On this day of JFK's birthday, what would he be ashamed of most?

[The Sage of Main Street]

It was the liberals who believed that we in the USA should tell everyone else in the world how to live and who should be their leaders. USA intervention has been the direct of liberal mindsets that believe that only we have the answers. Its the height or arrogance and the direct cause of 58,000 American deaths in viet nam.

The Multiculties' Reality Check Bounced

It was the Liberals' refusal to accept that racial inferiority is a fact which led us to count on the South Vietnamese, who were crooks, cowards, and collaborators. No one is allowed to criticize the war for that reason, yet everyone who served there knew what trash the Vietnamese were. The Conservatives who called them "freedom fighters" were just as ignorantly anti-racist, like John McCain was later about the Syrians in "Arab Spring." What you're referring to is the sheltered and arrogant ignorance of those born in the ruling class, who can be either Liberal or Conservative. In fact, ideology has no meaning; it is a spitball fight at a prep school.

 

[my2¢]

I'll have to go with Marilyn's death.

 

[Pogo]

But I do believe this war started during Eisenhower.

Eisenhower sent the first "advisers" to Vietnam.

escalated by Kennedy and Johnson and ended by Nixon. The USA declared defeat and let 58,000 American die for nothing.

No, actually it was the warmongers who insisted on our getting in the middle of a Civil War that killed 58,000

It was the Jane Fonda's of the world who kept the number from being higher

amazingly stupid and uninformed. Jane Fonda was a traitor who should have been sent to jail for the rest of her life. Were Kennedy and Johnson war mongers?

It was the liberals who believed that we in the USA should tell everyone else in the world how to live and who should be their leaders. USA intervention has been the direct of liberal mindsets that believe that only we have the answers. Its the height or arrogance and the direct cause of 58,000 American deaths in viet nam.

Nope. It was Harry Truman, who was no Liberal and acting on bad advice (Jimmy Byrnes especially) that he didn't bother to vet, that took us down that path. And it was John Foster Dulles, giving Eisenhower the same kind of bad advice that Ike didn't bother to vet, who got us into Vietnam on that same path.

Those aren't "Liberals" or "Conservatives". Those are power-hungry war opportunists, steering the President into dead-end policies. JFK as an intellectual didn't seem to be swