALLY BASED upon military progress!  It was based on wishful thinking...wishful thinking that the war in South Vietnam was going so well that the South Vietnamese could take over the fight and keep the communists at bay.  Despite your claim to the contrary, under Kennedy the US had shouldered a *much* larger portion of the actual fighting because the South Vietnamese were basically incompetent.  The fact is, Kennedy had dramatically escalated the US's involvement in combat and the South Vietnamese were becoming increasingly dependent on us to fight the communists for them.  Robert McNamara's rewriting of history decades later is nothing more than a self-serving attempt to paint what both he AND Kennedy did in Vietnam in a more favorable light.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Once again...Kennedy made the decision to withdraw troops from Vietnam because he was told that the war was going so well that the South Vietnamese were capable of "mopping up" by themselves.  He had *not* made a decision to abandon South Vietnam to the communists.
> 
> Unless you can show me that Kennedy HAD changed his policy of preventing the spread of communism then all your talk about what Kennedy would have done is simply a guess.  Your contention that Robert McNamara supported abandoning the South Vietnamese is not backed up by his actions.  You've chosen to believe McNamara's "version" of history that he wrote decades later in a valiant effort to buff up his good friend JFK's legacy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Declassified official documents and tape recordings support McNamara's claims.
> 
> Joint Chief of Staff documents show that Kennedy was well aware of the evidence that South Vietnam was, in fact, losing the war. But it hardly matters. The withdrawal decided on was unconditional, and did not depend on military progress or lack of it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You keep talking about the plan to withdraw as if it was somehow written in stone and couldn't change in any way...which is complete and utter fantasy on your part!  The withdrawal plan was TOTALLY BASED upon military progress!  It was based on wishful thinking...wishful thinking that the war in South Vietnam was going so well that the South Vietnamese could take over the fight and keep the communists at bay.  Despite your claim to the contrary, under Kennedy the US had shouldered a *much* larger portion of the actual fighting because the South Vietnamese were basically incompetent.  The fact is, Kennedy had dramatically escalated the US's involvement in combat and the South Vietnamese were becoming increasingly dependent on us to fight the communists for them.  Robert McNamara's rewriting of history decades later is nothing more than a self-serving attempt to paint what both he AND Kennedy did in Vietnam in a more favorable light.
Click to expand...


The policy was written in stone until someone changed it. Kennedy DIDN'T. Johnson DID. Why is that so hard to understand?

McNamara placed a very UN-favorable light upon himself.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Declassified official documents and tape recordings support McNamara's claims.
> 
> Joint Chief of Staff documents show that Kennedy was well aware of the evidence that South Vietnam was, in fact, losing the war. But it hardly matters. The withdrawal decided on was unconditional, and did not depend on military progress or lack of it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You keep talking about the plan to withdraw as if it was somehow written in stone and couldn't change in any way...which is complete and utter fantasy on your part!  The withdrawal plan was TOTALLY BASED upon military progress!  It was based on wishful thinking...wishful thinking that the war in South Vietnam was going so well that the South Vietnamese could take over the fight and keep the communists at bay.  Despite your claim to the contrary, under Kennedy the US had shouldered a *much* larger portion of the actual fighting because the South Vietnamese were basically incompetent.  The fact is, Kennedy had dramatically escalated the US's involvement in combat and the South Vietnamese were becoming increasingly dependent on us to fight the communists for them.  Robert McNamara's rewriting of history decades later is nothing more than a self-serving attempt to paint what both he AND Kennedy did in Vietnam in a more favorable light.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The policy was written in stone until someone changed it. Kennedy DIDN'T. Johnson DID. Why is that so hard to understand?
> 
> McNamara placed a very UN-favorable light upon himself.
Click to expand...


So your contention is that it was impossible for Kennedy to change the policy on troop withdrawals?  Is that what you're saying?  I think we both know that's not the case.  Kennedy very well may not have withdrawn the initial thousand troops in 1963.  He may not have withdrawn the rest before 1965.  He was still steadfast in his determination to stem the spread of communism as is evident in the speech that he would have given in Dallas the very day that he was assassinated.  

You *still *haven't shown me how a total withdrawal of American troops from South Vietnam by Kennedy correlates with his pledge to support our allies in a fight against the evils of communism.  How does Kennedy walk away from Vietnam (something you've declared was set in stone) when to do so would have essentially been a surrender of South East Asia to the communists at the height of the Cold War?  How does he do THAT?


----------



## Oldstyle

The "policy" under Eisenhower was for our troops to *train* the South Vietnamese.  Kennedy changed that policy to one where our troops were flying hundreds of combat missions and leading counter insurgency strikes on the ground.  THAT is who Kennedy WAS...THAT is what Kennedy DID!


----------



## Oldstyle

When Kennedy gives his little speeches about the necessity for the South Vietnamese to start fighting their "own" war it's rather ironic since it was KENNEDY who had the US military taking on a combat role.  Until Kennedy...the South Vietnamese WERE fighting their own war!


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You keep talking about the plan to withdraw as if it was somehow written in stone and couldn't change in any way...which is complete and utter fantasy on your part!  The withdrawal plan was TOTALLY BASED upon military progress!  It was based on wishful thinking...wishful thinking that the war in South Vietnam was going so well that the South Vietnamese could take over the fight and keep the communists at bay.  Despite your claim to the contrary, under Kennedy the US had shouldered a *much* larger portion of the actual fighting because the South Vietnamese were basically incompetent.  The fact is, Kennedy had dramatically escalated the US's involvement in combat and the South Vietnamese were becoming increasingly dependent on us to fight the communists for them.  Robert McNamara's rewriting of history decades later is nothing more than a self-serving attempt to paint what both he AND Kennedy did in Vietnam in a more favorable light.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The policy was written in stone until someone changed it. Kennedy DIDN'T. Johnson DID. Why is that so hard to understand?
> 
> McNamara placed a very UN-favorable light upon himself.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your contention is that it was impossible for Kennedy to change the policy on troop withdrawals?  Is that what you're saying?  I think we both know that's not the case.  Kennedy very well may not have withdrawn the initial thousand troops in 1963.  He may not have withdrawn the rest before 1965.  He was still steadfast in his determination to stem the spread of communism as is evident in the speech that he would have given in Dallas the very day that he was assassinated.
> 
> You *still *haven't shown me how a total withdrawal of American troops from South Vietnam by Kennedy correlates with his pledge to support our allies in a fight against the evils of communism.  How does Kennedy walk away from Vietnam (something you've declared was set in stone) when to do so would have essentially been a surrender of South East Asia to the communists at the height of the Cold War?  How does he do THAT?
Click to expand...


You keep changing the terms here. 

My contention is that Kennedy DIDN'T change the policy on troop withdrawals...JOHNSON DID.

The official policy the day Kennedy died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 (troops WERE withdrawn) and full withdrawal by the end of 1965.

Withdrawal plan were NOT totally based upon military progress. From October 11 onward the CIAs reporting changed drastically. Official optimism was replaced by a searching and comparatively realistic pessimism. Even rewriting assessments as far back as the previous July, in response to NSAM 263. Kennedy STILL didn't change the policy.

Diem was overthrown November 1, 1963, Kennedy STILL didn't change the policy.

Kennedy DIDN'T change the policy on troop withdrawals...JOHNSON DID.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> When Kennedy gives his little speeches about the necessity for the South Vietnamese to start fighting their "own" war it's rather ironic since it was KENNEDY who had the US military taking on a combat role.  Until Kennedy...the South Vietnamese WERE fighting their own war!



All the MORE reason to withdraw.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> The "policy" under Eisenhower was for our troops to *train* the South Vietnamese.  Kennedy changed that policy to one where our troops were flying hundreds of combat missions and leading counter insurgency strikes on the ground.  THAT is who Kennedy WAS...THAT is what Kennedy DID!



The 2 biggest decisions that entangled America in Vietnam were made by Eisenhower and Johnson.

US Involvement in Vietnam: the first turning point

At the international conference convened to discuss French Indochina at Geneva in May 1954, the French exit was formalised. Vietnam was temporarily divided, with Ho Chi Minh in control of the north and the Emperor Bao Dai in control of the south. The Geneva Accords declared that there were to be nationwide elections leading to reunification of Vietnam in 1956. However, US intervention ensured that this temporary division was to last for more than 20 years.

The United States refused to sign the Geneva Accords and moved to defy them within weeks. Eisenhower's Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, organised allies such as Britain in the South-east Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO). The SEATO signatories agreed to protect South Vietnam, in defiance of the Geneva Accords, which had forbidden the Vietnamese from entering into foreign alliances or to allow foreign troops in Vietnam.

The Eisenhower administration encouraged Bao Dai to appoint Ngo Dinh Diem as his prime minister, and then proceeded to engage in nation building. Eisenhower and Dulles created a new state, in defiance (yet again) of the Geneva Accords and of what was known to be the will of the Vietnamese people. Eisenhower recorded in his memoirs that he knew that if there had been genuine democratic elections in Vietnam in 1956, Ho Chi Minh would have won around 80 per cent of the vote. In order to avoid a wholly Communist Vietnam, the US had sponsored an artificial political creation, the state of South Vietnam.

Within weeks of Geneva, Eisenhower arranged to help Diem set up South Vietnam. He sent General Lightning Joe Collins and created MAAG (the Military Assistance Advisory Group) to assist in the process. The US also helped and encouraged Diem to squeeze out Bao Dai.

The French exit meant that Eisenhower could have dropped Truman's commitment in Vietnam.


----------



## Sallow

Oldstyle said:


> The "policy" under Eisenhower was for our troops to *train* the South Vietnamese.  Kennedy changed that policy to one where our troops were flying hundreds of combat missions and leading counter insurgency strikes on the ground.  THAT is who Kennedy WAS...THAT is what Kennedy DID!



You are really something else.

Eisenhower stopped a general election that would have left Ho Chi Minh in power.

There would not have even BEEN a war had that election taken place.

Vietnam was effectively stabbed in the back after being a loyal ally during WWII.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "policy" under Eisenhower was for our troops to *train* the South Vietnamese.  Kennedy changed that policy to one where our troops were flying hundreds of combat missions and leading counter insurgency strikes on the ground.  THAT is who Kennedy WAS...THAT is what Kennedy DID!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2 biggest decisions that entangled America in Vietnam were made by Eisenhower and Johnson.
> 
> US Involvement in Vietnam: the first turning point
> 
> At the international conference convened to discuss French Indochina at Geneva in May 1954, the French exit was formalised. Vietnam was temporarily divided, with Ho Chi Minh in control of the north and the Emperor Bao Dai in control of the south. The Geneva Accords declared that there were to be nationwide elections leading to reunification of Vietnam in 1956. However, US intervention ensured that this temporary division was to last for more than 20 years.
> 
> The United States refused to sign the Geneva Accords and moved to defy them within weeks. Eisenhower's Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, organised allies such as Britain in the South-east Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO). The SEATO signatories agreed to protect South Vietnam, in defiance of the Geneva Accords, which had forbidden the Vietnamese from entering into foreign alliances or to allow foreign troops in Vietnam.
> 
> The Eisenhower administration encouraged Bao Dai to appoint Ngo Dinh Diem as his prime minister, and then proceeded to engage in nation building. Eisenhower and Dulles created a new state, in defiance (yet again) of the Geneva Accords and of what was known to be the will of the Vietnamese people. Eisenhower recorded in his memoirs that he knew that if there had been genuine democratic elections in Vietnam in 1956, Ho Chi Minh would have won around 80 per cent of the vote. In order to avoid a wholly Communist Vietnam, the US had sponsored an artificial political creation, the state of South Vietnam.
> 
> Within weeks of Geneva, Eisenhower arranged to help Diem set up South Vietnam. He sent General Lightning Joe Collins and created MAAG (the Military Assistance Advisory Group) to assist in the process. The US also helped and encouraged Diem to squeeze out Bao Dai.
> 
> The French exit meant that Eisenhower could have dropped Truman's commitment in Vietnam.
Click to expand...


"Despite all the doubts, the Eisenhower administration stuck with Diem. By the end of Eisenhower's presidency, there were nearly 1,000 US advisers helping Diem and his armed forces. Under President Kennedy, the number of advisers rocketed to around 16,000, which renders suspect claims that, had he lived, Kennedy would have got out of Vietnam."

That's from *YOUR* cited source, Bfgrn!  Viv Saunders is not only spot on about how the US got into Vietnam but she's spot on when she's skeptical about Kennedy getting us OUT!  

Gee, you cite an article to deflect blame from Kennedy but purposely leave out the one paragraph that actually addresses your claim that Kennedy would have withdrawn all our troops by 1965?  And why do you do that?  Because the author doesn't agree with you!  That's cherry picking at it's finest...


----------



## Oldstyle

Sallow said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "policy" under Eisenhower was for our troops to *train* the South Vietnamese.  Kennedy changed that policy to one where our troops were flying hundreds of combat missions and leading counter insurgency strikes on the ground.  THAT is who Kennedy WAS...THAT is what Kennedy DID!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are really something else.
> 
> Eisenhower stopped a general election that would have left Ho Chi Minh in power.
> 
> There would not have even BEEN a war had that election taken place.
> 
> Vietnam was effectively stabbed in the back after being a loyal ally during WWII.
Click to expand...


Eisenhower refused to allow an election to take place that would have *PUT* Ho Chi Minh in power.  Vietnam became a pawn in the Cold War...just as Korea had become...just as Eastern Europe had become.  Eisenhower refused to let South Vietnam go over to the communists because it was the *policy* of the United States to not allow the further spread of communism...a policy that was much more "iron clad" than JFK's later plan to withdraw troops which is why the author of Bfgrn's cited article doubts Kennedy would have withdrawn those troops.


----------



## TooTall

Sallow said:


> TemplarKormac said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sallow said:
> 
> 
> 
> Go back.
> 
> Re-read the post.
> 
> I don't think you know what you are talking about.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I think I do. You've been exuding butthurt from the moment I knocked your "Kennedy isn't a conservative" argument out of the park.
> 
> Romney has a body on his record? Link?
> 
> So does Laura Bush? Also, link?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay..first off..
> 
> I was posting about vilifying Edward Kennedy.
> 
> That continues to this day.
> 
> Secondly? Romney had an accident in France killing his passenger. You can google it.
> 
> Laura Bush had an accident that killed her ex boyfriend.
> 
> You can google that too.
> 
> You not very good at "gotcha" or much else.
> 
> Dope.
> 
> And John F. Kennedy DESCRIBED HIMSELF as a LIBERAL.
Click to expand...


Romney and Laura Bush both had car accidents.  How long was it before they reported the accident and how long was it before Kennedy reported the accident he had?  One more question.  Were any of them intoxicated when they had the accident?  Just curious.


----------



## TooTall

Sallow said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "policy" under Eisenhower was for our troops to *train* the South Vietnamese.  Kennedy changed that policy to one where our troops were flying hundreds of combat missions and leading counter insurgency strikes on the ground.  THAT is who Kennedy WAS...THAT is what Kennedy DID!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are really something else.
> 
> Eisenhower stopped a general election that would have left Ho Chi Minh in power.
> 
> There would not have even BEEN a war had that election taken place.
> 
> Vietnam was effectively stabbed in the back after being a loyal ally during WWII.
Click to expand...


Ike was merely honoring the intent of the SEATO treaty that the US and our allies signed.  It was a good idea to honor international treaties then, and should be today as well.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> The "policy" under Eisenhower was for our troops to *train* the South Vietnamese.  Kennedy changed that policy to one where our troops were flying hundreds of combat missions and leading counter insurgency strikes on the ground.  THAT is who Kennedy WAS...THAT is what Kennedy DID!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The 2 biggest decisions that entangled America in Vietnam were made by Eisenhower and Johnson.
> 
> US Involvement in Vietnam: the first turning point
> 
> At the international conference convened to discuss French Indochina at Geneva in May 1954, the French exit was formalised. Vietnam was temporarily divided, with Ho Chi Minh in control of the north and the Emperor Bao Dai in control of the south. The Geneva Accords declared that there were to be nationwide elections leading to reunification of Vietnam in 1956. However, US intervention ensured that this &#8216;temporary division&#8217; was to last for more than 20 years.
> 
> The United States refused to sign the Geneva Accords and moved to defy them within weeks. Eisenhower's Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, organised allies such as Britain in the South-east Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO). The SEATO signatories agreed to protect South Vietnam, in defiance of the Geneva Accords, which had forbidden the Vietnamese from entering into foreign alliances or to allow foreign troops in Vietnam.
> 
> The Eisenhower administration encouraged Bao Dai to appoint Ngo Dinh Diem as his prime minister, and then proceeded to engage in &#8216;nation building&#8217;. Eisenhower and Dulles created a new state, in defiance (yet again) of the Geneva Accords and of what was known to be the will of the Vietnamese people. Eisenhower recorded in his memoirs that he knew that if there had been genuine democratic elections in Vietnam in 1956, Ho Chi Minh would have won around 80 per cent of the vote. In order to avoid a wholly Communist Vietnam, the US had sponsored an artificial political creation, the state of South Vietnam.
> 
> Within weeks of Geneva, Eisenhower arranged to help Diem set up South Vietnam. He sent General &#8216;Lightning Joe&#8217; Collins and created MAAG (the Military Assistance Advisory Group) to assist in the process. The US also helped and encouraged Diem to squeeze out Bao Dai.
> 
> The French exit meant that Eisenhower could have dropped Truman's commitment in Vietnam.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Despite all the doubts, the Eisenhower administration stuck with Diem. By the end of Eisenhower's presidency, there were nearly 1,000 US advisers helping Diem and his armed forces. Under President Kennedy, the number of advisers rocketed to around 16,000, which renders suspect claims that, had he lived, Kennedy would have got out of Vietnam."
> 
> That's from *YOUR* cited source, Bfgrn!  Viv Saunders is not only spot on about how the US got into Vietnam but she's spot on when she's skeptical about Kennedy getting us OUT!
> 
> Gee, you cite an article to deflect blame from Kennedy but purposely leave out the one paragraph that actually addresses your claim that Kennedy would have withdrawn all our troops by 1965?  And why do you do that?  Because the author doesn't agree with you!  That's cherry picking at it's finest...
Click to expand...


You have the right to your opinion, and so does Saunders. But the policy the day Kennedy died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965.

IF Kennedy's intentions were to escalate the war, WHY would he put himself in that position? ALL of the military brass and the CIA were dead set against Kennedy's policy.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2 biggest decisions that entangled America in Vietnam were made by Eisenhower and Johnson.
> 
> US Involvement in Vietnam: the first turning point
> 
> At the international conference convened to discuss French Indochina at Geneva in May 1954, the French exit was formalised. Vietnam was temporarily divided, with Ho Chi Minh in control of the north and the Emperor Bao Dai in control of the south. The Geneva Accords declared that there were to be nationwide elections leading to reunification of Vietnam in 1956. However, US intervention ensured that this temporary division was to last for more than 20 years.
> 
> The United States refused to sign the Geneva Accords and moved to defy them within weeks. Eisenhower's Secretary of State, John Foster Dulles, organised allies such as Britain in the South-east Asia Treaty Organisation (SEATO). The SEATO signatories agreed to protect South Vietnam, in defiance of the Geneva Accords, which had forbidden the Vietnamese from entering into foreign alliances or to allow foreign troops in Vietnam.
> 
> The Eisenhower administration encouraged Bao Dai to appoint Ngo Dinh Diem as his prime minister, and then proceeded to engage in nation building. Eisenhower and Dulles created a new state, in defiance (yet again) of the Geneva Accords and of what was known to be the will of the Vietnamese people. Eisenhower recorded in his memoirs that he knew that if there had been genuine democratic elections in Vietnam in 1956, Ho Chi Minh would have won around 80 per cent of the vote. In order to avoid a wholly Communist Vietnam, the US had sponsored an artificial political creation, the state of South Vietnam.
> 
> Within weeks of Geneva, Eisenhower arranged to help Diem set up South Vietnam. He sent General Lightning Joe Collins and created MAAG (the Military Assistance Advisory Group) to assist in the process. The US also helped and encouraged Diem to squeeze out Bao Dai.
> 
> The French exit meant that Eisenhower could have dropped Truman's commitment in Vietnam.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Despite all the doubts, the Eisenhower administration stuck with Diem. By the end of Eisenhower's presidency, there were nearly 1,000 US advisers helping Diem and his armed forces. Under President Kennedy, the number of advisers rocketed to around 16,000, which renders suspect claims that, had he lived, Kennedy would have got out of Vietnam."
> 
> That's from *YOUR* cited source, Bfgrn!  Viv Saunders is not only spot on about how the US got into Vietnam but she's spot on when she's skeptical about Kennedy getting us OUT!
> 
> Gee, you cite an article to deflect blame from Kennedy but purposely leave out the one paragraph that actually addresses your claim that Kennedy would have withdrawn all our troops by 1965?  And why do you do that?  Because the author doesn't agree with you!  That's cherry picking at it's finest...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have the right to your opinion, and so does Saunders. But the policy the day Kennedy died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965.
> 
> IF Kennedy's intentions were to escalate the war, WHY would he put himself in that position? ALL of the military brass and the CIA were dead set against Kennedy's policy.
Click to expand...


"Intentions"?  Kennedy didn't "intend" to escalate the war...he'd ALREADY DONE SO!!!  The reason that Saunders questions whether Kennedy would have withdrawn troops is because of what Kennedy had *done* up to that point.  To use her term...Kennedy had "rocketed" the number of American troops being deployed in Vietnam.

Your problem is that both my opinion...and that of Saunders...is based on what Kennedy had actually DONE...whereas your opinion is based on what he MIGHT have done.  You see him as a dove when in reality he was anything but...


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Despite all the doubts, the Eisenhower administration stuck with Diem. By the end of Eisenhower's presidency, there were nearly 1,000 US advisers helping Diem and his armed forces. Under President Kennedy, the number of advisers rocketed to around 16,000, which renders suspect claims that, had he lived, Kennedy would have got out of Vietnam."
> 
> That's from *YOUR* cited source, Bfgrn!  Viv Saunders is not only spot on about how the US got into Vietnam but she's spot on when she's skeptical about Kennedy getting us OUT!
> 
> Gee, you cite an article to deflect blame from Kennedy but purposely leave out the one paragraph that actually addresses your claim that Kennedy would have withdrawn all our troops by 1965?  And why do you do that?  Because the author doesn't agree with you!  That's cherry picking at it's finest...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to your opinion, and so does Saunders. But the policy the day Kennedy died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965.
> 
> IF Kennedy's intentions were to escalate the war, WHY would he put himself in that position? ALL of the military brass and the CIA were dead set against Kennedy's policy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Intentions"?  Kennedy didn't "intend" to escalate the war...he'd ALREADY DONE SO!!!  The reason that Saunders questions whether Kennedy would have withdrawn troops is because of what Kennedy had *done* up to that point.  To use her term...Kennedy had "rocketed" the number of American troops being deployed in Vietnam.
> 
> Your problem is that both my opinion...and that of Saunders...is based on what Kennedy had actually DONE...whereas your opinion is based on what he MIGHT have done.  You see him as a dove when in reality he was anything but...
Click to expand...


Saunders article is not focusing on what Kennedy would have done. She has not spent years going through declassified documents or years listening to numerous hours of Presidential tape recordings. The article ends with these questions.

Issues to Debate


Was Eisenhower or Johnson more responsible for producing the Vietnam War?
 

What evidence is there that biased reporting hastened the US withdrawal from Vietnam?
 

What was the significance of the Tet offensive?


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have the right to your opinion, and so does Saunders. But the policy the day Kennedy died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965.
> 
> IF Kennedy's intentions were to escalate the war, WHY would he put himself in that position? ALL of the military brass and the CIA were dead set against Kennedy's policy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Intentions"?  Kennedy didn't "intend" to escalate the war...he'd ALREADY DONE SO!!!  The reason that Saunders questions whether Kennedy would have withdrawn troops is because of what Kennedy had *done* up to that point.  To use her term...Kennedy had "rocketed" the number of American troops being deployed in Vietnam.
> 
> Your problem is that both my opinion...and that of Saunders...is based on what Kennedy had actually DONE...whereas your opinion is based on what he MIGHT have done.  You see him as a dove when in reality he was anything but...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saunders article is not focusing on what Kennedy would have done. She has not spent years going through declassified documents or years listening to numerous hours of Presidential tape recordings. The article ends with these questions.
> 
> Issues to Debate
> 
> 
> Was Eisenhower or Johnson more responsible for producing the Vietnam War?
> 
> 
> What evidence is there that biased reporting hastened the US withdrawal from Vietnam?
> 
> 
> What was the significance of the Tet offensive?
Click to expand...


This is like a criminal defense lawyer having an expert witness testify...only to turn around and have to impeach that witness because they mention during questioning that they think the defendant appears to be guilty.

*You* provide Saunders as a "witness" for your contention...only to turn around and say her opinion is of little value because she hasn't researched the subject as well as she should.  You've in essence done so because you asked her what she thought Kennedy *would have done* and she in essence replied that she could only base her opinion on what he *HAD* done and based on that she found it to be unlikely that he would have withdrawn troops.

If you WERE an attorney I'd caution you to be more careful about who you "call to the stand" because THIS witness has made you look foolish.


----------



## Oldstyle

Then you try to convince the "jury" to disregard THAT part of Saunder's testimony and focus on three other things she talked about.  It's amusing.  If you WERE a trial lawyer your client would probably have a good case for a new trial because of improper representation.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Intentions"?  Kennedy didn't "intend" to escalate the war...he'd ALREADY DONE SO!!!  The reason that Saunders questions whether Kennedy would have withdrawn troops is because of what Kennedy had *done* up to that point.  To use her term...Kennedy had "rocketed" the number of American troops being deployed in Vietnam.
> 
> Your problem is that both my opinion...and that of Saunders...is based on what Kennedy had actually DONE...whereas your opinion is based on what he MIGHT have done.  You see him as a dove when in reality he was anything but...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saunders article is not focusing on what Kennedy would have done. She has not spent years going through declassified documents or years listening to numerous hours of Presidential tape recordings. The article ends with these questions.
> 
> Issues to Debate
> 
> 
> Was Eisenhower or Johnson more responsible for producing the Vietnam War?
> 
> 
> What evidence is there that biased reporting hastened the US withdrawal from Vietnam?
> 
> 
> What was the significance of the Tet offensive?
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is like a criminal defense lawyer having an expert witness testify...only to turn around and have to impeach that witness because they mention during questioning that they think the defendant appears to be guilty.
> 
> *You* provide Saunders as a "witness" for your contention...only to turn around and say her opinion is of little value because she hasn't researched the subject as well as she should.  You've in essence done so because you asked her what she thought Kennedy *would have done* and she in essence replied that she could only base her opinion on what he *HAD* done and based on that she found it to be unlikely that he would have withdrawn troops.
> 
> If you WERE an attorney I'd caution you to be more careful about who you "call to the stand" because THIS witness has made you look foolish.
Click to expand...


Saunder's article was on Eisenhower and Johnson. THAT was the focus of her research. She is welcome to an opinion of Kennedy, as are you. But people who have spent years researching SPECIFICALLY what Kennedy would have done disagree.

Let me ask you some specific questions...

When did Vietnam become Lyndon Johnson's policy?

How long after Kennedy died is he still responsible?


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Saunders article is not focusing on what Kennedy would have done. She has not spent years going through declassified documents or years listening to numerous hours of Presidential tape recordings. The article ends with these questions.
> 
> Issues to Debate
> 
> 
> Was Eisenhower or Johnson more responsible for producing the Vietnam War?
> 
> 
> What evidence is there that biased reporting hastened the US withdrawal from Vietnam?
> 
> 
> What was the significance of the Tet offensive?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is like a criminal defense lawyer having an expert witness testify...only to turn around and have to impeach that witness because they mention during questioning that they think the defendant appears to be guilty.
> 
> *You* provide Saunders as a "witness" for your contention...only to turn around and say her opinion is of little value because she hasn't researched the subject as well as she should.  You've in essence done so because you asked her what she thought Kennedy *would have done* and she in essence replied that she could only base her opinion on what he *HAD* done and based on that she found it to be unlikely that he would have withdrawn troops.
> 
> If you WERE an attorney I'd caution you to be more careful about who you "call to the stand" because THIS witness has made you look foolish.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Saunder's article was on Eisenhower and Johnson. THAT was the focus of her research. She is welcome to an opinion of Kennedy, as are you. But people who have spent years researching SPECIFICALLY what Kennedy would have done disagree.
> 
> Let me ask you some specific questions...
> 
> When did Vietnam become Lyndon Johnson's policy?
> 
> How long after Kennedy died is he still responsible?
Click to expand...


So you think Saunders researched the Vietnam policies of Eisenhower and Johnson...but somehow ignored Kennedy?  That's ridiculous.  Her opinion of Kennedy is based on what she knows of his policies in Vietnam.

The early part of Lyndon Johnson's Presidency was deliberately a continuation of the policies that JFK had advocated.  Johnson went out of his way to give the appearance of a US government who's policies were going ahead seamlessly uninterrupted by the assassination of the former President. 

As for who is responsible for what?  Johnson is responsible for the dramatic increase of US troops under his administration just as Kennedy is responsible for the dramatic increase under HIS administration.  You give Kennedy credit for troop withdrawals that he never made and may never HAVE made.  It's the same type of ideological "blinders wearing" that led the Nobel Committee to award Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing...on the *assumption* that he *would* somehow bring peace to the world.  Saunders bases her skepticism about Kennedy's withdrawal "plan" on his track record.  What do you base YOURS on?


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is like a criminal defense lawyer having an expert witness testify...only to turn around and have to impeach that witness because they mention during questioning that they think the defendant appears to be guilty.
> 
> *You* provide Saunders as a "witness" for your contention...only to turn around and say her opinion is of little value because she hasn't researched the subject as well as she should.  You've in essence done so because you asked her what she thought Kennedy *would have done* and she in essence replied that she could only base her opinion on what he *HAD* done and based on that she found it to be unlikely that he would have withdrawn troops.
> 
> If you WERE an attorney I'd caution you to be more careful about who you "call to the stand" because THIS witness has made you look foolish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Saunder's article was on Eisenhower and Johnson. THAT was the focus of her research. She is welcome to an opinion of Kennedy, as are you. But people who have spent years researching SPECIFICALLY what Kennedy would have done disagree.
> 
> Let me ask you some specific questions...
> 
> When did Vietnam become Lyndon Johnson's policy?
> 
> How long after Kennedy died is he still responsible?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So you think Saunders researched the Vietnam policies of Eisenhower and Johnson...but somehow ignored Kennedy?  That's ridiculous.  Her opinion of Kennedy is based on what she knows of his policies in Vietnam.
> 
> The early part of Lyndon Johnson's Presidency was deliberately a continuation of the policies that JFK had advocated.  Johnson went out of his way to give the appearance of a US government who's policies were going ahead seamlessly uninterrupted by the assassination of the former President.
> 
> As for who is responsible for what?  Johnson is responsible for the dramatic increase of US troops under his administration just as Kennedy is responsible for the dramatic increase under HIS administration.  You give Kennedy credit for troop withdrawals that he never made and may never HAVE made.  It's the same type of ideological "blinders wearing" that led the Nobel Committee to award Barack Obama the Nobel Peace Prize for doing nothing...on the *assumption* that he *would* somehow bring peace to the world.  Saunders bases her skepticism about Kennedy's withdrawal "plan" on his track record.  What do you base YOURS on?
Click to expand...


I base mine on FACTS. The policy on the day Kennedy died will never be changed by John F. Kennedy...FACT. It could ONLY be changed by Johnson...FACT. Troops WERE withdrawn, even your own source article confirms that about half the 1,000 troops WERE withdrawn by the end of 1963...FACT.

I have already agreed that Kennedy increased our troop level in Vietnam...FACT. But for argument sake, let's completely eliminate the Kennedy US policy to withdraw that was in place on November 22nd, 1963.

Kennedy decides to cancel the trip to Texas...Kennedy lived...

SO, we are at 16,000 troops in Vietnam for another 5 years. The average casualty level during the Kennedy years was 62 American soldiers per year.

Vietnam is a small footnote in American history.


----------



## Oldstyle

Fine, for arguments sake let's assume that since Kennedy increased the number of US troops in Vietnam from less than a thousand to sixteen thousand in two and a half years it's also possible that if he'd had another five years in office he may very well have CONTINUED to increase the number of troops at the same pace...which means doubling their number approximately every six months.  In that case we would have had over two hundred and fifty thousand troops in Vietnam by the end of two years.  The truth is...you have absolutely no idea WHAT Kennedy would have done with troop levels because as Saunders pointed out...his past record indicated that he would be more apt to increase them than decrease them.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Fine, for arguments sake let's assume that since Kennedy increased the number of US troops in Vietnam from less than a thousand to sixteen thousand in two and a half years it's also possible that if he'd had another five years in office he may very well have CONTINUED to increase the number of troops at the same pace...which means doubling their number approximately every six months.  In that case we would have had over two hundred and fifty thousand troops in Vietnam by the end of two years.  The truth is...you have absolutely no idea WHAT Kennedy would have done with troop levels because as Saunders pointed out...his past record indicated that he would be more apt to increase them than decrease them.



You just lost pal.

You said you are basing your opinion on what Kennedy DID. You LIED. You just admitted you are trying to blame Kennedy for what Johnson DID.

NOW, we have to include the official policy Kennedy put in place. That policy was to withdraw. So if you want to speculate, the logical assumption of WHAT Kennedy would have done with troop levels is to DEcrease, not increase.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, for arguments sake let's assume that since Kennedy increased the number of US troops in Vietnam from less than a thousand to sixteen thousand in two and a half years it's also possible that if he'd had another five years in office he may very well have CONTINUED to increase the number of troops at the same pace...which means doubling their number approximately every six months.  In that case we would have had over two hundred and fifty thousand troops in Vietnam by the end of two years.  The truth is...you have absolutely no idea WHAT Kennedy would have done with troop levels because as Saunders pointed out...his past record indicated that he would be more apt to increase them than decrease them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just lost pal.
> 
> You said you are basing your opinion on what Kennedy DID. You LIED. You just admitted you are trying to blame Kennedy for what Johnson DID.
> 
> NOW, we have to include the official policy Kennedy put in place. That policy was to withdraw. So if you want to speculate, the logical assumption of WHAT Kennedy would have done with troop levels is to DEcrease, not increase.
Click to expand...


As Saunders pointed out...if you look at what Kennedy had *ACTUALLY DONE* rather than speculating on what he *might have done* it's hard to see JFK withdrawing all of our troops and far more likely that he would have continued to increase the number of troops in Vietnam.  You could make the argument that it was unlikely that Eisenhower would have increased troop levels dramatically because he didn't do so.  You can make the argument that Nixon would have decreased the number of troops because that's what he DID.  You can't make the same argument for either Kennedy or for Johnson because *BOTH* increased troop levels substantially.  *THAT* is what Saunders is referring to when she talks of Kennedy's "rocketing" of the number of US troops in Vietnam and *THAT *is why Saunders is highly skeptical of those who believe Kennedy was about to pull out of Vietnam.

Your problem is that Kennedy's "policy" never was acted upon and you REALLY don't have any way of knowing if it ever would have been other than the Monday Morning quarterbacking done by people like Robert McNamara trying to paint John F. Kennedy in a favorable light.  Saunders (and myself) are going by Kennedy's actions...you are going by a "plan"  that may or may not have ever been carried out.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fine, for arguments sake let's assume that since Kennedy increased the number of US troops in Vietnam from less than a thousand to sixteen thousand in two and a half years it's also possible that if he'd had another five years in office he may very well have CONTINUED to increase the number of troops at the same pace...which means doubling their number approximately every six months.  In that case we would have had over two hundred and fifty thousand troops in Vietnam by the end of two years.  The truth is...you have absolutely no idea WHAT Kennedy would have done with troop levels because as Saunders pointed out...his past record indicated that he would be more apt to increase them than decrease them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You just lost pal.
> 
> You said you are basing your opinion on what Kennedy DID. You LIED. You just admitted you are trying to blame Kennedy for what Johnson DID.
> 
> NOW, we have to include the official policy Kennedy put in place. That policy was to withdraw. So if you want to speculate, the logical assumption of WHAT Kennedy would have done with troop levels is to DEcrease, not increase.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As Saunders pointed out...if you look at what Kennedy had *ACTUALLY DONE* rather than speculating on what he *might have done* it's hard to see JFK withdrawing all of our troops and far more likely that he would have continued to increase the number of troops in Vietnam.  You could make the argument that it was unlikely that Eisenhower would have increased troop levels dramatically because he didn't do so.  You can make the argument that Nixon would have decreased the number of troops because that's what he DID.  You can't make the same argument for either Kennedy or for Johnson because *BOTH* increased troop levels substantially.  *THAT* is what Saunders is referring to when she talks of Kennedy's "rocketing" of the number of US troops in Vietnam and *THAT *is why Saunders is highly skeptical of those who believe Kennedy was about to pull out of Vietnam.
> 
> Your problem is that Kennedy's "policy" never was acted upon and you REALLY don't have any way of knowing if it ever would have been other than the Monday Morning quarterbacking done by people like Robert McNamara trying to paint John F. Kennedy in a favorable light.  Saunders (and myself) are going by Kennedy's actions...you are going by a "plan"  that may or may not have ever been carried out.
Click to expand...


Your problem is you want to just ignore the official US policy Kennedy signed, supported and WAS acted upon. We DID begin to withdraw the first 1,000 troops before the end of 1963. But Kennedy was murdered, and at the very moment he expired in Trauma Room One at Parkland Hospital it became Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam. If Kennedy planned on continuing to escalate our troop levels, WHY THE HELL would he even create an official policy of withdrawal? 

WHAT was the official US policy on Vietnam the day Kennedy died? Can you answer that honestly?


----------



## Bfgrn

U.S. Troop Deployment Dataset ... 9, DOD Deployment of Military Personnel by Country

s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2004/pdf/troopMarch2005.xls


*Country* *1963*
East Asia	 183,637 
Europe	 360,837 
Middle East	 15,604 
Africa	 5,377 
Americas	 29,276 
TOTAL - WORLDWIDE	 2,695,240 
Total - Foreign (Ashore and Afloat)	 731,045 
Total - Foreign (Sum)	 594,731 
% Troops Foreign/Worldwide (Sum)	 22.1 
Continental U.S.	 1,695,380 
Alaska	 31,583 
Antarctic Region	 335 
Guam	 7,731 
Hawaiian Islands	 -   
Johnston Island	 126 
Marshall Islands	 152 
Midway	 1,685 
Puerto Rico	 9,295 
Samoan Islands	 -   
Transients	 -   
Virgin Islands	 -   
Volcano Islands (Iwo Jima)	 686 
Wake Island	 38 
Eniwetok (J.T.F. 7)	 -   
Federated state of Micronesia	 -   
Northern Mariana Islands	 -   
Palau	 -   
Trust Territory of Pacific Islands	 -   
US Miscellaneous Pacific	 -   

Australia	 217 
Brunei	 -   
Cambodia	 70 
China	 -   
Easter Island	 -   
Fiji and Tonga	 -   
Hong Kong	 30 
Indonesia	 46 
Japan	 89,454 
Korea, Democratic Peoples Republic of	 -   
Korea, Republic of	 56,910 
Laos	 99 
Line Islands	 -   
Malaysia	 12 
Myanmar	 25 
Mongolia	
Nauru 	 -   
New Zealand	 54 
Papua New Guinea	 -   
Philippines	 13,889 
Sarawak	 -   
Singapore	 19 
Taiwan	 3,923 
Thailand	 3,269 
Tonga	 -   
Vietnam	 15,620 
Albania	 -   
Austria	 25 
Belgium	 121 
Bosnia and Herzegovina	 -   
Bulgaria	 3 
Croatia	 -   
Cyprus	 321 
Czechoslovakia	 4 
Denmark	 78 
Finland	 29 
France	 41,331 
German Democratic Republic	 -   
Germany	 254,057 
Gibraltar	 3 
Greece	 2,796 
Greenland	 4,654 
Hungary	 5 
Iceland	 2,632 
Ireland	 17 
Italy	 10,265 
Luxembourg	 5 
Macedonia	 -   
Malta	 27 
Netherlands	 903 
Norway	 339 
Poland	 19 
Portugal	 2,215 
Romania	 5 
Russia	 53 
Serbia and Montenegro	 -   
Slovakia	 -   
Spain	 13,418 
Sweden	 24 
Switzerland	 23 
United Kingdom	 27,438 
Vatican City	 -   
Yugoslavia	 27 
Armenia	 -   
Azerbaijan	 -   
Belarus	 -   
Estonia	 -   
Georgia	 -   
Kazakhstan	 -   
Kyrgyzstan	 -   
Latvia	 -   
Lithuania	 -   
Moldova	 -   
Slovenia	 -   
Tajikistan	 -   
Turkmenistan	 -   
Ukraine	 -   
Uzbekistan	 -   
Aden	 -   
Afghanistan	 22 
Algeria	 13 
Bahrein / Bahrain	 17 
Bangladesh	 -   
Diego Garcia	 -   
Egypt	 74 
India	 155 
Iran	 624 
Iraq	 18 
Israel	 41 
Jordan	 13 
Kashmir	 -   
Kuwait	 -   
Lebanon	 31 
Morocco	 2,378 
Nepal	 8 
Oman	 -   
Pakistan	 1,380 
Qatar	 -   
Saudi Arabia	 315 
Sri Lanka / Ceylon	 14 
Sudan	 9 
Syria	 9 
Tunisia	 8 
Turkey	 10,475 
United Arab Emirates	 -   
Western Sahara	 -   
Yemen	 -   
Angola	 -   
Botswana	 -   
Burkina Faso	 -   
Burundi	 2 
Cameroon	 3 
Central African Republic	 -   
Chad	 -   
Congo - Democratic Republic 	 64 
Congo - Republic of 	 10 
Djibouti	 -   
Eritrea	 -   
Ethiopia   	 1,608 
Gabon	 -   
Gambia, The	 -   
Ghana	 9 
Guinea	 -   
Guinea-Bissau	 -   
Ivory Coast (Cote d'Ivorie)	 14 
Kenya	 -   
Lesotho	 -   
Liberia	 21 
Libya 	 3,586 
Madagascar	 10 
Malawi	 -   
Mali	 4 
Mauritania	 -   
Mauritius	 -   
Mozambique	 -   
Namibia	 -   
Niger	 -   
Nigeria	 9 
Rwanda	 -   
Senegal	 4 
Seychelles Island	 -   
Sierra Leone	 -   
Somali Republic	 9 
South Africa	 23 
St. Helena	 1 
Tanzania	 -   
Togo	 -   
Uganda	 -   
Zambia	 -   
Zimbabwe	 -   
Antigua	 -   
Argentina	 77 
Aruba	 8 
Bahamas	 364 
Barbados	 -   
Belize	 -   
Bermuda	 3,019 
Bolivia	 76 
Brazil	 185 
British Virgin Islands	 -   
British West Indies Federation	 214 
Canada	 11,484 
Chile	 67 
Colombia	 68 
Costa Rica	 18 
Cuba / Guantanamo	 3,471 
Dominican Republic	 75 
Ecuador	 76 
El Salvador	 31 
Grenada  	 -   
Guatemala	 66 
Guyana	 -   
Haiti	 8 
Honduras	 29 
Jamaica	 2 
Mexico	 28 
Nicaragua	 26 
Panama	 9,382 
Paraguay	 33 
Peru	 77 
St. Lucia	 -   
Suriname	 5 
Trinidad	 237 
Turks Island	 -   
Uruguay	 41 
Venezuela	 109


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You just lost pal.
> 
> You said you are basing your opinion on what Kennedy DID. You LIED. You just admitted you are trying to blame Kennedy for what Johnson DID.
> 
> NOW, we have to include the official policy Kennedy put in place. That policy was to withdraw. So if you want to speculate, the logical assumption of WHAT Kennedy would have done with troop levels is to DEcrease, not increase.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As Saunders pointed out...if you look at what Kennedy had *ACTUALLY DONE* rather than speculating on what he *might have done* it's hard to see JFK withdrawing all of our troops and far more likely that he would have continued to increase the number of troops in Vietnam.  You could make the argument that it was unlikely that Eisenhower would have increased troop levels dramatically because he didn't do so.  You can make the argument that Nixon would have decreased the number of troops because that's what he DID.  You can't make the same argument for either Kennedy or for Johnson because *BOTH* increased troop levels substantially.  *THAT* is what Saunders is referring to when she talks of Kennedy's "rocketing" of the number of US troops in Vietnam and *THAT *is why Saunders is highly skeptical of those who believe Kennedy was about to pull out of Vietnam.
> 
> Your problem is that Kennedy's "policy" never was acted upon and you REALLY don't have any way of knowing if it ever would have been other than the Monday Morning quarterbacking done by people like Robert McNamara trying to paint John F. Kennedy in a favorable light.  Saunders (and myself) are going by Kennedy's actions...you are going by a "plan"  that may or may not have ever been carried out.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your problem is you want to just ignore the official US policy Kennedy signed, supported and WAS acted upon. We DID begin to withdraw the first 1,000 troops before the end of 1963. But Kennedy was murdered, and at the very moment he expired in Trauma Room One at Parkland Hospital it became Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam. If Kennedy planned on continuing to escalate our troop levels, WHY THE HELL would he even create an official policy of withdrawal?
> 
> WHAT was the official US policy on Vietnam the day Kennedy died? Can you answer that honestly?
Click to expand...



For the umpteenth time...Kennedy created a plan to withdraw US troops because he'd been advised that the war was going so well that all that was needed was for the South Vietnamese to do a little "mopping up".  That was not the case.  The assassination of the Diem brothers came after Kennedy's "plan" was drawn up and South Vietnam was in a state of turmoil.  A complete pull out of US troops at that point would have almost certainly led to an immediate takeover by the communists.  So is it your contention that Kennedy didn't have a problem with that?  Because if you look at his repeated statements leading up to that point Kennedy was *adamant* about not pulling out of Vietnam.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> U.S. Troop Deployment Dataset ... 9, DOD Deployment of Military Personnel by Country
> 
> s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2004/pdf/troopMarch2005.xls
> 
> 
> *Country* *1963*
> East Asia	 183,637
> Europe	 360,837
> Middle East	 15,604
> Africa	 5,377
> Americas	 29,276
> TOTAL - WORLDWIDE	 2,695,240
> Total - Foreign (Ashore and Afloat)	 731,045
> Total - Foreign (Sum)	 594,731
> % Troops Foreign/Worldwide (Sum)	 22.1
> Continental U.S.	 1,695,380
> Alaska	 31,583
> Antarctic Region	 335
> Guam	 7,731
> Hawaiian Islands	 -
> Johnston Island	 126
> Marshall Islands	 152
> Midway	 1,685
> Puerto Rico	 9,295
> Samoan Islands	 -
> Transients	 -
> Virgin Islands	 -
> Volcano Islands (Iwo Jima)	 686
> Wake Island	 38
> Eniwetok (J.T.F. 7)	 -
> Federated state of Micronesia	 -
> Northern Mariana Islands	 -
> Palau	 -
> Trust Territory of Pacific Islands	 -
> US Miscellaneous Pacific	 -
> 
> Australia	 217
> Brunei	 -
> Cambodia	 70
> China	 -
> Easter Island	 -
> Fiji and Tonga	 -
> Hong Kong	 30
> Indonesia	 46
> Japan	 89,454
> Korea, Democratic Peoples Republic of	 -
> Korea, Republic of	 56,910
> Laos	 99
> Line Islands	 -
> Malaysia	 12
> Myanmar	 25
> Mongolia
> Nauru 	 -
> New Zealand	 54
> Papua New Guinea	 -
> Philippines	 13,889
> Sarawak	 -
> Singapore	 19
> Taiwan	 3,923
> Thailand	 3,269
> Tonga	 -
> Vietnam	 15,620
> Albania	 -
> Austria	 25
> Belgium	 121
> Bosnia and Herzegovina	 -
> Bulgaria	 3
> Croatia	 -
> Cyprus	 321
> Czechoslovakia	 4
> Denmark	 78
> Finland	 29
> France	 41,331
> German Democratic Republic	 -
> Germany	 254,057
> Gibraltar	 3
> Greece	 2,796
> Greenland	 4,654
> Hungary	 5
> Iceland	 2,632
> Ireland	 17
> Italy	 10,265
> Luxembourg	 5
> Macedonia	 -
> Malta	 27
> Netherlands	 903
> Norway	 339
> Poland	 19
> Portugal	 2,215
> Romania	 5
> Russia	 53
> Serbia and Montenegro	 -
> Slovakia	 -
> Spain	 13,418
> Sweden	 24
> Switzerland	 23
> United Kingdom	 27,438
> Vatican City	 -
> Yugoslavia	 27
> Armenia	 -
> Azerbaijan	 -
> Belarus	 -
> Estonia	 -
> Georgia	 -
> Kazakhstan	 -
> Kyrgyzstan	 -
> Latvia	 -
> Lithuania	 -
> Moldova	 -
> Slovenia	 -
> Tajikistan	 -
> Turkmenistan	 -
> Ukraine	 -
> Uzbekistan	 -
> Aden	 -
> Afghanistan	 22
> Algeria	 13
> Bahrein / Bahrain	 17
> Bangladesh	 -
> Diego Garcia	 -
> Egypt	 74
> India	 155
> Iran	 624
> Iraq	 18
> Israel	 41
> Jordan	 13
> Kashmir	 -
> Kuwait	 -
> Lebanon	 31
> Morocco	 2,378
> Nepal	 8
> Oman	 -
> Pakistan	 1,380
> Qatar	 -
> Saudi Arabia	 315
> Sri Lanka / Ceylon	 14
> Sudan	 9
> Syria	 9
> Tunisia	 8
> Turkey	 10,475
> United Arab Emirates	 -
> Western Sahara	 -
> Yemen	 -
> Angola	 -
> Botswana	 -
> Burkina Faso	 -
> Burundi	 2
> Cameroon	 3
> Central African Republic	 -
> Chad	 -
> Congo - Democratic Republic 	 64
> Congo - Republic of 	 10
> Djibouti	 -
> Eritrea	 -
> Ethiopia   	 1,608
> Gabon	 -
> Gambia, The	 -
> Ghana	 9
> Guinea	 -
> Guinea-Bissau	 -
> Ivory Coast (Cote d'Ivorie)	 14
> Kenya	 -
> Lesotho	 -
> Liberia	 21
> Libya 	 3,586
> Madagascar	 10
> Malawi	 -
> Mali	 4
> Mauritania	 -
> Mauritius	 -
> Mozambique	 -
> Namibia	 -
> Niger	 -
> Nigeria	 9
> Rwanda	 -
> Senegal	 4
> Seychelles Island	 -
> Sierra Leone	 -
> Somali Republic	 9
> South Africa	 23
> St. Helena	 1
> Tanzania	 -
> Togo	 -
> Uganda	 -
> Zambia	 -
> Zimbabwe	 -
> Antigua	 -
> Argentina	 77
> Aruba	 8
> Bahamas	 364
> Barbados	 -
> Belize	 -
> Bermuda	 3,019
> Bolivia	 76
> Brazil	 185
> British Virgin Islands	 -
> British West Indies Federation	 214
> Canada	 11,484
> Chile	 67
> Colombia	 68
> Costa Rica	 18
> Cuba / Guantanamo	 3,471
> Dominican Republic	 75
> Ecuador	 76
> El Salvador	 31
> Grenada  	 -
> Guatemala	 66
> Guyana	 -
> Haiti	 8
> Honduras	 29
> Jamaica	 2
> Mexico	 28
> Nicaragua	 26
> Panama	 9,382
> Paraguay	 33
> Peru	 77
> St. Lucia	 -
> Suriname	 5
> Trinidad	 237
> Turks Island	 -
> Uruguay	 41
> Venezuela	 109



I have no idea what your point is with this...
I assume it's another attempt on your part to move the conversation away from your "failed witness", Saunders?


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Troop Deployment Dataset ... 9, DOD Deployment of Military Personnel by Country
> 
> s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2004/pdf/troopMarch2005.xls
> 
> 
> *Country* *1963*
> East Asia	 183,637
> Europe	 360,837
> Middle East	 15,604
> Africa	 5,377
> Americas	 29,276
> TOTAL - WORLDWIDE	 2,695,240
> Total - Foreign (Ashore and Afloat)	 731,045
> Total - Foreign (Sum)	 594,731
> % Troops Foreign/Worldwide (Sum)	 22.1
> Continental U.S.	 1,695,380
> Alaska	 31,583
> Antarctic Region	 335
> Guam	 7,731
> Hawaiian Islands	 -
> Johnston Island	 126
> Marshall Islands	 152
> Midway	 1,685
> Puerto Rico	 9,295
> Samoan Islands	 -
> Transients	 -
> Virgin Islands	 -
> Volcano Islands (Iwo Jima)	 686
> Wake Island	 38
> Eniwetok (J.T.F. 7)	 -
> Federated state of Micronesia	 -
> Northern Mariana Islands	 -
> Palau	 -
> Trust Territory of Pacific Islands	 -
> US Miscellaneous Pacific	 -
> 
> Australia	 217
> Brunei	 -
> Cambodia	 70
> China	 -
> Easter Island	 -
> Fiji and Tonga	 -
> Hong Kong	 30
> Indonesia	 46
> Japan	 89,454
> Korea, Democratic Peoples Republic of	 -
> Korea, Republic of	 56,910
> Laos	 99
> Line Islands	 -
> Malaysia	 12
> Myanmar	 25
> Mongolia
> Nauru 	 -
> New Zealand	 54
> Papua New Guinea	 -
> Philippines	 13,889
> Sarawak	 -
> Singapore	 19
> Taiwan	 3,923
> Thailand	 3,269
> Tonga	 -
> Vietnam	 15,620
> Albania	 -
> Austria	 25
> Belgium	 121
> Bosnia and Herzegovina	 -
> Bulgaria	 3
> Croatia	 -
> Cyprus	 321
> Czechoslovakia	 4
> Denmark	 78
> Finland	 29
> France	 41,331
> German Democratic Republic	 -
> Germany	 254,057
> Gibraltar	 3
> Greece	 2,796
> Greenland	 4,654
> Hungary	 5
> Iceland	 2,632
> Ireland	 17
> Italy	 10,265
> Luxembourg	 5
> Macedonia	 -
> Malta	 27
> Netherlands	 903
> Norway	 339
> Poland	 19
> Portugal	 2,215
> Romania	 5
> Russia	 53
> Serbia and Montenegro	 -
> Slovakia	 -
> Spain	 13,418
> Sweden	 24
> Switzerland	 23
> United Kingdom	 27,438
> Vatican City	 -
> Yugoslavia	 27
> Armenia	 -
> Azerbaijan	 -
> Belarus	 -
> Estonia	 -
> Georgia	 -
> Kazakhstan	 -
> Kyrgyzstan	 -
> Latvia	 -
> Lithuania	 -
> Moldova	 -
> Slovenia	 -
> Tajikistan	 -
> Turkmenistan	 -
> Ukraine	 -
> Uzbekistan	 -
> Aden	 -
> Afghanistan	 22
> Algeria	 13
> Bahrein / Bahrain	 17
> Bangladesh	 -
> Diego Garcia	 -
> Egypt	 74
> India	 155
> Iran	 624
> Iraq	 18
> Israel	 41
> Jordan	 13
> Kashmir	 -
> Kuwait	 -
> Lebanon	 31
> Morocco	 2,378
> Nepal	 8
> Oman	 -
> Pakistan	 1,380
> Qatar	 -
> Saudi Arabia	 315
> Sri Lanka / Ceylon	 14
> Sudan	 9
> Syria	 9
> Tunisia	 8
> Turkey	 10,475
> United Arab Emirates	 -
> Western Sahara	 -
> Yemen	 -
> Angola	 -
> Botswana	 -
> Burkina Faso	 -
> Burundi	 2
> Cameroon	 3
> Central African Republic	 -
> Chad	 -
> Congo - Democratic Republic 	 64
> Congo - Republic of 	 10
> Djibouti	 -
> Eritrea	 -
> Ethiopia   	 1,608
> Gabon	 -
> Gambia, The	 -
> Ghana	 9
> Guinea	 -
> Guinea-Bissau	 -
> Ivory Coast (Cote d'Ivorie)	 14
> Kenya	 -
> Lesotho	 -
> Liberia	 21
> Libya 	 3,586
> Madagascar	 10
> Malawi	 -
> Mali	 4
> Mauritania	 -
> Mauritius	 -
> Mozambique	 -
> Namibia	 -
> Niger	 -
> Nigeria	 9
> Rwanda	 -
> Senegal	 4
> Seychelles Island	 -
> Sierra Leone	 -
> Somali Republic	 9
> South Africa	 23
> St. Helena	 1
> Tanzania	 -
> Togo	 -
> Uganda	 -
> Zambia	 -
> Zimbabwe	 -
> Antigua	 -
> Argentina	 77
> Aruba	 8
> Bahamas	 364
> Barbados	 -
> Belize	 -
> Bermuda	 3,019
> Bolivia	 76
> Brazil	 185
> British Virgin Islands	 -
> British West Indies Federation	 214
> Canada	 11,484
> Chile	 67
> Colombia	 68
> Costa Rica	 18
> Cuba / Guantanamo	 3,471
> Dominican Republic	 75
> Ecuador	 76
> El Salvador	 31
> Grenada  	 -
> Guatemala	 66
> Guyana	 -
> Haiti	 8
> Honduras	 29
> Jamaica	 2
> Mexico	 28
> Nicaragua	 26
> Panama	 9,382
> Paraguay	 33
> Peru	 77
> St. Lucia	 -
> Suriname	 5
> Trinidad	 237
> Turks Island	 -
> Uruguay	 41
> Venezuela	 109
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what your point is with this...
> I assume it's another attempt on your part to move the conversation away from your "failed witness", Saunders?
Click to expand...


This puts some point of reference to how many troops were in Vietnam vs other countries. We had almost the same number of troops in the Philippines, Spain, Italy, and Turkey and a lot less than Japan, Germany, Korea, England and other countries. 

Funny, you have latched on the the term "rocketing" of the number of US troops"...

If what Kennedy did is "rocketing", what term would you use for what Johnson did? But of course Johnson gets a complete pass by you. Why is that? Are you THAT dishonest and unable to admit the truth??

Kennedy increased the number of troops to 16,000. Johnson increased the number to 500,000 and commited combat troops, battalions, divisions and units. During the 3 years of the Kennedy administration 187 American servicemen were killed. Under Johnson that was surpassed every TWO WEEKS!

There is NO WAY Kennedy is responsible for what Johnson did. That is really ignorant on your part.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> As Saunders pointed out...if you look at what Kennedy had *ACTUALLY DONE* rather than speculating on what he *might have done* it's hard to see JFK withdrawing all of our troops and far more likely that he would have continued to increase the number of troops in Vietnam.  You could make the argument that it was unlikely that Eisenhower would have increased troop levels dramatically because he didn't do so.  You can make the argument that Nixon would have decreased the number of troops because that's what he DID.  You can't make the same argument for either Kennedy or for Johnson because *BOTH* increased troop levels substantially.  *THAT* is what Saunders is referring to when she talks of Kennedy's "rocketing" of the number of US troops in Vietnam and *THAT *is why Saunders is highly skeptical of those who believe Kennedy was about to pull out of Vietnam.
> 
> Your problem is that Kennedy's "policy" never was acted upon and you REALLY don't have any way of knowing if it ever would have been other than the Monday Morning quarterbacking done by people like Robert McNamara trying to paint John F. Kennedy in a favorable light.  Saunders (and myself) are going by Kennedy's actions...you are going by a "plan"  that may or may not have ever been carried out.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your problem is you want to just ignore the official US policy Kennedy signed, supported and WAS acted upon. We DID begin to withdraw the first 1,000 troops before the end of 1963. But Kennedy was murdered, and at the very moment he expired in Trauma Room One at Parkland Hospital it became Lyndon Johnson's Vietnam. If Kennedy planned on continuing to escalate our troop levels, WHY THE HELL would he even create an official policy of withdrawal?
> 
> WHAT was the official US policy on Vietnam the day Kennedy died? Can you answer that honestly?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> For the umpteenth time...Kennedy created a plan to withdraw US troops because he'd been advised that the war was going so well that all that was needed was for the South Vietnamese to do a little "mopping up".  That was not the case.  The assassination of the Diem brothers came after Kennedy's "plan" was drawn up and South Vietnam was in a state of turmoil.  A complete pull out of US troops at that point would have almost certainly led to an immediate takeover by the communists.  So is it your contention that Kennedy didn't have a problem with that?  Because if you look at his repeated statements leading up to that point Kennedy was *adamant* about not pulling out of Vietnam.
Click to expand...


You keep making the same false statements even after I have proven you wrong. Why is that?

Kennedy was NOT receiving optimistic reports.

From October 11 onward the CIAs reporting changed drastically. Official optimism was replaced by a searching and comparatively realistic pessimism, which involved rewriting assessments as far back as the previous July, was a response to NSAM 263. (The withdrawal policy)


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> U.S. Troop Deployment Dataset ... 9, DOD Deployment of Military Personnel by Country
> 
> s3.amazonaws.com/thf_media/2004/pdf/troopMarch2005.xls
> 
> 
> *Country* *1963*
> East Asia	 183,637
> Europe	 360,837
> Middle East	 15,604
> Africa	 5,377
> Americas	 29,276
> TOTAL - WORLDWIDE	 2,695,240
> Total - Foreign (Ashore and Afloat)	 731,045
> Total - Foreign (Sum)	 594,731
> % Troops Foreign/Worldwide (Sum)	 22.1
> Continental U.S.	 1,695,380
> Alaska	 31,583
> Antarctic Region	 335
> Guam	 7,731
> Hawaiian Islands	 -
> Johnston Island	 126
> Marshall Islands	 152
> Midway	 1,685
> Puerto Rico	 9,295
> Samoan Islands	 -
> Transients	 -
> Virgin Islands	 -
> Volcano Islands (Iwo Jima)	 686
> Wake Island	 38
> Eniwetok (J.T.F. 7)	 -
> Federated state of Micronesia	 -
> Northern Mariana Islands	 -
> Palau	 -
> Trust Territory of Pacific Islands	 -
> US Miscellaneous Pacific	 -
> 
> Australia	 217
> Brunei	 -
> Cambodia	 70
> China	 -
> Easter Island	 -
> Fiji and Tonga	 -
> Hong Kong	 30
> Indonesia	 46
> Japan	 89,454
> Korea, Democratic Peoples Republic of	 -
> Korea, Republic of	 56,910
> Laos	 99
> Line Islands	 -
> Malaysia	 12
> Myanmar	 25
> Mongolia
> Nauru 	 -
> New Zealand	 54
> Papua New Guinea	 -
> Philippines	 13,889
> Sarawak	 -
> Singapore	 19
> Taiwan	 3,923
> Thailand	 3,269
> Tonga	 -
> Vietnam	 15,620
> Albania	 -
> Austria	 25
> Belgium	 121
> Bosnia and Herzegovina	 -
> Bulgaria	 3
> Croatia	 -
> Cyprus	 321
> Czechoslovakia	 4
> Denmark	 78
> Finland	 29
> France	 41,331
> German Democratic Republic	 -
> Germany	 254,057
> Gibraltar	 3
> Greece	 2,796
> Greenland	 4,654
> Hungary	 5
> Iceland	 2,632
> Ireland	 17
> Italy	 10,265
> Luxembourg	 5
> Macedonia	 -
> Malta	 27
> Netherlands	 903
> Norway	 339
> Poland	 19
> Portugal	 2,215
> Romania	 5
> Russia	 53
> Serbia and Montenegro	 -
> Slovakia	 -
> Spain	 13,418
> Sweden	 24
> Switzerland	 23
> United Kingdom	 27,438
> Vatican City	 -
> Yugoslavia	 27
> Armenia	 -
> Azerbaijan	 -
> Belarus	 -
> Estonia	 -
> Georgia	 -
> Kazakhstan	 -
> Kyrgyzstan	 -
> Latvia	 -
> Lithuania	 -
> Moldova	 -
> Slovenia	 -
> Tajikistan	 -
> Turkmenistan	 -
> Ukraine	 -
> Uzbekistan	 -
> Aden	 -
> Afghanistan	 22
> Algeria	 13
> Bahrein / Bahrain	 17
> Bangladesh	 -
> Diego Garcia	 -
> Egypt	 74
> India	 155
> Iran	 624
> Iraq	 18
> Israel	 41
> Jordan	 13
> Kashmir	 -
> Kuwait	 -
> Lebanon	 31
> Morocco	 2,378
> Nepal	 8
> Oman	 -
> Pakistan	 1,380
> Qatar	 -
> Saudi Arabia	 315
> Sri Lanka / Ceylon	 14
> Sudan	 9
> Syria	 9
> Tunisia	 8
> Turkey	 10,475
> United Arab Emirates	 -
> Western Sahara	 -
> Yemen	 -
> Angola	 -
> Botswana	 -
> Burkina Faso	 -
> Burundi	 2
> Cameroon	 3
> Central African Republic	 -
> Chad	 -
> Congo - Democratic Republic 	 64
> Congo - Republic of 	 10
> Djibouti	 -
> Eritrea	 -
> Ethiopia   	 1,608
> Gabon	 -
> Gambia, The	 -
> Ghana	 9
> Guinea	 -
> Guinea-Bissau	 -
> Ivory Coast (Cote d'Ivorie)	 14
> Kenya	 -
> Lesotho	 -
> Liberia	 21
> Libya 	 3,586
> Madagascar	 10
> Malawi	 -
> Mali	 4
> Mauritania	 -
> Mauritius	 -
> Mozambique	 -
> Namibia	 -
> Niger	 -
> Nigeria	 9
> Rwanda	 -
> Senegal	 4
> Seychelles Island	 -
> Sierra Leone	 -
> Somali Republic	 9
> South Africa	 23
> St. Helena	 1
> Tanzania	 -
> Togo	 -
> Uganda	 -
> Zambia	 -
> Zimbabwe	 -
> Antigua	 -
> Argentina	 77
> Aruba	 8
> Bahamas	 364
> Barbados	 -
> Belize	 -
> Bermuda	 3,019
> Bolivia	 76
> Brazil	 185
> British Virgin Islands	 -
> British West Indies Federation	 214
> Canada	 11,484
> Chile	 67
> Colombia	 68
> Costa Rica	 18
> Cuba / Guantanamo	 3,471
> Dominican Republic	 75
> Ecuador	 76
> El Salvador	 31
> Grenada  	 -
> Guatemala	 66
> Guyana	 -
> Haiti	 8
> Honduras	 29
> Jamaica	 2
> Mexico	 28
> Nicaragua	 26
> Panama	 9,382
> Paraguay	 33
> Peru	 77
> St. Lucia	 -
> Suriname	 5
> Trinidad	 237
> Turks Island	 -
> Uruguay	 41
> Venezuela	 109
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what your point is with this...
> I assume it's another attempt on your part to move the conversation away from your "failed witness", Saunders?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This puts some point of reference to how many troops were in Vietnam vs other countries. We had almost the same number of troops in the Philippines, Spain, Italy, and Turkey and a lot less than Japan, Germany, Korea, England and other countries.
> 
> Funny, you have latched on the the term "rocketing" of the number of US troops"...
> 
> If what Kennedy did is "rocketing", what term would you use for what Johnson did? But of course Johnson gets a complete pass by you. Why is that? Are you THAT dishonest and unable to admit the truth??
> 
> Kennedy increased the number of troops to 16,000. Johnson increased the number to 500,000 and commited combat troops, battalions, divisions and units. During the 3 years of the Kennedy administration 187 American servicemen were killed. Under Johnson that was surpassed every TWO WEEKS!
> 
> There is NO WAY Kennedy is responsible for what Johnson did. That is really ignorant on your part.
Click to expand...


What's "funny" is that Saunders is someone that YOU cited to prove that it was Eisenhower and Johnson who escalated the war in Vietnam and NOT Kennedy but you cherry picked parts of her article while leaving out the part where she used the term "rocketed" to describe how drastically Kennedy had increased troop levels!

Kennedy committed combat troops to Vietnam just like Johnson did.  Kennedy continued to label those troops as "advisers", which is what they actually WERE under the Eisenhower Administration but under Kennedy those American troops were flying *combat air missions* and Green Berets were leading *ground combat missions*.  It is THOSE actions by Kennedy that led Saunders to be so skeptical about Kennedy's "closet dove" label that his supporters have tried to posthumously award him.

Kennedy WOULD be blameless for the escalation that took place after his death except for the FACT that he STARTED that escalation in both the number of troops present in South Vietnam and what their missions there were.


----------



## Oldstyle

As for troop levels "proving" something?  Show me another country where the troop levels "rocketed" up under the Kennedy Administration like they did in South Vietnam!  They went from 900 advisers under Eisenhower to 16,000 under Kennedy.  Show me another locale where such a drastic increase took place!  If you can't then you've proven my point that it WAS Kennedy who started the escalation of the Vietnam War that carried over to Johnson.


----------



## Oldstyle

"Kennedy was NOT receiving optimistic reports.  From October 11 onward the CIA&#8217;s reporting changed drastically. Official optimism was replaced by a searching and comparatively realistic pessimism, which involved rewriting assessments as far back as the previous July, was a response to NSAM 263. (The withdrawal policy)"

Which supports both Saunders and my contention that the policy that was drawn up under the previous optimistic assessments would most likely have been rethought since Kennedy was now receiving overwhelmingly pessimistic assessments.  There is nothing in anything you've posted that shows  Kennedy had changed his mind about stemming the spread of communism and supporting allies in their struggles to remain free.  His statements on that policy remain consistent.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have no idea what your point is with this...
> I assume it's another attempt on your part to move the conversation away from your "failed witness", Saunders?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This puts some point of reference to how many troops were in Vietnam vs other countries. We had almost the same number of troops in the Philippines, Spain, Italy, and Turkey and a lot less than Japan, Germany, Korea, England and other countries.
> 
> Funny, you have latched on the the term "rocketing" of the number of US troops"...
> 
> If what Kennedy did is "rocketing", what term would you use for what Johnson did? But of course Johnson gets a complete pass by you. Why is that? Are you THAT dishonest and unable to admit the truth??
> 
> Kennedy increased the number of troops to 16,000. Johnson increased the number to 500,000 and commited combat troops, battalions, divisions and units. During the 3 years of the Kennedy administration 187 American servicemen were killed. Under Johnson that was surpassed every TWO WEEKS!
> 
> There is NO WAY Kennedy is responsible for what Johnson did. That is really ignorant on your part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's "funny" is that Saunders is someone that YOU cited to prove that it was Eisenhower and Johnson who escalated the war in Vietnam and NOT Kennedy but you cherry picked parts of her article while leaving out the part where she used the term "rocketed" to describe how drastically Kennedy had increased troop levels!
> 
> Kennedy committed combat troops to Vietnam just like Johnson did.  Kennedy continued to label those troops as "advisers", which is what they actually WERE under the Eisenhower Administration but under Kennedy those American troops were flying *combat air missions* and Green Berets were leading *ground combat missions*.  It is THOSE actions by Kennedy that led Saunders to be so skeptical about Kennedy's "closet dove" label that his supporters have tried to posthumously award him.
> 
> Kennedy WOULD be blameless for the escalation that took place after his death except for the FACT that he STARTED that escalation in both the number of troops present in South Vietnam and what their missions there were.
Click to expand...


Kennedy is EXACTLY responsible for the escalation that took place under HIS administration. And he is NOT responsible for ANY escalation after he was DEAD.

Anyone with adult cognition could comprehend that FACT. But you can't...WHY is that?


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> "Kennedy was NOT receiving optimistic reports.  From October 11 onward the CIAs reporting changed drastically. Official optimism was replaced by a searching and comparatively realistic pessimism, which involved rewriting assessments as far back as the previous July, was a response to NSAM 263. (The withdrawal policy)"
> 
> Which supports both Saunders and my contention that the policy that was drawn up under the previous optimistic assessments would most likely have been rethought since Kennedy was now receiving overwhelmingly pessimistic assessments.  There is nothing in anything you've posted that shows  Kennedy had changed his mind about stemming the spread of communism and supporting allies in their struggles to remain free.  His statements on that policy remain consistent.



YET, 2 days before Kennedy was assassinated, the official US policy was still in place; withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 (troops WERE withdrawn) and full withdrawal by the end on 1965.

AGAIN, you have a right to an OPINION, but that is all it is. An opinion that totally disregards what Kennedy DIDN'T do during the 1,000 days he was President. Bay of Pigs, Kennedy refused to invade the island, Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy refused to invade the island, Berlin Wall goes up, Kennedy refused to use any military force, Laos, Kennedy refused to send in troops and even Vietnam, Kennedy refused to send in troops. In the autumn of 1961, when Gen. Maxwell Taylor, a White House military adviser, and Walt Rostow returned from Vietnam recommending a commitment of 8,000 combat troops, Kennedy again rejected the proposal.

You have willfully engaged in the very thing you accuse me of..."cherry picking" and you continue to lie and make stuff up that is only based on what you 'feel' Kennedy would have done, and ignored what he DIDN'T do, what policy he put in place and what he told numerous people in and out of government.

You slander Arthur Schlesinger, Jr as a liar and anyone else who doesn't support your slander of Kennedy.

YET, HERE is what Arthur Schlesinger, Jr wrote in 1992. Hardly a man who is of the mindset you portray.

March 29, 1992

What Would He Have Done?
By ARTHUR SCHLESINGER JR.

What Would He Have Done?


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Kennedy was NOT receiving optimistic reports.  From October 11 onward the CIAs reporting changed drastically. Official optimism was replaced by a searching and comparatively realistic pessimism, which involved rewriting assessments as far back as the previous July, was a response to NSAM 263. (The withdrawal policy)"
> 
> Which supports both Saunders and my contention that the policy that was drawn up under the previous optimistic assessments would most likely have been rethought since Kennedy was now receiving overwhelmingly pessimistic assessments.  There is nothing in anything you've posted that shows  Kennedy had changed his mind about stemming the spread of communism and supporting allies in their struggles to remain free.  His statements on that policy remain consistent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YET, 2 days before Kennedy was assassinated, the official US policy was still in place; withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 (troops WERE withdrawn) and full withdrawal by the end on 1965.
> 
> AGAIN, you have a right to an OPINION, but that is all it is. An opinion that totally disregards what Kennedy DIDN'T do during the 1,000 days he was President. Bay of Pigs, Kennedy refused to invade the island, Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy refused to invade the island, Berlin Wall goes up, Kennedy refused to use any military force, Laos, Kennedy refused to send in troops *and even Vietnam, Kennedy refused to send in troops.* In the autumn of 1961, when Gen. Maxwell Taylor, a White House military adviser, and Walt Rostow returned from Vietnam recommending a commitment of 8,000 combat troops, Kennedy again rejected the proposal.
> 
> You have willfully engaged in the very thing you accuse me of..."cherry picking" and you continue to lie and make stuff up that is only based on what you 'feel' Kennedy would have done, and ignored what he DIDN'T do, what policy he put in place and what he told numerous people in and out of government.
> 
> You slander Arthur Schlesinger, Jr as a liar and anyone else who doesn't support your slander of Kennedy.
> 
> YET, HERE is what Arthur Schlesinger, Jr wrote in 1992. Hardly a man who is of the mindset you portray.
> 
> March 29, 1992
> 
> What Would He Have Done?
> By ARTHUR SCHLESINGER JR.
> 
> What Would He Have Done?
Click to expand...


Did you *REALLY* just make the statement that Kennedy didn't send troops to Vietnam?  Under Ike there were about 900 advisers in Vietnam...under Kennedy there were over 16,000 troops in Vietnam!  If Kennedy didn't send them...who the heck DID?


----------



## Oldstyle

And how exactly have I "slandered" Kennedy?  All I've done is point out what he *did* while President.  Is it "slander" to point out that Kennedy DID in fact escalate the scale of conflict in Vietnam?


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Kennedy was NOT receiving optimistic reports.  From October 11 onward the CIAs reporting changed drastically. Official optimism was replaced by a searching and comparatively realistic pessimism, which involved rewriting assessments as far back as the previous July, was a response to NSAM 263. (The withdrawal policy)"
> 
> Which supports both Saunders and my contention that the policy that was drawn up under the previous optimistic assessments would most likely have been rethought since Kennedy was now receiving overwhelmingly pessimistic assessments.  There is nothing in anything you've posted that shows  Kennedy had changed his mind about stemming the spread of communism and supporting allies in their struggles to remain free.  His statements on that policy remain consistent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> YET, 2 days before Kennedy was assassinated, the official US policy was still in place; withdrawal of 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 (troops WERE withdrawn) and full withdrawal by the end on 1965.
> 
> AGAIN, you have a right to an OPINION, but that is all it is. An opinion that totally disregards what Kennedy DIDN'T do during the 1,000 days he was President. Bay of Pigs, Kennedy refused to invade the island, Cuban Missile Crisis, Kennedy refused to invade the island, Berlin Wall goes up, Kennedy refused to use any military force, Laos, Kennedy refused to send in troops *and even Vietnam, Kennedy refused to send in troops.* In the autumn of 1961, when Gen. Maxwell Taylor, a White House military adviser, and Walt Rostow returned from Vietnam recommending a commitment of 8,000 combat troops, Kennedy again rejected the proposal.
> 
> You have willfully engaged in the very thing you accuse me of..."cherry picking" and you continue to lie and make stuff up that is only based on what you 'feel' Kennedy would have done, and ignored what he DIDN'T do, what policy he put in place and what he told numerous people in and out of government.
> 
> You slander Arthur Schlesinger, Jr as a liar and anyone else who doesn't support your slander of Kennedy.
> 
> YET, HERE is what Arthur Schlesinger, Jr wrote in 1992. Hardly a man who is of the mindset you portray.
> 
> March 29, 1992
> 
> What Would He Have Done?
> By ARTHUR SCHLESINGER JR.
> 
> What Would He Have Done?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Did you *REALLY* just make the statement that Kennedy didn't send troops to Vietnam?  Under Ike there were about 900 advisers in Vietnam...under Kennedy there were over 16,000 troops in Vietnam!  If Kennedy didn't send them...who the heck DID?
Click to expand...


Do you have a reading problem, or a comprehension problem? Do you know what 'combat troops' are?

John Newman spent years researching ONE question. Would John F. Kennedy have escalated Vietnam into AMERICA's war.

"JFK and Vietnam" is the most solid contribution yet to such speculation. Its author is John M. Newman, a retired Army officer with years of service in East Asia, now teaching East Asian history at the University of Maryland. His book is based on a meticulous and exhaustive examination of documents, many newly declassified -- internal memorandums, cables, transcripts of phone conversations, minutes of meetings, intelligence reports -- supplemented by oral histories in Presidential libraries and by interviews with people involved with Vietnam policy at the time. The narrative is straightforward and workmanlike, rather military in organization, tone and style.

 His book's thesis is that Kennedy "would never have placed American combat troops in Vietnam" and that he was preparing for the withdrawal of the military advisers by the end of 1965. The Joint Chiefs of Staff began urging the commitment of combat units, Mr. Newman shows, as early as three months after Kennedy's inauguration. The Chiefs' wretched performance in endorsing the Bay of Pigs invasion and in proposing military intervention in Laos had fortunately disillusioned the President, and he rejected this advice then and thereafter. In the autumn of 1961, when Gen. Maxwell Taylor, a White House military adviser, and Walt Rostow returned from Vietnam recommending a commitment of 8,000 combat troops, Kennedy again rejected the proposal. As Mr. Newman writes: "There Kennedy drew the line. He would not go beyond it at any time during the rest of his Presidency."

I must declare an interest in this argument. I well remember the President's reaction to the Taylor-Rostow report. "They want a force of American troops," he told me. "The troops will march in; the bands will play; the crowds will cheer; and in four days everyone will have forgotten. Then we will be told we have to send in more troops. It's like taking a drink. The effect wears off and you have to take another." 

 Mr. Newman is, I think, essentially right about Kennedy. Whether Kennedy was right is a question Mr. Newman does not face. Would the outcome have been better had the President sent an American expeditionary force in 1961? I doubt it -- for reasons much on Kennedy's mind. Mr. Newman does not mention Kennedy's reaction, when he visited Vietnam as a young Congressman in 1951, to the French colonial army; but this was crucial in his skepticism about American military intervention. The war in Vietnam, he used to say, could be won only so long as it was a Vietnamese war. If we converted it into a white man's war, we would lose as the French had lost a decade earlier. (This is not latter-day recollection; I wrote it all nearly 30 years ago in "A Thousand Days.")

Nor does Mr. Newman mention Kennedy's relish in citing Gen. Douglas MacArthur's statement to him that it would be "a mistake" to fight in Southeast Asia. Kennedy recorded this statement in an aide-memoire, something he rarely did, and, as General Taylor later recalled, "whenever he'd get this military advice from the Joint Chiefs or from me or anyone else, he'd say, 'Well, now, you gentlemen, you go back and convince General MacArthur, then I'll be convinced.' " Kennedy's private remarks to Senator Mike Mansfield, the majority leader, to Senator Wayne Morse, to Roger Hilsman, to Michael Forrestal, the National Security Council man on Vietnam, to Kenneth O'Donnell, his appointments secretary, and to Lester Pearson, the Canadian Prime Minister, further confirm his desire to withdraw.

For all the rhetoric of his inaugural address about paying any price, bearing any burden, meeting any hardship, Kennedy was an eminently rational man, not inclined to heavy investments in lost causes. He was prepared to be as tough as necessary when vital interests were involved, but he was no war lover. His foreign policy displayed a characteristic capacity to refuse escalation when it made no sense -- as in Laos, the Bay of Pigs, the Berlin wall confrontation, the missile crisis.

He believed from the start that the United States was, as he often said (privately), "overcommitted" in Indochina. As Mr. Newman reports, on April 6, 1962, he told Averell Harriman, then Assistant Secretary for Far Eastern Affairs, and Michael Forrestal to be prepared to "seize upon any favorable moment to reduce our commitment." But the Joint Chiefs kept up their clamor for military intervention. In a hysterical January 1962 memorandum cited by Mr. Newman, they predicted that "the fall of South Vietnam to Communist control would mean the eventual Communist domination of all of the Southeast Asian mainland" and that most of Asia would capitulate to what the military still stubbornly called the "Sino-Soviet Bloc." Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara declined to endorse this extravagance, and such hyperbole confirmed Kennedy's low opinion of the military.

KENNEDY made concessions about advisers, but he held the line against troops. The commitment of combat units, he observed in March 1962 with a deference to the Constitution not notable among his successors, "calls for a constitutional decision, [ and ] of course I would go to the Congress." In July 1962 he directed the Pentagon to come up with a plan for the withdrawal of the advisers by the end of 1965. The plan was approved in May 1963, with the first 1,000 men to be returned at the end of that year.


----------



## Oldstyle

Your contention that we didn't have "combat" troops in Vietnam under Kennedy is laughable!  Under Ike we had *900* "advisers" who's primary mission was to train the South Vietnamese.  Under Kennedy we had *sixteen thousand* troops who's mission had been changed to include flying combat missions and leading anti-insurgency missions on the ground.  Just because Kennedy didn't CALL them combat troops doesn't mean that they weren't!  Ike didn't introduce the widespread use of napalm into Vietnam...that was JFK!  Ike didn't introduce the widespread use of defoliants into Vietnam that was JFK as well!  The fact of the matter is that Kennedy took us to war in Vietnam and Johnson continued Kennedy's policies when he was assassinated.  Calling people "advisers" who are dropping napalm and shooting the enemy doesn't magically make them non-combatants...no matter how much you Kennedy apologists would LIKE it to!


----------



## Oldstyle

And the fact that Johnson escalated that conflict far beyond what Kennedy did, doesn't change what JFK did before Johnson took office.  Kennedy profoundly changed what we were doing in Vietnam after he replaced Dwight Eisenhower.  He decided that Vietnam was one of the places that he would draw a line in the sand against communism...a policy that he REPEATEDLY put forth all through his thousand days.

You have once again failed to show that Kennedy was willing to walk away from South Vietnam and let it fall to the communists which was a given if he had pulled out US troops starting in 1963.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> And the fact that Johnson escalated that conflict far beyond what Kennedy did, doesn't change what JFK did before Johnson took office.  Kennedy profoundly changed what we were doing in Vietnam after he replaced Dwight Eisenhower.  He decided that Vietnam was one of the places that he would draw a line in the sand against communism...a policy that he REPEATEDLY put forth all through his thousand days.
> 
> You have once again failed to show that Kennedy was willing to walk away from South Vietnam and let it fall to the communists which was a given if he had pulled out US troops starting in 1963.



Kennedy is responsible for EXACTLY what he did...NOTHING MORE. 16,000 troops. Had he lived and even if he didn't pull out all troops by 1965, the troop level and casualties for 5 more years would have made Vietnam a footnote in history. JOHNSON escalated WAY WAY WAY beyond what Kennedy DID or WOULD have done. Johnson turned Vietnam into a major American war. Kennedy DIDN'T. But you want to tag Kennedy with what Johnson did. That is either dishonest or obtuse. Which one is it?


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Your contention that we didn't have "combat" troops in Vietnam under Kennedy is laughable!  Under Ike we had *900* "advisers" who's primary mission was to train the South Vietnamese.  Under Kennedy we had *sixteen thousand* troops who's mission had been changed to include flying combat missions and leading anti-insurgency missions on the ground.  Just because Kennedy didn't CALL them combat troops doesn't mean that they weren't!  Ike didn't introduce the widespread use of napalm into Vietnam...that was JFK!  Ike didn't introduce the widespread use of defoliants into Vietnam that was JFK as well!  The fact of the matter is that Kennedy took us to war in Vietnam and Johnson continued Kennedy's policies when he was assassinated.  Calling people "advisers" who are dropping napalm and shooting the enemy doesn't magically make them non-combatants...no matter how much you Kennedy apologists would LIKE it to!



I have ALREADY admitted that Kennedy escalated our troop level. But Kennedy in NO WAY, SHAPE or FORM is responsible for sending in US divisions and battalions of 500,000 combat troops. There were 187 total US casualties during the 3 Kennedy years, that went to 100 casualties per week under Johnson. 

WHEN are you going to admit that the official US policy on the day Kennedy died was to withdraw 1,000 troops by the end of 1963 and full withdrawal by the end of 1965?


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the fact that Johnson escalated that conflict far beyond what Kennedy did, doesn't change what JFK did before Johnson took office.  Kennedy profoundly changed what we were doing in Vietnam after he replaced Dwight Eisenhower.  He decided that Vietnam was one of the places that he would draw a line in the sand against communism...a policy that he REPEATEDLY put forth all through his thousand days.
> 
> You have once again failed to show that Kennedy was willing to walk away from South Vietnam and let it fall to the communists which was a given if he had pulled out US troops starting in 1963.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy is responsible for EXACTLY what he did...NOTHING MORE. 16,000 troops. Had he lived and even if he didn't pull out all troops by 1965, the troop level and casualties for 5 more years would have made Vietnam a footnote in history. JOHNSON escalated WAY WAY WAY beyond what Kennedy DID or WOULD have done. Johnson turned Vietnam into a major American war. Kennedy DIDN'T. But you want to tag Kennedy with what Johnson did. That is either dishonest or obtuse. Which one is it?
Click to expand...


I'm not "tagging" Kennedy with what Johnson did...I'm "tagging" him with what* HE* did!  Kennedy escalated the war in Vietnam in a major way...turning the US military's mission there from the training that they were doing under Eisenhower...to the combat missions that they were doing on a large scale.

As for what Kennedy "WOULD" have done?  You don't *know* what he would have done!  It's possible he would have kept troop levels at the rate they were when he was killed.  It's also quite possible that he would have increased them just as he increased them following Eisenhower.  Why?  Because even though Kennedy and many of his advisers correctly viewed Southeast Asia as a potential quagmire they were STILL adamant about preventing the spread of communism which means you've got conflicting "policies".  On the one hand you've got Kennedy's oft stated declaration that the US would defend free nations against communist takeovers...and on the other you've got his plan to withdraw troops from South Vietnam.  Obviously something has to give...


----------



## Oldstyle

You can continue to repeat your mantra about the "official policy" all you want...but you've STILL not shown where Kennedy's "official policy" to prevent the spread of communism changed.  If it hadn't changed?  Then there is no way that  Kennedy is walking away from Vietnam and the rest of Southeast Asia at the height of the Cold War!  I'm sorry but that simply wasn't going to happen...hence Saunder's belief that Kennedy wouldn't have withdrawn troops.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the fact that Johnson escalated that conflict far beyond what Kennedy did, doesn't change what JFK did before Johnson took office.  Kennedy profoundly changed what we were doing in Vietnam after he replaced Dwight Eisenhower.  He decided that Vietnam was one of the places that he would draw a line in the sand against communism...a policy that he REPEATEDLY put forth all through his thousand days.
> 
> You have once again failed to show that Kennedy was willing to walk away from South Vietnam and let it fall to the communists which was a given if he had pulled out US troops starting in 1963.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy is responsible for EXACTLY what he did...NOTHING MORE. 16,000 troops. Had he lived and even if he didn't pull out all troops by 1965, the troop level and casualties for 5 more years would have made Vietnam a footnote in history. JOHNSON escalated WAY WAY WAY beyond what Kennedy DID or WOULD have done. Johnson turned Vietnam into a major American war. Kennedy DIDN'T. But you want to tag Kennedy with what Johnson did. That is either dishonest or obtuse. Which one is it?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not "tagging" Kennedy with what Johnson did...I'm "tagging" him with what* HE* did!  Kennedy escalated the war in Vietnam in a major way...turning the US military's mission there from the training that they were doing under Eisenhower...to the combat missions that they were doing on a large scale.
> 
> As for what Kennedy "WOULD" have done?  You don't *know* what he would have done!  It's possible he would have kept troop levels at the rate they were when he was killed.  It's also quite possible that he would have increased them just as he increased them following Eisenhower.  Why?  Because even though Kennedy and many of his advisers correctly viewed Southeast Asia as a potential quagmire they were STILL adamant about preventing the spread of communism which means you've got conflicting "policies".  On the one hand you've got Kennedy's oft stated declaration that the US would defend free nations against communist takeovers...and on the other you've got his plan to withdraw troops from South Vietnam.  Obviously something has to give...
Click to expand...


An indication of JFK's vision for the future and what Kennedy would have done and what he would have worked for in a second term can be seen in his America University "peace" speech, the Nuclear Test Ban Treaty, his secret negotiations with Russia to end the Vietnam war and negotiations to normalize relations with Cuba. And his close relationship with Khrushchev.

At the beginning of this thread I explained how the CIA and the military/industrial complex sabotaged peace talks with Russia in 1960. Ike was so incensed he called out those entities in his farewell address.

Here is JFK's nephew, try reading it and understanding just how much power and push back the agencies Ike called out wielded.

JFK's Vision of Peace: RFK Jr. on John F. Kennedy's Attempts to End the Cold War

Despite the Cold War rhetoric of his campaign, JFK's greatest ambition as president was to break the militaristic ideology that has dominated our country since World War II. He told his close friend Ben Bradlee that he wanted the epitaph "He kept the peace," and said to another friend, William Walton, "I am almost a 'peace at any price' president." Hugh Sidey, a journalist and friend, wrote that the governing aspect of JFK's leadership was "a total revulsion" of war. Nevertheless, as James W. Douglass argues in his book JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters, JFK's presidency would be a continuous struggle with his own military and intelligence agencies, which engaged in incessant schemes to trap him into escalating the Cold War into a hot one. His first major confrontation with the Pentagon, the Bay of Pigs catastrophe, came only three months into his presidency and would set the course for the next 1,000 days.


----------



## Oldstyle

LOL...so your "proof" is something written about JFK by his nephew?  Really?

Here's a bit of reality for you, Bfgrn...the Kennedy family have used the Camelot myth to land themselves cushy public service and non profit jobs for the past 50 years.  They are heavily invested in keeping the Kennedy "brand" as iconic as they can because to be quite frank...MOST OF THEM ARE IDIOTS and can't survive in the real world!


----------



## Oldstyle

Once again...you've failed to show that Kennedy's policy to stem the tide of communism had changed in 1963.  You would like us to believe that JFK was willing to walk away from Vietnam and let it fall to the communists.  At the height of the Cold War that would have been a disaster for our foreign policy.

When Kennedy drew up that plan to withdraw troops it was *before* the situation in South Vietnam turned ugly with the South Vietnamese army suffering a particularly humiliating defeat and the Diem brothers being assassinated in a coup.  Withdrawing troops because you've been led to believe that the war is going so well that you CAN do that is a far cry from withdrawing them because the war is going badly.  Kennedy stated numerous times that we were involved in a life and death struggle with communism...a struggle that we couldn't back down from...yet you want us to believe that he was going to just pack up and leave Southeast Asia?  Common sense tells you that would NOT have happened.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> LOL...so your "proof" is something written about JFK by his nephew?  Really?
> 
> Here's a bit of reality for you, Bfgrn...the Kennedy family have used the Camelot myth to land themselves cushy public service and non profit jobs for the past 50 years.  They are heavily invested in keeping the Kennedy "brand" as iconic as they can because to be quite frank...MOST OF THEM ARE IDIOTS and can't survive in the real world!



I'm sorry, I forgot that anything positive about the Kennedy family is a myth, and anything that slanders the Kennedy family is absolute truth. 

Please provide a list of 'cushy public service and non profit jobs'?


----------



## thanatos144

Best thing that could be Said about Kennedy is that he was mediocre as president the thing not said was he was a racist warmongering womanizing coward 

tapatalk post


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Once again...you've failed to show that Kennedy's policy to stem the tide of communism had changed in 1963.  You would like us to believe that JFK was willing to walk away from Vietnam and let it fall to the communists.  At the height of the Cold War that would have been a disaster for our foreign policy.
> 
> When Kennedy drew up that plan to withdraw troops it was *before* the situation in South Vietnam turned ugly with the South Vietnamese army suffering a particularly humiliating defeat and the Diem brothers being assassinated in a coup.  Withdrawing troops because you've been led to believe that the war is going so well that you CAN do that is a far cry from withdrawing them because the war is going badly.  Kennedy stated numerous times that we were involved in a life and death struggle with communism...a struggle that we couldn't back down from...yet you want us to believe that he was going to just pack up and leave Southeast Asia?  Common sense tells you that would NOT have happened.



*2 Nov 1963* - Diem assassination

*20 Nov 1963* - Honolulu Meeting Briefing Book, Part I. See also Part II.
The briefing books prepared for a Vietnam meeting in Honolulu reaffirmed the timetables for complete withdrawal from Vietnam, as well as the initial 1,000 main withdrawal, despite the recent coup in Vietnam.


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Best thing that could be Saud about Kennedy is that he was mediocre as president the thing not said was he was a racist warmongering womanizing coward
> 
> tapatalk post



He was a womanizer, but he was not a racist.


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Best thing that could be Saud about Kennedy is that he was mediocre as president the thing not said was he was a racist warmongering womanizing coward.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was a womanizer, but he was not a racist.
Click to expand...


He consistently voted on civil  rights he was a racist pig. Just like his criminal father.

tapatalk post


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Best thing that could be Saud about Kennedy is that he was mediocre as president the thing not said was he was a racist warmongering womanizing coward.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He was a womanizer, but he was not a racist.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> He consistently voted on civil  rights he was a racist pig. Just like his criminal father.
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


What president proposed what became the 1964 Civil Rights Act?

Criminal father? Do you mean the bootlegger myth?


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...so your "proof" is something written about JFK by his nephew?  Really?
> 
> Here's a bit of reality for you, Bfgrn...the Kennedy family have used the Camelot myth to land themselves cushy public service and non profit jobs for the past 50 years.  They are heavily invested in keeping the Kennedy "brand" as iconic as they can because to be quite frank...MOST OF THEM ARE IDIOTS and can't survive in the real world!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, I forgot that anything positive about the Kennedy family is a myth, and anything that slanders the Kennedy family is absolute truth.
> 
> Please provide a list of 'cushy public service and non profit jobs'?
Click to expand...


You want me to list the public service jobs that the Kennedy clan have held?  Are you kidding?  It would be easier to list the Kennedy's that HAVEN'T held public office than all those that HAVE!  Joe Kennedy II gave up his job in Congress because he could slide over into Citizen's and make twice the money and do half the work.  *It's good to be a Kennedy!*

As for non-profits?  Citizen's Energy.  It's been a Kennedy "boondoggle" for decades.  If you're a Kennedy and you need a job that pays six figures and doesn't require you to do anything, you work at Citizen's Energy.


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was a womanizer, but he was not a racist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He consistently voted on civil  rights he was a racist pig. Just like his criminal father.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What president proposed what became the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
> 
> Criminal father? Do you mean the bootlegger myth?
Click to expand...


None did it was a republican congressman that did 

tapatalk post


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> He consistently voted on civil  rights he was a racist pig. Just like his criminal father.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What president proposed what became the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
> 
> Criminal father? Do you mean the bootlegger myth?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> None did it was a republican congressman that did
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Really? What is his name? 

The Civil Rights Act of 1964

The Civil Rights Act of 1964

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the nation's benchmark civil rights legislation, and it continues to resonate in America.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.  Passage of the Act ended the application of "Jim Crow" laws, which had been upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1896 case Plessy v. Ferguson, in which the Court held that racial segregation purported to be "separate but equal" was constitutional.  The Civil Rights Act was eventually expanded by Congress to strengthen enforcement of these fundamental civil rights.

The House Judiciary Committee held a series of hearings on the proposed legislation during the summer of 1963.  The proposed bill was amended during the committee process to broaden the scope of protections.  *The changes strengthened President Kennedy's original proposal* in response to the tumultuous summer of 1963,which saw several incidents of racially motivated violence across the South.  The House Judiciary Committee approved the legislation on October 26, 1963, and formally reported it to the full House on November 20, 1963, just two days before President Kennedy was assassinated.  On November 27, 1963, President Lyndon Johnson asserted his commitment to President Kennedy's legislative agenda, particularly civil rights legislation.  The House of Representatives passed a final version of the Civil Rights Act on February 10, 1964.


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What president proposed what became the 1964 Civil Rights Act?
> 
> Criminal father? Do you mean the bootlegger myth?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> None did it was a republican congressman that did
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Really? What is his name?
> 
> The Civil Rights Act of 1964
> 
> The Civil Rights Act of 1964
> 
> The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the nation's benchmark civil rights legislation, and it continues to resonate in America.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.  Passage of the Act ended the application of "Jim Crow" laws, which had been upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1896 case Plessy v. Ferguson, in which the Court held that racial segregation purported to be "separate but equal" was constitutional.  The Civil Rights Act was eventually expanded by Congress to strengthen enforcement of these fundamental civil rights.
> 
> The House Judiciary Committee held a series of hearings on the proposed legislation during the summer of 1963.  The proposed bill was amended during the committee process to broaden the scope of protections.  *The changes strengthened President Kennedy's original proposal* in response to the tumultuous summer of 1963,which saw several incidents of racially motivated violence across the South.  The House Judiciary Committee approved the legislation on October 26, 1963, and formally reported it to the full House on November 20, 1963, just two days before President Kennedy was assassinated.  On November 27, 1963, President Lyndon Johnson asserted his commitment to President Kennedy's legislative agenda, particularly civil rights legislation.  The House of Representatives passed a final version of the Civil Rights Act on February 10, 1964.
Click to expand...


This proves you point how?  It wasn't his bill dipshit.  

tapatalk post


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL...so your "proof" is something written about JFK by his nephew?  Really?
> 
> Here's a bit of reality for you, Bfgrn...the Kennedy family have used the Camelot myth to land themselves cushy public service and non profit jobs for the past 50 years.  They are heavily invested in keeping the Kennedy "brand" as iconic as they can because to be quite frank...MOST OF THEM ARE IDIOTS and can't survive in the real world!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, I forgot that anything positive about the Kennedy family is a myth, and anything that slanders the Kennedy family is absolute truth.
> 
> Please provide a list of 'cushy public service and non profit jobs'?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You want me to list the public service jobs that the Kennedy clan have held?  Are you kidding?  It would be easier to list the Kennedy's that HAVEN'T held public office than all those that HAVE!  Joe Kennedy II gave up his job in Congress because he could slide over into Citizen's and make twice the money and do half the work.  *It's good to be a Kennedy!*
> 
> As for non-profits?  Citizen's Energy.  It's been a Kennedy "boondoggle" for decades.  If you're a Kennedy and you need a job that pays six figures and doesn't require you to do anything, you work at Citizen's Energy.
Click to expand...


One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
Edmund Burke

Citizen Energy is a "boondoggle" for poor and elderly citizens. The more you speak the more ignorant you become. Slander the Kennedys.

The head of a typical public company made $9.6 million in 2011, according to an analysis by The Associated Press using data from Equilar, an executive pay research firm.

As of 2010, Kennedy's CEO salary was $596,988 per year.


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> None did it was a republican congressman that did
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Really? What is his name?
> 
> The Civil Rights Act of 1964
> 
> The Civil Rights Act of 1964
> 
> The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the nation's benchmark civil rights legislation, and it continues to resonate in America.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.  Passage of the Act ended the application of "Jim Crow" laws, which had been upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1896 case Plessy v. Ferguson, in which the Court held that racial segregation purported to be "separate but equal" was constitutional.  The Civil Rights Act was eventually expanded by Congress to strengthen enforcement of these fundamental civil rights.
> 
> The House Judiciary Committee held a series of hearings on the proposed legislation during the summer of 1963.  The proposed bill was amended during the committee process to broaden the scope of protections.  *The changes strengthened President Kennedy's original proposal* in response to the tumultuous summer of 1963,which saw several incidents of racially motivated violence across the South.  The House Judiciary Committee approved the legislation on October 26, 1963, and formally reported it to the full House on November 20, 1963, just two days before President Kennedy was assassinated.  On November 27, 1963, President Lyndon Johnson asserted his commitment to President Kennedy's legislative agenda, particularly civil rights legislation.  The House of Representatives passed a final version of the Civil Rights Act on February 10, 1964.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This proves you point how?  It wasn't his bill dipshit.
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


You really shouldn't be calling people names like dipshit, especially when you don't know what the hell you are talking about.

Civil Rights Act History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts

The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended segregation in public places and banned employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, is considered one of the crowning legislative achievements of the civil rights movement. *First proposed by President John F. Kennedy*, it survived strong opposition from southern members of Congress and was then signed into law by Kennedys successor, Lyndon B. Johnson. In subsequent years, Congress expanded the act and also passed additional legislation aimed at bringing equality to African Americans, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm sorry, I forgot that anything positive about the Kennedy family is a myth, and anything that slanders the Kennedy family is absolute truth.
> 
> Please provide a list of 'cushy public service and non profit jobs'?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You want me to list the public service jobs that the Kennedy clan have held?  Are you kidding?  It would be easier to list the Kennedy's that HAVEN'T held public office than all those that HAVE!  Joe Kennedy II gave up his job in Congress because he could slide over into Citizen's and make twice the money and do half the work.  *It's good to be a Kennedy!*
> 
> As for non-profits?  Citizen's Energy.  It's been a Kennedy "boondoggle" for decades.  If you're a Kennedy and you need a job that pays six figures and doesn't require you to do anything, you work at Citizen's Energy.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> Citizen Energy is a "boondoggle" for poor and elderly citizens. The more you speak the more ignorant you become. Slander the Kennedys.
> 
> The head of a typical public company made $9.6 million in 2011, according to an analysis by The Associated Press using data from Equilar, an executive pay research firm.
> 
> As of 2010, Kennedy's CEO salary was $596,988 per year.
Click to expand...


Citizen's Energy is a boondoggle for the Kennedy clan...not the poor or the elderly!  The Kennedy's say nice things about Hugo Chavez and he gives them oil at a cut rate price.  Running Citizen's Energy is something that is passed around the Kennedy clan like it's a trust fund.  Couldn't get elected to public office because you're embroiled in a sex scandal?  No problem!  If you're a Kennedy you can work at Citizen's and make a six figure salary and never break a sweat.  It's not like you're going to get fired if you take a month off to ski in Aspen or hang out in Palm Springs!  You've got the ultimate prize...a no show job for big bucks.  Executives in a typical public company put in long hours because if they don't they'll be replaced.  Kennedy's don't get fired from Citizen's Energy because they ARE Citizen's Energy.  Joe Kennedy pulls down that $600,000 a year salary and has plenty of time to enjoy the finer things in life because he doesn't really do anything at Citizen's.
The head of a typical public company works long hours for their money and if they aren't successful they are let go.  Being the head of Citizen's Energy means that you work pretty much when you feel like it and the job is yours until you want to pursue something else.


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Really? What is his name?
> 
> The Civil Rights Act of 1964
> 
> The Civil Rights Act of 1964
> 
> The Civil Rights Act of 1964 is the nation's benchmark civil rights legislation, and it continues to resonate in America.  The Civil Rights Act of 1964 prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin.  Passage of the Act ended the application of "Jim Crow" laws, which had been upheld by the Supreme Court in the 1896 case Plessy v. Ferguson, in which the Court held that racial segregation purported to be "separate but equal" was constitutional.  The Civil Rights Act was eventually expanded by Congress to strengthen enforcement of these fundamental civil rights.
> 
> The House Judiciary Committee held a series of hearings on the proposed legislation during the summer of 1963.  The proposed bill was amended during the committee process to broaden the scope of protections.  *The changes strengthened President Kennedy's original proposal* in response to the tumultuous summer of 1963,which saw several incidents of racially motivated violence across the South.  The House Judiciary Committee approved the legislation on October 26, 1963, and formally reported it to the full House on November 20, 1963, just two days before President Kennedy was assassinated.  On November 27, 1963, President Lyndon Johnson asserted his commitment to President Kennedy's legislative agenda, particularly civil rights legislation.  The House of Representatives passed a final version of the Civil Rights Act on February 10, 1964.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This proves you point how?  It wasn't his bill dipshit.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You really shouldn't be calling people names like dipshit, especially when you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
> 
> Civil Rights Act History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts
> 
> The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended segregation in public places and banned employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, is considered one of the crowning legislative achievements of the civil rights movement. *First proposed by President John F. Kennedy*, it survived strong opposition from southern members of Congress and was then signed into law by Kennedys successor, Lyndon B. Johnson. In subsequent years, Congress expanded the act and also passed additional legislation aimed at bringing equality to African Americans, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
Click to expand...


Maybe you should actually read what your posting. John f. Kennedy proposed  changes to the bill he didn't write the f****** bill you idiot the bill was written years prior

tapatalk post


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> thanatos144 said:
> 
> 
> 
> This proves you point how?  It wasn't his bill dipshit.
> 
> tapatalk post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You really shouldn't be calling people names like dipshit, especially when you don't know what the hell you are talking about.
> 
> Civil Rights Act History.com Articles, Video, Pictures and Facts
> 
> The Civil Rights Act of 1964, which ended segregation in public places and banned employment discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, sex or national origin, is considered one of the crowning legislative achievements of the civil rights movement. *First proposed by President John F. Kennedy*, it survived strong opposition from southern members of Congress and was then signed into law by Kennedy&#8217;s successor, Lyndon B. Johnson. In subsequent years, Congress expanded the act and also passed additional legislation aimed at bringing equality to African Americans, such as the Voting Rights Act of 1965.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you should actually read what your posting. John f. Kennedy proposed  changes to the bill he didn't write the f****** bill you idiot the bill was written years prior
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Maybe YOU should read what is posted...Kennedy PROPOSED civil rights legislation in a speech on June 11, 1963.


Civil Rights Act of 1964

Origins

The bill was called for by President John F. Kennedy in his civil rights speech of June 11, 1963, in which he asked for legislation "giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public&#8212;hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments", as well as "greater protection for the right to vote".


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You want me to list the public service jobs that the Kennedy clan have held?  Are you kidding?  It would be easier to list the Kennedy's that HAVEN'T held public office than all those that HAVE!  Joe Kennedy II gave up his job in Congress because he could slide over into Citizen's and make twice the money and do half the work.  *It's good to be a Kennedy!*
> 
> As for non-profits?  Citizen's Energy.  It's been a Kennedy "boondoggle" for decades.  If you're a Kennedy and you need a job that pays six figures and doesn't require you to do anything, you work at Citizen's Energy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> Citizen Energy is a "boondoggle" for poor and elderly citizens. The more you speak the more ignorant you become. Slander the Kennedys.
> 
> The head of a typical public company made $9.6 million in 2011, according to an analysis by The Associated Press using data from Equilar, an executive pay research firm.
> 
> As of 2010, Kennedy's CEO salary was $596,988 per year.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Citizen's Energy is a boondoggle for the Kennedy clan...not the poor or the elderly!  The Kennedy's say nice things about Hugo Chavez and he gives them oil at a cut rate price.  Running Citizen's Energy is something that is passed around the Kennedy clan like it's a trust fund.  Couldn't get elected to public office because you're embroiled in a sex scandal?  No problem!  If you're a Kennedy you can work at Citizen's and make a six figure salary and never break a sweat.  It's not like you're going to get fired if you take a month off to ski in Aspen or hang out in Palm Springs!  You've got the ultimate prize...a no show job for big bucks.  Executives in a typical public company put in long hours because if they don't they'll be replaced.  Kennedy's don't get fired from Citizen's Energy because they ARE Citizen's Energy.  Joe Kennedy pulls down that $600,000 a year salary and has plenty of time to enjoy the finer things in life because he doesn't really do anything at Citizen's.
> The head of a typical public company works long hours for their money and if they aren't successful they are let go.  Being the head of Citizen's Energy means that you work pretty much when you feel like it and the job is yours until you want to pursue something else.
Click to expand...


You are making this shit up. You don't work at Citizen's Energy, so you are relying on your hatred and slander of the Kennedy's to fuel your ignorant rants.

Are you SAYING Citizens Energy doesn't help hundreds of thousands of poor and elderly citizens?


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> Citizen Energy is a "boondoggle" for poor and elderly citizens. The more you speak the more ignorant you become. Slander the Kennedys.
> 
> The head of a typical public company made $9.6 million in 2011, according to an analysis by The Associated Press using data from Equilar, an executive pay research firm.
> 
> As of 2010, Kennedy's CEO salary was $596,988 per year.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Citizen's Energy is a boondoggle for the Kennedy clan...not the poor or the elderly!  The Kennedy's say nice things about Hugo Chavez and he gives them oil at a cut rate price.  Running Citizen's Energy is something that is passed around the Kennedy clan like it's a trust fund.  Couldn't get elected to public office because you're embroiled in a sex scandal?  No problem!  If you're a Kennedy you can work at Citizen's and make a six figure salary and never break a sweat.  It's not like you're going to get fired if you take a month off to ski in Aspen or hang out in Palm Springs!  You've got the ultimate prize...a no show job for big bucks.  Executives in a typical public company put in long hours because if they don't they'll be replaced.  Kennedy's don't get fired from Citizen's Energy because they ARE Citizen's Energy.  Joe Kennedy pulls down that $600,000 a year salary and has plenty of time to enjoy the finer things in life because he doesn't really do anything at Citizen's.
> The head of a typical public company works long hours for their money and if they aren't successful they are let go.  Being the head of Citizen's Energy means that you work pretty much when you feel like it and the job is yours until you want to pursue something else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are making this shit up. You don't work at Citizen's Energy, so you are relying on your hatred and slander of the Kennedy's to fuel your ignorant rants.
> 
> Are you SAYING Citizens Energy doesn't help hundreds of thousands of poor and elderly citizens?
Click to expand...


I'm FROM Massachusetts hence I'm very familiar with Citizen's Energy AND the Kennedy's.  You obviously don't know shit about Citizen's Energy because if you DID then you'd know that the Kennedy's have been using that non-profit as a means to create profit for themselves for decades now.

Yes, Citizen's Energy helps thousands of poor and elderly citizens in Massachusetts.  It also has helped dozens of Kennedy's maintain a lifestyle that those poor and elderly could only dream about.

As for my "slandering" the Kennedy's?  I don't think you have any concept about how arrogant, entitled, and obnoxious the Kennedy clan has been over the years.  They believe that the "rules" of society apply to others simply because THEY are Kennedy's.  As I related before...when I worked as a property manager in Aspen I was told that under no circumstances should I rent to anyone in the Kennedy family!  That was because they had history of trashing where ever they stayed and then refusing to pay for damages.  That isn't "slander"...that's a fact!


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Citizen's Energy is a boondoggle for the Kennedy clan...not the poor or the elderly!  The Kennedy's say nice things about Hugo Chavez and he gives them oil at a cut rate price.  Running Citizen's Energy is something that is passed around the Kennedy clan like it's a trust fund.  Couldn't get elected to public office because you're embroiled in a sex scandal?  No problem!  If you're a Kennedy you can work at Citizen's and make a six figure salary and never break a sweat.  It's not like you're going to get fired if you take a month off to ski in Aspen or hang out in Palm Springs!  You've got the ultimate prize...a no show job for big bucks.  Executives in a typical public company put in long hours because if they don't they'll be replaced.  Kennedy's don't get fired from Citizen's Energy because they ARE Citizen's Energy.  Joe Kennedy pulls down that $600,000 a year salary and has plenty of time to enjoy the finer things in life because he doesn't really do anything at Citizen's.
> The head of a typical public company works long hours for their money and if they aren't successful they are let go.  Being the head of Citizen's Energy means that you work pretty much when you feel like it and the job is yours until you want to pursue something else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are making this shit up. You don't work at Citizen's Energy, so you are relying on your hatred and slander of the Kennedy's to fuel your ignorant rants.
> 
> Are you SAYING Citizens Energy doesn't help hundreds of thousands of poor and elderly citizens?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm FROM Massachusetts hence I'm very familiar with Citizen's Energy AND the Kennedy's.  You obviously don't know shit about Citizen's Energy because if you DID then you'd know that the Kennedy's have been using that non-profit as a means to create profit for themselves for decades now.
> 
> Yes, Citizen's Energy helps thousands of poor and elderly citizens in Massachusetts.  It also has helped dozens of Kennedy's maintain a lifestyle that those poor and elderly could only dream about.
> 
> As for my "slandering" the Kennedy's?  I don't think you have any concept about how arrogant, entitled, and obnoxious the Kennedy clan has been over the years.  They believe that the "rules" of society apply to others simply because THEY are Kennedy's.  As I related before...when I worked as a property manager in Aspen I was told that under no circumstances should I rent to anyone in the Kennedy family!  That was because they had history of trashing where ever they stayed and then refusing to pay for damages.  That isn't "slander"...that's a fact!
Click to expand...


"Living a life of leisure is the hardest work of all"
John F. Kennedy


Being from Massachusetts means shit. You don't know the Kennedy family. The Kennedys have done more for the common man, the poor, the disabled and the disenfranchised than ALL the Republicans in this country combined.

It just eats away at you that no matter how much you lie and slander the Kennedys, they still are loved by millions of intelligent citizens who KNOW all the good the Kennedys have done for America.

Citizens Energy helps people, something you right wing turds despise. And not just heating their homes. They help people with their electric bills, weatherizing homes and factories. They are active in the health care needs of people.

Health Care

Citizens Medical

Citizens Medical began working with the pharmaceutical industry in 1985, coordinating the donation of relief supplies to Ethiopia during a widespread famine. Soon after, Citizens Medical established a joint venture with Medco Containment Services Inc., the worlds largest mail order pharmacy and leader in cost-containment programs for prescription drugs.

Citizens Medical negotiated price discounts for large employee and union groups, including Blue Cross/Blue Shield of Massachusetts, NYNEX, and the National Association of Letter Carriers, with manufacturers and pharmacies. The company offered integrated mail service, prescription card and drug reimbursement programs, and tailored each prescription benefit plan to meet its clients budget. Citizens Medical also offered professional services that focused on the customers direct needs, including a 24-hour toll free number for participants, specially trained customer service pharmacists to answer questions regarding medications, drug education materials to help familiarize patients with their medications, and various counseling programs to support the elderly.

Citizens Medicals customers received an average savings of over 40% on drug delivery. In its second year Citizens Medical reached a 20% increase in the companys market size from the previous year, with 1.2 million people eligible for its service.

By 1988 Citizens-Medco became the largest broker of mail service prescriptions in the United States, with annual sales of $90 million. In 1993, Medco was taken over by Merck Co., a pharmaceutical manufacturer, and since 1999, Citizens Energy has continued to help market Merck-Medcos prescription services.

The Citizens Medical model paved the way for a new industry of pharmacy benefit managers to negotiate discounts for buying groups from drug manufacturers and pharmacies.

Citizens Health

In 2001, Citizens Health was launched as a discount pharmaceutical program for the uninsured. The company negotiated with drug companies and pharmacies to give its customers the same discounts received by families with insurance. Benefits included discounts for medications purchased at over 1,000 pharmacies or by mail order.
Citizens Health subsequently began to provide discounts on not only prescription drugs, but on a wide array of such medical services as vision, dental, hospital and doctor visits. The principle remained constant - to provide uninsured senior citizens and working families with the same level of discounts available to those with insurance.

The expansion of Medicare drug coverage to senior citizens and the broadening of access to health insurance through state and federal programs resulted in Citizens Health winding down operations after close to 10 years of providing the uninsured with more affordable health care.


----------



## Bfgrn

"arrogant, entitled, and obnoxious"?

That's not what the Secret Service agents who guarded President Kennedy had to say about the man. That would better describe Eisenhower and Johnson.

*Agent Ron Pontius: * "You had Eisenhower, you know, and he was a general.  And we were the troops...but here's Kennedy, and he knows everybody's name...."  

*Agent Paul Landis:* I remember him walking across from his office past the Rose Garden and I opened the door for him and he just kind of nodded and said thank you. 
The next time I saw him walk by he said Mr Landis, how are you? And I was very impressed that he had taken the trouble to learn my name or ask who I was.

*Agent David Grant:* He was gracious, he was kind. He was what you might call a mans man.

Agent David Grant, who moved on to the Johnson detail : " I lost in President Kennedy really a wonderful human being and a guy who knew my name."

The agents were treated like part of the family. And the Kennedy children were instructed to listen to the agents as if the orders came from their mother or father.

The Kennedy Detail: Memories of the President : Video : Discovery Channel


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> "arrogant, entitled, and obnoxious"?
> 
> That's not what the Secret Service agents who guarded President Kennedy had to say about the man. That would better describe Eisenhower and Johnson.
> 
> *Agent Ron Pontius: * "You had Eisenhower, you know, and he was a general.  And we were the troops...but here's Kennedy, and he knows everybody's name...."
> 
> *Agent Paul Landis:* I remember him walking across from his office past the Rose Garden and I opened the door for him and he just kind of nodded and said thank you.
> The next time I saw him walk by he said Mr Landis, how are you? And I was very impressed that he had taken the trouble to learn my name or ask who I was.
> 
> *Agent David Grant:* He was gracious, he was kind. He was what you might call a mans man.
> 
> Agent David Grant, who moved on to the Johnson detail : " I lost in President Kennedy really a wonderful human being and a guy who knew my name."
> 
> The agents were treated like part of the family. And the Kennedy children were instructed to listen to the agents as if the orders came from their mother or father.
> 
> The Kennedy Detail: Memories of the President : Video : Discovery Channel



Oh, I'm quite sure that JFK treated his Secret Service detail well...they would be the guys who knew about his serial philandering and kept it quiet.  A "man's man"?  That would be the case I guess if your definition of what a "man" is...is someone with two young children who cheats on his wife repeatedly.

That's the "Kennedy way" though...Joe Senior cheated on his wife...JFK cheated on his wife...Bobby cheated on his wife...Teddy cheated on his wife.  The classic story that shows just how wonderful the brothers were is JFK telling his younger brother at Teddy's wedding that just because you're getting married doesn't mean you can't screw around and having it caught on a tape recording someone was doing for the nuptials.

That's not even getting into the murders and rapes committed by these "wonderful human beings" from the Kennedy clan.  Not to mention the drug and alcohol addictions that seem to be imbedded in their DNA these days.

You accuse *me* of not knowing the Kennedy's?  I've got news for you...YOU'RE that guy that's clueless about who the Kennedy's really are!


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "arrogant, entitled, and obnoxious"?
> 
> That's not what the Secret Service agents who guarded President Kennedy had to say about the man. That would better describe Eisenhower and Johnson.
> 
> *Agent Ron Pontius: * "You had Eisenhower, you know, and he was a general.  And we were the troops...but here's Kennedy, and he knows everybody's name...."
> 
> *Agent Paul Landis:* I remember him walking across from his office past the Rose Garden and I opened the door for him and he just kind of nodded and said thank you.
> The next time I saw him walk by he said Mr Landis, how are you? And I was very impressed that he had taken the trouble to learn my name or ask who I was.
> 
> *Agent David Grant:* He was gracious, he was kind. He was what you might call a mans man.
> 
> Agent David Grant, who moved on to the Johnson detail : " I lost in President Kennedy really a wonderful human being and a guy who knew my name."
> 
> The agents were treated like part of the family. And the Kennedy children were instructed to listen to the agents as if the orders came from their mother or father.
> 
> The Kennedy Detail: Memories of the President : Video : Discovery Channel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm quite sure that JFK treated his Secret Service detail well...they would be the guys who knew about his serial philandering and kept it quiet.  A "man's man"?  That would be the case I guess if your definition of what a "man" is...is someone with two young children who cheats on his wife repeatedly.
> 
> That's the "Kennedy way" though...Joe Senior cheated on his wife...JFK cheated on his wife...Bobby cheated on his wife...Teddy cheated on his wife.  The classic story that shows just how wonderful the brothers were is JFK telling his younger brother at Teddy's wedding that just because you're getting married doesn't mean you can't screw around and having it caught on a tape recording someone was doing for the nuptials.
> 
> That's not even getting into the murders and rapes committed by these "wonderful human beings" from the Kennedy clan.  Not to mention the drug and alcohol addictions that seem to be imbedded in their DNA these days.
> 
> You accuse *me* of not knowing the Kennedy's?  I've got news for you...YOU'RE that guy that's clueless about who the Kennedy's really are!
Click to expand...


Kennedy was a womanizer. He liked to screw women, but he never screwed 185 million Americans like Nixon, or other despots like Bush who held that office. And his PERSONAL affairs were Jackie's problem, not YOURS or mine. I am not clueless about who the Kennedy's really are. 

But all you are really telling me is who and what YOU really are. Your accusations about Citizens Energy reveals that you are a very cynical right wing hypocrite. YOU don't know how hard Joe Kennedy works or how hard any other CEO works. And you are trying to make it look like the Kennedy's are doing something wrong helping people and running a business. The same right wingers who will defend any CEO who causes harm to people. You are toxic inside. 

"Nixon was the most dishonest individual I have ever met in my life. He lied to his wife, his family, his friends, his colleagues in the Congress, lifetime members of his own political party, the American people and the world."
Barry Goldwater


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> "arrogant, entitled, and obnoxious"?
> 
> That's not what the Secret Service agents who guarded President Kennedy had to say about the man. That would better describe Eisenhower and Johnson.
> 
> *Agent Ron Pontius: * "You had Eisenhower, you know, and he was a general.  And we were the troops...but here's Kennedy, and he knows everybody's name...."
> 
> *Agent Paul Landis:* I remember him walking across from his office past the Rose Garden and I opened the door for him and he just kind of nodded and said thank you.
> The next time I saw him walk by he said Mr Landis, how are you? And I was very impressed that he had taken the trouble to learn my name or ask who I was.
> 
> *Agent David Grant:* He was gracious, he was kind. He was what you might call a mans man.
> 
> Agent David Grant, who moved on to the Johnson detail : " I lost in President Kennedy really a wonderful human being and a guy who knew my name."
> 
> The agents were treated like part of the family. And the Kennedy children were instructed to listen to the agents as if the orders came from their mother or father.
> 
> The Kennedy Detail: Memories of the President : Video : Discovery Channel
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm quite sure that JFK treated his Secret Service detail well...they would be the guys who knew about his serial philandering and kept it quiet.  A "man's man"?  That would be the case I guess if your definition of what a "man" is...is someone with two young children who cheats on his wife repeatedly.
> 
> That's the "Kennedy way" though...Joe Senior cheated on his wife...JFK cheated on his wife...Bobby cheated on his wife...Teddy cheated on his wife.  The classic story that shows just how wonderful the brothers were is JFK telling his younger brother at Teddy's wedding that just because you're getting married doesn't mean you can't screw around and having it caught on a tape recording someone was doing for the nuptials.
> 
> That's not even getting into the murders and rapes committed by these "wonderful human beings" from the Kennedy clan.  Not to mention the drug and alcohol addictions that seem to be imbedded in their DNA these days.
> 
> You accuse *me* of not knowing the Kennedy's?  I've got news for you...YOU'RE that guy that's clueless about who the Kennedy's really are!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kennedy was a womanizer. He liked to screw women, but he never screwed 185 million Americans like Nixon, or other despots like Bush who held that office. And his PERSONAL affairs were Jackie's problem, not YOURS or mine. I am not clueless about who the Kennedy's really are.
> 
> But all you are really telling me is who and what YOU really are. Your accusations about Citizens Energy reveals that you are a very cynical right wing hypocrite. YOU don't know how hard Joe Kennedy works or how hard any other CEO works. And you are trying to make it look like the Kennedy's are doing something wrong helping people and running a business. The same right wingers who will defend any CEO who causes harm to people. You are toxic inside.
> 
> "Nixon was the most dishonest individual I have ever met in my life. He lied to his wife, his family, his friends, his colleagues in the Congress, lifetime members of his own political party, the American people and the world."
> Barry Goldwater
Click to expand...


How exactly does my pointing out the reality of the Kennedy family make me "toxic inside"?  Joe Kennedy Senior was about as sleazy an individual that ever lived.  He supported Joe McCarthy for God's sake!  Did you know he had his son Bobby working for McCarthy investigating communists?  Or that he gave his eldest daughter a lobotomy and then locked her up in an institution because he saw her as a potential embarrassment to his political aspirations for his sons?  Or that he was a raging bigot...hating blacks and Jews?  Joe Kennedy LOVED Hitler!  Thought the guy was doing *wonderful* things in Germany.

Yes, Nixon was a paranoid, secretive man obsessed with people plotting against him politically.  Gee, I wonder *why* he would think that others would use political dirty tricks against him?  Oh, that's right...he went through the 1960 Presidential election!  What happened in Cook County that year would tend to make ANYONE a bit paranoid.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Oh, I'm quite sure that JFK treated his Secret Service detail well...they would be the guys who knew about his serial philandering and kept it quiet.  A "man's man"?  That would be the case I guess if your definition of what a "man" is...is someone with two young children who cheats on his wife repeatedly.
> 
> That's the "Kennedy way" though...Joe Senior cheated on his wife...JFK cheated on his wife...Bobby cheated on his wife...Teddy cheated on his wife.  The classic story that shows just how wonderful the brothers were is JFK telling his younger brother at Teddy's wedding that just because you're getting married doesn't mean you can't screw around and having it caught on a tape recording someone was doing for the nuptials.
> 
> That's not even getting into the murders and rapes committed by these "wonderful human beings" from the Kennedy clan.  Not to mention the drug and alcohol addictions that seem to be imbedded in their DNA these days.
> 
> You accuse *me* of not knowing the Kennedy's?  I've got news for you...YOU'RE that guy that's clueless about who the Kennedy's really are!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy was a womanizer. He liked to screw women, but he never screwed 185 million Americans like Nixon, or other despots like Bush who held that office. And his PERSONAL affairs were Jackie's problem, not YOURS or mine. I am not clueless about who the Kennedy's really are.
> 
> But all you are really telling me is who and what YOU really are. Your accusations about Citizens Energy reveals that you are a very cynical right wing hypocrite. YOU don't know how hard Joe Kennedy works or how hard any other CEO works. And you are trying to make it look like the Kennedy's are doing something wrong helping people and running a business. The same right wingers who will defend any CEO who causes harm to people. You are toxic inside.
> 
> "Nixon was the most dishonest individual I have ever met in my life. He lied to his wife, his family, his friends, his colleagues in the Congress, lifetime members of his own political party, the American people and the world."
> Barry Goldwater
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> How exactly does my pointing out the reality of the Kennedy family make me "toxic inside"?  Joe Kennedy Senior was about as sleazy an individual that ever lived.  He supported Joe McCarthy for God's sake!  Did you know he had his son Bobby working for McCarthy investigating communists?  Or that he gave his eldest daughter a lobotomy and then locked her up in an institution because he saw her as a potential embarrassment to his political aspirations for his sons?  Or that he was a raging bigot...hating blacks and Jews?  Joe Kennedy LOVED Hitler!  Thought the guy was doing *wonderful* things in Germany.
> 
> Yes, Nixon was a paranoid, secretive man obsessed with people plotting against him politically.  Gee, I wonder *why* he would think that others would use political dirty tricks against him?  Oh, that's right...he went through the 1960 Presidential election!  What happened in Cook County that year would tend to make ANYONE a bit paranoid.
Click to expand...


Again you are making shit up and irresponsibly slandering the Kennedys. Joe Kennedy didn't love Hitler. He sided with Chamberlain and had an isolationist view. He wanted to keep America out of a war. He had three sons who would be expected to fight.

Rosemary was NEVER, EVER hidden from view. She accompanied her family to England when Joe Sr. was appointed Ambassador to England. She was always part of family functions. Her sister Eunice always picked her as her partner when the family would have competitions like sailing.







Eunice and Rosemary arriving in England during their fathers Ambassadorship in the 1930s.


----------



## Oldstyle

You really are CLUELESS when it comes to the Kennedy family!  Joe Kennedy was ambassador to the Court of St. James until 1940.  Rosemary had her lobotomy in 1941 when she was 23 years old.  The picture of Rosemary that you've provided (which shows a mildly retarded but happy and functioning young woman) was taken in 1938 BEFORE Joe Kennedy had her brain scrambled.  Before that took place Rosemary was indeed always a part of family functions.  After the lobotomy Rosemary was hidden away in an institution in Wisconsin.  Her father NEVER visited her there and her mother didn't see her for TWENTY YEARS!

You really don't grasp what total "shit heels" this family has been for the better part of eighty years...do you?  It's one thing to be a bit ignorant about a subject, Bfgrn but you go way beyond that.

"The greatest enemy of truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived and dishonest - but the myth - persistent, persuasive and unrealistic." --JFK, June 11, 1962


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> You really are CLUELESS when it comes to the Kennedy family!  Joe Kennedy was ambassador to the Court of St. James until 1940.  Rosemary had her lobotomy in 1941 when she was 23 years old.  The picture of Rosemary that you've provided (which shows a mildly retarded but happy and functioning young woman) was taken in 1938 BEFORE Joe Kennedy had her brain scrambled.  Before that took place Rosemary was indeed always a part of family functions.  After the lobotomy Rosemary was hidden away in an institution in Wisconsin.  Her father NEVER visited her there and her mother didn't see her for TWENTY YEARS!
> 
> You really don't grasp what total "shit heels" this family has been for the better part of eighty years...do you?  It's one thing to be a bit ignorant about a subject, Bfgrn but you go way beyond that.
> 
> "The greatest enemy of truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived and dishonest - but the myth - persistent, persuasive and unrealistic." --JFK, June 11, 1962



You don't really grasp all the good this family has done for America, or the sacrifice, you can only slander. Just like your slander of Citizens Energy that has helped millions of Americans. And I'm sure you would slander Ted Kennedy who did more for every American than all the Senators in Washington combined.

I am sure if Joe Kennedy knew how that medical procedure was going to turn out, he would have never had it done. 

The Kennedys are human, with all the human foibles that come with being human. But their public life is beyond reproach. Every family member is involved in public service.

The positives FAR outweigh the negatives.

Rosemary Kennedy was not forgotten, she was the inspiration behind Special Olympics. Eunice Kennedy Shriver was one of the most important and influential Americans of the 20th century. She did more to change our understanding, acceptance and assimilation of handicapped people into our society than any other person. And the Kennedy family has been involved in helping and defending the handicapped who are truly our most vulnerable and least represented citizens in any society.

When the full judgment of the Kennedy legacy is made  including J.F.K.s Peace Corps and Alliance for Progress, Robert Kennedys passion for civil rights and Ted Kennedys efforts on health care, workplace reform and refugees  the changes wrought by Eunice Shriver may well be seen as the most consequential, U.S. News & World Report said in its cover story of Nov. 15, 1993. 

You are toxic inside. It is who and what conservatism has metastasized into. You people can only tear down, never build.

Liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil. 
Liberals believe in raising people up, conservatives believe in pushing people down.
Liberals believe in encouragement, conservatives believe in scorn.
Liberals always stand up for the little guy, conservatives always stand up for the big guy.


The Kennedys are liberals. I would much rather live in a country that lives up to their vision of America than the right wing authoritarians who infest our nation today.

Eunice Kennedy Shriver 1921-2009 | The Saturday Evening Post


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really are CLUELESS when it comes to the Kennedy family!  Joe Kennedy was ambassador to the Court of St. James until 1940.  Rosemary had her lobotomy in 1941 when she was 23 years old.  The picture of Rosemary that you've provided (which shows a mildly retarded but happy and functioning young woman) was taken in 1938 BEFORE Joe Kennedy had her brain scrambled.  Before that took place Rosemary was indeed always a part of family functions.  After the lobotomy Rosemary was hidden away in an institution in Wisconsin.  Her father NEVER visited her there and her mother didn't see her for TWENTY YEARS!
> 
> You really don't grasp what total "shit heels" this family has been for the better part of eighty years...do you?  It's one thing to be a bit ignorant about a subject, Bfgrn but you go way beyond that.
> 
> "The greatest enemy of truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived and dishonest - but the myth - persistent, persuasive and unrealistic." --JFK, June 11, 1962
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't really grasp all the good this family has done for America, or the sacrifice, you can only slander. Just like your slander of Citizens Energy that has helped millions of Americans. And I'm sure you would slander Ted Kennedy who did more for every American than all the Senators in Washington combined.
> 
> I am sure if Joe Kennedy knew how that medical procedure was going to turn out, he would have never had it done.
> 
> The Kennedys are human, with all the human foibles that come with being human. But their public life is beyond reproach. Every family member is involved in public service.
> 
> The positives FAR outweigh the negatives.
> 
> Rosemary Kennedy was not forgotten, she was the inspiration behind Special Olympics. Eunice Kennedy Shriver was one of the most important and influential Americans of the 20th century. She did more to change our understanding, acceptance and assimilation of handicapped people into our society than any other person. And the Kennedy family has been involved in helping and defending the handicapped who are truly our most vulnerable and least represented citizens in any society.
> 
> When the full judgment of the Kennedy legacy is made  including J.F.K.s Peace Corps and Alliance for Progress, Robert Kennedys passion for civil rights and Ted Kennedys efforts on health care, workplace reform and refugees  the changes wrought by Eunice Shriver may well be seen as the most consequential, U.S. News & World Report said in its cover story of Nov. 15, 1993.
> 
> You are toxic inside. It is who and what conservatism has metastasized into. You people can only tear down, never build.
> 
> Liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil.
> Liberals believe in raising people up, conservatives believe in pushing people down.
> Liberals believe in encouragement, conservatives believe in scorn.
> Liberals always stand up for the little guy, conservatives always stand up for the big guy.
> 
> 
> The Kennedys are liberals. I would much rather live in a country that lives up to their vision of America than the right wing authoritarians who infest our nation today.
> 
> Eunice Kennedy Shriver 1921-2009 | The Saturday Evening Post
Click to expand...


Liberals believe people are basically helpless, conservatives believe people are at their best when they are helping themselves...something which they ARE capable of!

Liberals believe that if you pull down the successful that it will raise up those below them, conservatives believe that success is a good thing, not a character defect and should be lauded not condemned.

Liberals don't believe in competition, nor do they grasp the concept of natural selection, conservatives understand that life is a competition and that treating losers the same as winners harms both winners and losers.

Liberals *say* they stand for the little guy but they are constantly telling the little guy what THEY think is right for him, conservatives think the little guy is intelligent enough to make his own decisions and doesn't need the help of a government that is completely dysfunctional.

The Special Olympics ARE a wonderful thing and Eunice Kennedy should be commended for her efforts to help the mentally handicapped.  Too bad her family didn't treat their *own* handicapped child in the same manner.  

Show me some pictures of Rosemary Kennedy playing with her family AFTER the lobotomy, Bfgrn!  You contended that she wasn't hidden away...correct?  Then there should be oodles of pictures of her with the rest of the clan...right?


----------



## Oldstyle

And the real "toxic" group are the Kennedy's themselves.  They turned public service into a for profit franchise and non-profit status into a feeding trough for themselves.


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> You really are CLUELESS when it comes to the Kennedy family!  Joe Kennedy was ambassador to the Court of St. James until 1940.  Rosemary had her lobotomy in 1941 when she was 23 years old.  The picture of Rosemary that you've provided (which shows a mildly retarded but happy and functioning young woman) was taken in 1938 BEFORE Joe Kennedy had her brain scrambled.  Before that took place Rosemary was indeed always a part of family functions.  After the lobotomy Rosemary was hidden away in an institution in Wisconsin.  Her father NEVER visited her there and her mother didn't see her for TWENTY YEARS!
> 
> You really don't grasp what total "shit heels" this family has been for the better part of eighty years...do you?  It's one thing to be a bit ignorant about a subject, Bfgrn but you go way beyond that.
> 
> "The greatest enemy of truth is very often not the lie - deliberate, contrived and dishonest - but the myth - persistent, persuasive and unrealistic." --JFK, June 11, 1962
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You don't really grasp all the good this family has done for America, or the sacrifice, you can only slander. Just like your slander of Citizens Energy that has helped millions of Americans. And I'm sure you would slander Ted Kennedy who did more for every American than all the Senators in Washington combined.
> 
> I am sure if Joe Kennedy knew how that medical procedure was going to turn out, he would have never had it done.
> 
> The Kennedys are human, with all the human foibles that come with being human. But their public life is beyond reproach. Every family member is involved in public service.
> 
> The positives FAR outweigh the negatives.
> 
> Rosemary Kennedy was not forgotten, she was the inspiration behind Special Olympics. Eunice Kennedy Shriver was one of the most important and influential Americans of the 20th century. She did more to change our understanding, acceptance and assimilation of handicapped people into our society than any other person. And the Kennedy family has been involved in helping and defending the handicapped who are truly our most vulnerable and least represented citizens in any society.
> 
> &#8220;When the full judgment of the Kennedy legacy is made &#8212; including J.F.K.&#8217;s Peace Corps and Alliance for Progress, Robert Kennedy&#8217;s passion for civil rights and Ted Kennedy&#8217;s efforts on health care, workplace reform and refugees &#8212; the changes wrought by Eunice Shriver may well be seen as the most consequential,&#8221; U.S. News & World Report said in its cover story of Nov. 15, 1993.
> 
> You are toxic inside. It is who and what conservatism has metastasized into. You people can only tear down, never build.
> 
> Liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil.
> Liberals believe in raising people up, conservatives believe in pushing people down.
> Liberals believe in encouragement, conservatives believe in scorn.
> Liberals always stand up for the little guy, conservatives always stand up for the big guy.
> 
> 
> The Kennedys are liberals. I would much rather live in a country that lives up to their vision of America than the right wing authoritarians who infest our nation today.
> 
> Eunice Kennedy Shriver 1921-2009 | The Saturday Evening Post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Liberals believe people are basically helpless, conservatives believe people are at their best when they are helping themselves...something which they ARE capable of!
> 
> Liberals believe that if you pull down the successful that it will raise up those below them, conservatives believe that success is a good thing, not a character defect and should be lauded not condemned.
> 
> Liberals don't believe in competition, nor do they grasp the concept of natural selection, conservatives understand that life is a competition and that treating losers the same as winners harms both winners and losers.
> 
> Liberals *say* they stand for the little guy but they are constantly telling the little guy what THEY think is right for him, conservatives think the little guy is intelligent enough to make his own decisions and doesn't need the help of a government that is completely dysfunctional.
> 
> The Special Olympics ARE a wonderful thing and Eunice Kennedy should be commended for her efforts to help the mentally handicapped.  Too bad her family didn't treat their *own* handicapped child in the same manner.
> 
> Show me some pictures of Rosemary Kennedy playing with her family AFTER the lobotomy, Bfgrn!  You contended that she wasn't hidden away...correct?  Then there should be oodles of pictures of her with the rest of the clan...right?
Click to expand...


Standard right wing ignorant bluster. Liberals don't believe people are helpless, they are aware there are people who do need help. Especially the most vulnerable among us; children, the elderly and the disabled. Conservatives idea of swimming lessons it to throw everyone in the river, and the ones that crawl up on shore pass.

Funny, you have nothing but contempt for any success the Kennedy family achieved. Why is that?

Liberals believe in competition, conservatives believe in punishment. The current ilk of people who call themselves conservative is infested with cretins who are social Darwinists.

Survival of the richest, and let them feed on the poor and middle class with no rules for your beloved opulent CEO's.

Conservatism always has been, and always will be the domination of society by an aristocracy. It is what conservatism always strives for and always tries to build. A caste system. It is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them.

Conservatives think the little guy is intelligent enough to make his own decisions, as long as he pees in a cup and conforms to right wing dogma.


Eunice Kennedy Shriver: My sister Rosemary

_Here, we reprint the powerful *1962* article in which Eunice Kennedy Shriver talks about the tragic life of her sister Rosemary_

Forty-three years ago this month in Brookline, Massachusetts, my mother and father were looking forward with great anticipation and joy to the birth of their third child. My oldest brother, Joe, was four years old, bright, strong, aggressive, with dark eyes, a fine smile. Jack, quick, slender, independent &#8211; even at three he was interested in everything and adored by everyone. My father was 30 and my mother was 28. They loved children and would be happy to have all that God would send them.

Rosemary was born September 13 at home &#8211; a normal delivery. She was a beautiful child, resembling my mother in physical appearance. But early in life Rosemary was different. She was slower to crawl, slower to walk and speak than her two bright brothers. My mother was told she would catch up later, but she never did.

Rosemary was mentally retarded.

For a long time my family believed that all of us working together could provide my sister with a happy life in our midst. My parents, strong believers in family loyalty, rejected suggestions that Rosemary be sent away to an institution. "What can they do for her that her family can't do better?" my father would say. "We will keep her at home." And we did. For years these efforts seemed to work. My parents and the other eight children tried to include Rose in everything we did. In Hyannis Port I would take her as a crew in our boat races, and I remember that she usually could do what she was told. She was especially helpful with the jib and she loved to be in the winning boat. Winning at anything always brought a marvellous smile to her face.

She loved music, and my mother used to play the piano and sing to her. At the dining table Rose was unable to cut her meat, so it was served to her already cut.

Later on, in her teens, it was more difficult for her. In social competition she couldn't keep up. She learned to dance well enough for my brothers to take her along to parties, but it wasn't easy when Rose would say: "Why don't other boys ask me to dance?"

Yes, keeping a retarded child at home is difficult. Mother always said that the greatest problem was to get other children to play with Rose and to find time to give her all the attention she needed and deserved. Like many retarded persons, Rose loved small children and wanted to be helpful with them. Often I heard her offer her assistance to Mother with a question like, "Can I take the young children rowing, Mother?"

She loved compliments. Every time I would say "Rose, you have the best teeth and smile in the family," she would smile for hours. She liked to dress up, wear pretty clothes, have her hair fixed and her fingernails polished. When she was asked out by a friend of the family, she would be thrilled. When my father became ambassador to England, Rose came to London with us and was presented to the king and queen at Buckingham Place with mother, dad and my sister Kathleen.

Mother was worried about Rosemary in London. Would she accidentally do something dangerous when mother was occupied with some unavoidable official function? Would she get confused taking a bus and get lost among London's intricate streets? Would someone attack her? No one could watch out for Rose all the time, and she was now a grown-up girl.

In 1941, when we returned to the US, Rosemary was not making progress but seemed instead to be going backward. At 22, she was becoming increasingly irritable and difficult. Her memory and concentration and her judgment were declining. My mother took Rosemary to psychologists and dozens of doctors. All of them said her condition would not get better and that she would be far happier in an institution, where competition was far less and where our numerous activities would not endanger her health. It fills me with sadness to think this change might not have been necessary if we had known then what we know today &#8211; that 75 to 85% of the retarded are capable of becoming useful citizens with the help of special education and rehabilitation. Another 10 to 20% can learn to make small contributions, not involving book learning, such as mowing a lawn or washing dishes. Only 5% &#8211; the most severely retarded cases &#8211; must remain completely dependent all their lives.


----------



## Bfgrn

This was Eunice's eulogy for her sister Rose in 2005...

Eulogy for Rosemary Kennedy
by
Eunice Kennedy Shriver
January 10, 2005

Fr. Frederici

Fr. MacMillan

Thank you all for coming today to pray for and with my sister Rosemary. I loved her so and will miss her forever.

When we were young, Rosemary and I were often together. As you may know, we were a competitive family (pause) so in races and games, Rosie and I were sometimes teammates. Most often, she was my crew in sailing races. Even in competition, she seemed always to have a smile.

I will admit now that I sometimes yelled at Rosie on the water. Many times, when we were headed for the mark, she would let the jib go and turn to me with a smile. Get the jib Rosemary! Rosemary, look the jib is flapping. Pull it in! For Gods sake Rosemary, pull in the BLASTED JIB!! Usually, Rosie would then pull in the jib. Despite my tone, she would never lose her somewhat distant but happy smile.

Mother always appreciated that Rosie and I would race together. Well done, dear, she would often say. After one race, Dad asked how I did with Rosie. We came in 3rd Dad. For Gods sake, he thundered, Cant you do better than that? Off I went, never quite sure how to win, but always sure that Rosies smile somehow had a value of its own.

In the years that followed, Rosie and I went to Europe together. We roomed together and had laughs together. We were sistersshe would gain too much weight, and I would lose too much weight; she would write sweet letters to get Dads attention, and I would try to get my brothers attention; she would love to relax and eat big meals, and I would love to be overly active and race around outdoors. We had many wonderful days.

After Rosemary moved to Wisconsin, Mother and Dad and all of my brothers and sisters wondered how we could support her, but what we didnt realize is that she would begin a lifetime of supporting us. We talked about Joe JRs Foundation and agreed to focus it on special schools and special homes. Pat and Jean and Ethel held big fundraisers in L.A. and New York and Washington. Jack launched the great federal effortsNICHD, The Presidents Council on Mental Retardation, The University Affiliated Centers. Bobby worked to close Willowbrook. Teddy has spent 40 years changing the laws of the land. Libraries, Schools, Clinics, and treatments were created. Very Special Arts was born under Jean. Special Olympics was born. We all tried to honor her, to support her, to do what we could.

But the truth of these last 86 years reveals something much different: Rosemary has given us all so much more than we ever gave her. Over those years, Rosie visited my family at Timberlawn and always was the last one out of the pool, showing all the children the remarkable strength of her body. She was always the first to dinner showing us her constant readiness to join together in family fun. She was always at mass, patient and attentive; she always had her rosary and her faith. She worked so hard on her pronunciation, her words. She learned the names of her grand nieces and nephews. When she spoke, she spoke almost always of mother. In short, she was patient and kind; she never judged and always forgave; she never put on airs, loved to look pretty, savored chocolate and made everyone happy. She taught us all that adversity meant nothingthat it could always be fun to be together no matter what.

In Times to Remember, mother wrote, My faith and my church had great importance for meRosemary did not induce me in the least toward doubt. The more I thought, the clearer it became to me that God in his infinite wisdom did have a reason though it was hidden from me, and that in time, in some way, it would be unfolded to me. God wants something different from each of us.

Perhaps what was hidden has now become more clear to us today. Perhaps, as mother wrote, Gods will for each of us always remains a mystery, but in the last few days, Rosemarys life has, I believe, become much more clear.

In our family, we loved her and she loved us. At St. Colettas, everyone loved her and she loved themher warmth, her patience, her love of desert, her strength, her smilethese were her gifts, her reason, her life. For each of us, she inspired hopehope that we could find our way, dreams of a better world, action to achieve it.

Today, in villages and cities all over the world, Rosemarys name may be little known, but her love is making a differenceto a mother of special child, she is a success story. To a person struggling against misunderstanding and prejudice, she is a model of courage. To a family wondering how to stay hopeful, she is a symbol of the ultimate gift that sustains us all: love itself.

Like mother, the truth is that all of us wonder the meaning of a good life, a successful life, a holy life. Today, Rosie, you are the role model of them allof goodness, of success, of holiness. You love those you touched, and they loved you. You made us all happy and hopeful. You kept the faith.

Many years ago, I may have skippered us to a third place finish, but Mother and Dad and Joe and Jack and Kathleen and you together now surely know the real order of finish: you are a winner in life, a champion of all that matters.

God bless you Rosemary.

I love you.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> You don't really grasp all the good this family has done for America, or the sacrifice, you can only slander. Just like your slander of Citizens Energy that has helped millions of Americans. And I'm sure you would slander Ted Kennedy who did more for every American than all the Senators in Washington combined.
> 
> I am sure if Joe Kennedy knew how that medical procedure was going to turn out, he would have never had it done.
> 
> The Kennedys are human, with all the human foibles that come with being human. But their public life is beyond reproach. Every family member is involved in public service.
> 
> The positives FAR outweigh the negatives.
> 
> Rosemary Kennedy was not forgotten, she was the inspiration behind Special Olympics. Eunice Kennedy Shriver was one of the most important and influential Americans of the 20th century. She did more to change our understanding, acceptance and assimilation of handicapped people into our society than any other person. And the Kennedy family has been involved in helping and defending the handicapped who are truly our most vulnerable and least represented citizens in any society.
> 
> &#8220;When the full judgment of the Kennedy legacy is made &#8212; including J.F.K.&#8217;s Peace Corps and Alliance for Progress, Robert Kennedy&#8217;s passion for civil rights and Ted Kennedy&#8217;s efforts on health care, workplace reform and refugees &#8212; the changes wrought by Eunice Shriver may well be seen as the most consequential,&#8221; U.S. News & World Report said in its cover story of Nov. 15, 1993.
> 
> You are toxic inside. It is who and what conservatism has metastasized into. You people can only tear down, never build.
> 
> Liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil.
> Liberals believe in raising people up, conservatives believe in pushing people down.
> Liberals believe in encouragement, conservatives believe in scorn.
> Liberals always stand up for the little guy, conservatives always stand up for the big guy.
> 
> 
> The Kennedys are liberals. I would much rather live in a country that lives up to their vision of America than the right wing authoritarians who infest our nation today.
> 
> Eunice Kennedy Shriver 1921-2009 | The Saturday Evening Post
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals believe people are basically helpless, conservatives believe people are at their best when they are helping themselves...something which they ARE capable of!
> 
> Liberals believe that if you pull down the successful that it will raise up those below them, conservatives believe that success is a good thing, not a character defect and should be lauded not condemned.
> 
> Liberals don't believe in competition, nor do they grasp the concept of natural selection, conservatives understand that life is a competition and that treating losers the same as winners harms both winners and losers.
> 
> Liberals *say* they stand for the little guy but they are constantly telling the little guy what THEY think is right for him, conservatives think the little guy is intelligent enough to make his own decisions and doesn't need the help of a government that is completely dysfunctional.
> 
> The Special Olympics ARE a wonderful thing and Eunice Kennedy should be commended for her efforts to help the mentally handicapped.  Too bad her family didn't treat their *own* handicapped child in the same manner.
> 
> Show me some pictures of Rosemary Kennedy playing with her family AFTER the lobotomy, Bfgrn!  You contended that she wasn't hidden away...correct?  Then there should be oodles of pictures of her with the rest of the clan...right?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Standard right wing ignorant bluster. Liberals don't believe people are helpless, they are aware there are people who do need help. Especially the most vulnerable among us; children, the elderly and the disabled. Conservatives idea of swimming lessons it to throw everyone in the river, and the ones that crawl up on shore pass.
> 
> Funny, you have nothing but contempt for any success the Kennedy family achieved. Why is that?
> 
> Liberals believe in competition, conservatives believe in punishment. The current ilk of people who call themselves conservative is infested with cretins who are social Darwinists.
> 
> Survival of the richest, and let them feed on the poor and middle class with no rules for your beloved opulent CEO's.
> 
> Conservatism always has been, and always will be the domination of society by an aristocracy. It is what conservatism always strives for and always tries to build. A caste system. It is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them.
> 
> Conservatives think the little guy is intelligent enough to make his own decisions, as long as he pees in a cup and conforms to right wing dogma.
> 
> 
> Eunice Kennedy Shriver: My sister Rosemary
> 
> _Here, we reprint the powerful *1962* article in which Eunice Kennedy Shriver talks about the tragic life of her sister Rosemary_
> 
> Forty-three years ago this month in Brookline, Massachusetts, my mother and father were looking forward with great anticipation and joy to the birth of their third child. My oldest brother, Joe, was four years old, bright, strong, aggressive, with dark eyes, a fine smile. Jack, quick, slender, independent &#8211; even at three he was interested in everything and adored by everyone. My father was 30 and my mother was 28. They loved children and would be happy to have all that God would send them.
> 
> Rosemary was born September 13 at home &#8211; a normal delivery. She was a beautiful child, resembling my mother in physical appearance. But early in life Rosemary was different. She was slower to crawl, slower to walk and speak than her two bright brothers. My mother was told she would catch up later, but she never did.
> 
> Rosemary was mentally retarded.
> 
> For a long time my family believed that all of us working together could provide my sister with a happy life in our midst. My parents, strong believers in family loyalty, rejected suggestions that Rosemary be sent away to an institution. "What can they do for her that her family can't do better?" my father would say. "We will keep her at home." And we did. For years these efforts seemed to work. My parents and the other eight children tried to include Rose in everything we did. In Hyannis Port I would take her as a crew in our boat races, and I remember that she usually could do what she was told. She was especially helpful with the jib and she loved to be in the winning boat. Winning at anything always brought a marvellous smile to her face.
> 
> She loved music, and my mother used to play the piano and sing to her. At the dining table Rose was unable to cut her meat, so it was served to her already cut.
> 
> Later on, in her teens, it was more difficult for her. In social competition she couldn't keep up. She learned to dance well enough for my brothers to take her along to parties, but it wasn't easy when Rose would say: "Why don't other boys ask me to dance?"
> 
> Yes, keeping a retarded child at home is difficult. Mother always said that the greatest problem was to get other children to play with Rose and to find time to give her all the attention she needed and deserved. Like many retarded persons, Rose loved small children and wanted to be helpful with them. Often I heard her offer her assistance to Mother with a question like, "Can I take the young children rowing, Mother?"
> 
> She loved compliments. Every time I would say "Rose, you have the best teeth and smile in the family," she would smile for hours. She liked to dress up, wear pretty clothes, have her hair fixed and her fingernails polished. When she was asked out by a friend of the family, she would be thrilled. When my father became ambassador to England, Rose came to London with us and was presented to the king and queen at Buckingham Place with mother, dad and my sister Kathleen.
> 
> Mother was worried about Rosemary in London. Would she accidentally do something dangerous when mother was occupied with some unavoidable official function? Would she get confused taking a bus and get lost among London's intricate streets? Would someone attack her? No one could watch out for Rose all the time, and she was now a grown-up girl.
> 
> In 1941, when we returned to the US, Rosemary was not making progress but seemed instead to be going backward. At 22, she was becoming increasingly irritable and difficult. Her memory and concentration and her judgment were declining. My mother took Rosemary to psychologists and dozens of doctors. All of them said her condition would not get better and that she would be far happier in an institution, where competition was far less and where our numerous activities would not endanger her health. It fills me with sadness to think this change might not have been necessary if we had known then what we know today &#8211; that 75 to 85% of the retarded are capable of becoming useful citizens with the help of special education and rehabilitation. Another 10 to 20% can learn to make small contributions, not involving book learning, such as mowing a lawn or washing dishes. Only 5% &#8211; the most severely retarded cases &#8211; must remain completely dependent all their lives.
Click to expand...


So they have returned to the US and Rosemary isn't making "progress"...what happened NEXT, Bfgrn?  Why did your narrative end right before Joe Kennedy had his daughter lobotomized and put in an institution in Wisconsin for decades?  Don't REALLY want to talk about THAT...do you!  Neither do any of the Kennedy's for that matter.  That bullshit that Eunice Shriver spouted about Rosemary being put in an institution because the competition would be less and her health wouldn't be endangered by all the Kennedy "activities" is a rather appalling sanitizing of what *really* happened.  Rosemary wasn't put in that institution to protect her...she was put there because what Joe Kennedy DID turned her from a functioning retarded person to someone who was paralyzed and incontinent.

What that article put forth was the Kennedy "myth" about Rosemary.  God knows they wouldn't want the world to understand what a cold-hearted bastard Joe Kennedy Senior really was!


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberals believe people are basically helpless, conservatives believe people are at their best when they are helping themselves...something which they ARE capable of!
> 
> Liberals believe that if you pull down the successful that it will raise up those below them, conservatives believe that success is a good thing, not a character defect and should be lauded not condemned.
> 
> Liberals don't believe in competition, nor do they grasp the concept of natural selection, conservatives understand that life is a competition and that treating losers the same as winners harms both winners and losers.
> 
> Liberals *say* they stand for the little guy but they are constantly telling the little guy what THEY think is right for him, conservatives think the little guy is intelligent enough to make his own decisions and doesn't need the help of a government that is completely dysfunctional.
> 
> The Special Olympics ARE a wonderful thing and Eunice Kennedy should be commended for her efforts to help the mentally handicapped.  Too bad her family didn't treat their *own* handicapped child in the same manner.
> 
> Show me some pictures of Rosemary Kennedy playing with her family AFTER the lobotomy, Bfgrn!  You contended that she wasn't hidden away...correct?  Then there should be oodles of pictures of her with the rest of the clan...right?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Standard right wing ignorant bluster. Liberals don't believe people are helpless, they are aware there are people who do need help. Especially the most vulnerable among us; children, the elderly and the disabled. Conservatives idea of swimming lessons it to throw everyone in the river, and the ones that crawl up on shore pass.
> 
> Funny, you have nothing but contempt for any success the Kennedy family achieved. Why is that?
> 
> Liberals believe in competition, conservatives believe in punishment. The current ilk of people who call themselves conservative is infested with cretins who are social Darwinists.
> 
> Survival of the richest, and let them feed on the poor and middle class with no rules for your beloved opulent CEO's.
> 
> Conservatism always has been, and always will be the domination of society by an aristocracy. It is what conservatism always strives for and always tries to build. A caste system. It is crucial to conservatism that the people must literally love the order that dominates them.
> 
> Conservatives think the little guy is intelligent enough to make his own decisions, as long as he pees in a cup and conforms to right wing dogma.
> 
> 
> Eunice Kennedy Shriver: My sister Rosemary
> 
> _Here, we reprint the powerful *1962* article in which Eunice Kennedy Shriver talks about the tragic life of her sister Rosemary_
> 
> Forty-three years ago this month in Brookline, Massachusetts, my mother and father were looking forward with great anticipation and joy to the birth of their third child. My oldest brother, Joe, was four years old, bright, strong, aggressive, with dark eyes, a fine smile. Jack, quick, slender, independent  even at three he was interested in everything and adored by everyone. My father was 30 and my mother was 28. They loved children and would be happy to have all that God would send them.
> 
> Rosemary was born September 13 at home  a normal delivery. She was a beautiful child, resembling my mother in physical appearance. But early in life Rosemary was different. She was slower to crawl, slower to walk and speak than her two bright brothers. My mother was told she would catch up later, but she never did.
> 
> Rosemary was mentally retarded.
> 
> For a long time my family believed that all of us working together could provide my sister with a happy life in our midst. My parents, strong believers in family loyalty, rejected suggestions that Rosemary be sent away to an institution. "What can they do for her that her family can't do better?" my father would say. "We will keep her at home." And we did. For years these efforts seemed to work. My parents and the other eight children tried to include Rose in everything we did. In Hyannis Port I would take her as a crew in our boat races, and I remember that she usually could do what she was told. She was especially helpful with the jib and she loved to be in the winning boat. Winning at anything always brought a marvellous smile to her face.
> 
> She loved music, and my mother used to play the piano and sing to her. At the dining table Rose was unable to cut her meat, so it was served to her already cut.
> 
> Later on, in her teens, it was more difficult for her. In social competition she couldn't keep up. She learned to dance well enough for my brothers to take her along to parties, but it wasn't easy when Rose would say: "Why don't other boys ask me to dance?"
> 
> Yes, keeping a retarded child at home is difficult. Mother always said that the greatest problem was to get other children to play with Rose and to find time to give her all the attention she needed and deserved. Like many retarded persons, Rose loved small children and wanted to be helpful with them. Often I heard her offer her assistance to Mother with a question like, "Can I take the young children rowing, Mother?"
> 
> She loved compliments. Every time I would say "Rose, you have the best teeth and smile in the family," she would smile for hours. She liked to dress up, wear pretty clothes, have her hair fixed and her fingernails polished. When she was asked out by a friend of the family, she would be thrilled. When my father became ambassador to England, Rose came to London with us and was presented to the king and queen at Buckingham Place with mother, dad and my sister Kathleen.
> 
> Mother was worried about Rosemary in London. Would she accidentally do something dangerous when mother was occupied with some unavoidable official function? Would she get confused taking a bus and get lost among London's intricate streets? Would someone attack her? No one could watch out for Rose all the time, and she was now a grown-up girl.
> 
> In 1941, when we returned to the US, Rosemary was not making progress but seemed instead to be going backward. At 22, she was becoming increasingly irritable and difficult. Her memory and concentration and her judgment were declining. My mother took Rosemary to psychologists and dozens of doctors. All of them said her condition would not get better and that she would be far happier in an institution, where competition was far less and where our numerous activities would not endanger her health. It fills me with sadness to think this change might not have been necessary if we had known then what we know today  that 75 to 85% of the retarded are capable of becoming useful citizens with the help of special education and rehabilitation. Another 10 to 20% can learn to make small contributions, not involving book learning, such as mowing a lawn or washing dishes. Only 5%  the most severely retarded cases  must remain completely dependent all their lives.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So they have returned to the US and Rosemary isn't making "progress"...what happened NEXT, Bfgrn?  Why did your narrative end right before Joe Kennedy had his daughter lobotomized and put in an institution in Wisconsin for decades?  Don't REALLY want to talk about THAT...do you!  Neither do any of the Kennedy's for that matter.  That bullshit that Eunice Shriver spouted about Rosemary being put in an institution because the competition would be less and her health wouldn't be endangered by all the Kennedy "activities" is a rather appalling sanitizing of what *really* happened.  Rosemary wasn't put in that institution to protect her...she was put there because what Joe Kennedy DID turned her from a functioning retarded person to someone who was paralyzed and incontinent.
> 
> What that article put forth was the Kennedy "myth" about Rosemary.  God knows they wouldn't want the world to understand what a cold-hearted bastard Joe Kennedy Senior really was!
Click to expand...


You are trying so hard to slander the Kennedy family that your blind hatred is only revealing how you think and just how septic your mind is.

Everything about the Kennedys is deeply sinister in your septic mind. But it wasn't sinister, it was a stigma all parents who had a retarded child faced in those days. 

NO FAMILY on the face of this earth did MORE that the Kennedy family to wipe away that stigma. 

What happened to Rosemary is tragic, but I am sure Joe Kennedy made that decision because he believed the procedure would make Rosemary better, not worse.

That article was published in 1962. WHO was President in 1962?


----------



## Oldstyle

John Fitzgerald Kennedy was President in 1962 and the "Camelot" myth making machine was in high gear.  Your article by Eunice Shriver is a PERFECT example of how the Kennedy's put out stories about Rosemary Kennedy that fit the image of what they wanted the world to see and had little to do with the reality of what had been done to the oldest Kennedy daughter. 

I'm still waiting to see some pictures of Rosemary taking part in the everyday life of the Kennedy's after her lobotomy!  You accused me of slandering the Kennedy's when I said that didn't happen.  So let's see the pictures of Rosemary with her family post lobotomy!  Either that or admit that you naively bought into the Kennedy propaganda about the oldest daughter....


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> John Fitzgerald Kennedy was President in 1962 and the "Camelot" myth making machine was in high gear.  Your article by Eunice Shriver is a PERFECT example of how the Kennedy's put out stories about Rosemary Kennedy that fit the image of what they wanted the world to see and had little to do with the reality of what had been done to the oldest Kennedy daughter.
> 
> I'm still waiting to see some pictures of Rosemary taking part in the everyday life of the Kennedy's after her lobotomy!  You accused me of slandering the Kennedy's when I said that didn't happen.  So let's see the pictures of Rosemary with her family post lobotomy!  Either that or admit that you naively bought into the Kennedy propaganda about the oldest daughter....



Admitting that one of the Kennedy family is mentally retarded is ""Camelot" myth making"?

Your deep hatred for anything Kennedy is clear. You only see 'evil'...

One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
Edmund Burke


----------



## thanatos144

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Fitzgerald Kennedy was President in 1962 and the "Camelot" myth making machine was in high gear.  Your article by Eunice Shriver is a PERFECT example of how the Kennedy's put out stories about Rosemary Kennedy that fit the image of what they wanted the world to see and had little to do with the reality of what had been done to the oldest Kennedy daughter.
> 
> I'm still waiting to see some pictures of Rosemary taking part in the everyday life of the Kennedy's after her lobotomy!  You accused me of slandering the Kennedy's when I said that didn't happen.  So let's see the pictures of Rosemary with her family post lobotomy!  Either that or admit that you naively bought into the Kennedy propaganda about the oldest daughter....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admitting that one of the Kennedy family is mentally retarded is ""Camelot" myth making"?
> 
> Your deep hatred for anything Kennedy is clear. You only see 'evil'...
> 
> One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
> Edmund Burke
Click to expand...


It is a myth because facts don't match with your tales 

tapatalk post


----------



## Bfgrn

thanatos144 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Fitzgerald Kennedy was President in 1962 and the "Camelot" myth making machine was in high gear.  Your article by Eunice Shriver is a PERFECT example of how the Kennedy's put out stories about Rosemary Kennedy that fit the image of what they wanted the world to see and had little to do with the reality of what had been done to the oldest Kennedy daughter.
> 
> I'm still waiting to see some pictures of Rosemary taking part in the everyday life of the Kennedy's after her lobotomy!  You accused me of slandering the Kennedy's when I said that didn't happen.  So let's see the pictures of Rosemary with her family post lobotomy!  Either that or admit that you naively bought into the Kennedy propaganda about the oldest daughter....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admitting that one of the Kennedy family is mentally retarded is ""Camelot" myth making"?
> 
> Your deep hatred for anything Kennedy is clear. You only see 'evil'...
> 
> One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It is a myth because facts don't match with your tales
> 
> tapatalk post
Click to expand...


Why don't you go play with your friends before the street lights come on and your mommy calls you in. You are mentally retarded.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Fitzgerald Kennedy was President in 1962 and the "Camelot" myth making machine was in high gear.  Your article by Eunice Shriver is a PERFECT example of how the Kennedy's put out stories about Rosemary Kennedy that fit the image of what they wanted the world to see and had little to do with the reality of what had been done to the oldest Kennedy daughter.
> 
> I'm still waiting to see some pictures of Rosemary taking part in the everyday life of the Kennedy's after her lobotomy!  You accused me of slandering the Kennedy's when I said that didn't happen.  So let's see the pictures of Rosemary with her family post lobotomy!  Either that or admit that you naively bought into the Kennedy propaganda about the oldest daughter....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admitting that one of the Kennedy family is mentally retarded is ""Camelot" myth making"?
> 
> Your deep hatred for anything Kennedy is clear. You only see 'evil'...
> 
> One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
> Edmund Burke
Click to expand...


Pretending that Rosemary was put into an institution because the "competitive" nature of the Kennedy household was harmful to her is the "myth".  She went into that institution because Joe Kennedy Senior had a lobotomy performed on her that pretty much turned her into a vegetable...and the REASON he did so was that he was worried her behavior might prove to be embarrassing to the political aspirations of their family.  I'm not sure if I'd describe that as "evil" but it's fits the bill for disgusting.


----------



## Oldstyle

So did you want to provide some photos of Rosemary "at play" with the rest of the Kennedy's following her lobotomy...or did you want to admit that you were *wrong* when you accused me of "slandering" the Kennedy's when I said that she was hidden away in an institution?


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> John Fitzgerald Kennedy was President in 1962 and the "Camelot" myth making machine was in high gear.  Your article by Eunice Shriver is a PERFECT example of how the Kennedy's put out stories about Rosemary Kennedy that fit the image of what they wanted the world to see and had little to do with the reality of what had been done to the oldest Kennedy daughter.
> 
> I'm still waiting to see some pictures of Rosemary taking part in the everyday life of the Kennedy's after her lobotomy!  You accused me of slandering the Kennedy's when I said that didn't happen.  So let's see the pictures of Rosemary with her family post lobotomy!  Either that or admit that you naively bought into the Kennedy propaganda about the oldest daughter....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Admitting that one of the Kennedy family is mentally retarded is ""Camelot" myth making"?
> 
> Your deep hatred for anything Kennedy is clear. You only see 'evil'...
> 
> One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Pretending that Rosemary was put into an institution because the "competitive" nature of the Kennedy household was harmful to her is the "myth".  She went into that institution because Joe Kennedy Senior had a lobotomy performed on her that pretty much turned her into a vegetable...and the REASON he did so was that he was worried her behavior might prove to be embarrassing to the political aspirations of their family.  I'm not sure if I'd describe that as "evil" but it's fits the bill for disgusting.
Click to expand...


I am sure Joe Kennedy made that decision based on a belief it would make his daughter better, not worse. But you continue to ascribe sinister motives to everything the Kennedy's did. That only tells us who you are, not the Kennedy's.


----------



## Oldstyle

Bfgrn said:


> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Admitting that one of the Kennedy family is mentally retarded is ""Camelot" myth making"?
> 
> Your deep hatred for anything Kennedy is clear. You only see 'evil'...
> 
> One that confounds good and evil is an enemy to good.
> Edmund Burke
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pretending that Rosemary was put into an institution because the "competitive" nature of the Kennedy household was harmful to her is the "myth".  She went into that institution because Joe Kennedy Senior had a lobotomy performed on her that pretty much turned her into a vegetable...and the REASON he did so was that he was worried her behavior might prove to be embarrassing to the political aspirations of their family.  I'm not sure if I'd describe that as "evil" but it's fits the bill for disgusting.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am sure Joe Kennedy made that decision based on a belief it would make his daughter better, not worse. But you continue to ascribe sinister motives to everything the Kennedy's did. That only tells us who you are, not the Kennedy's.
Click to expand...


Yeah, and I suppose that's why Joe never told his wife what he was about to do to their daughter?  The sad fact is that Joe made that decision based on what he thought would make his son's political aspirations better.  He didn't want Rosemary to do anything that would embarrass the family.  Joe Kennedy didn't accept failure from his children.  He raised "winners".

So did you want to show me the pictures of Rosemary attending family functions after her lobotomy?  Or did you want to admit that those very nice pictures you provided of a smiling and happy young lady all came from BEFORE that took place because AFTER Rosemary was hidden away out in Wisconsin!


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oldstyle said:
> 
> 
> 
> Pretending that Rosemary was put into an institution because the "competitive" nature of the Kennedy household was harmful to her is the "myth".  She went into that institution because Joe Kennedy Senior had a lobotomy performed on her that pretty much turned her into a vegetable...and the REASON he did so was that he was worried her behavior might prove to be embarrassing to the political aspirations of their family.  I'm not sure if I'd describe that as "evil" but it's fits the bill for disgusting.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am sure Joe Kennedy made that decision based on a belief it would make his daughter better, not worse. But you continue to ascribe sinister motives to everything the Kennedy's did. That only tells us who you are, not the Kennedy's.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah, and I suppose that's why Joe never told his wife what he was about to do to their daughter?  The sad fact is that Joe made that decision based on what he thought would make his son's political aspirations better.  He didn't want Rosemary to do anything that would embarrass the family.  Joe Kennedy didn't accept failure from his children.  He raised "winners".
> 
> So did you want to show me the pictures of Rosemary attending family functions after her lobotomy?  Or did you want to admit that those very nice pictures you provided of a smiling and happy young lady all came from BEFORE that took place because AFTER Rosemary was hidden away out in Wisconsin!
Click to expand...


If Joe Kennedy made decisions based on what he thought would make his son's political aspirations better, or because he didn't want Rosemary to do anything that would embarrass the family, he would have left her home when he was appointed Ambassador to England. Especially in the 1930's when mental retardation or low IQ was highly stigmatized and seen as a moral deficiency.

Rosemary's "slowness" was unconventional and daring for a debut (two of the queen's nieces remained in a mental hospital because they were mentally ill).

AGAIN, your slander of the Kennedys only tells me who and what YOU are. You don't know someone elses motives, and you were not there.


----------



## Oldstyle

And what were Joe's "motives" when he ordered a lobotomy performed on his daughter without informing his own wife...the child's MOTHER...of what he was about to do?  

I guess I shouldn't waste my time asking you for those photos of Rosemary attending family functions after Joe *took care of her*...should I?  Did you want to admit that you were full of shit with that claim now...or did you want to keep avoiding the subject?


----------



## Bfgrn

Oldstyle said:


> And what were Joe's "motives" when he ordered a lobotomy performed on his daughter without informing his own wife...the child's MOTHER...of what he was about to do?
> 
> I guess I shouldn't waste my time asking you for those photos of Rosemary attending family functions after Joe *took care of her*...should I?  Did you want to admit that you were full of shit with that claim now...or did you want to keep avoiding the subject?



It was a bad decision. I am sure a father would be heartbroken over how it turned out. But Kennedys don't have hearts, right Oldstyle? They are inherently evil.

There are no pictures. But she did occasionally visit relatives in Florida and Washington, D.C., and to her childhood home on Cape Cod. I admit I was wrong. Unlike you, I can admit when I am wrong.


----------

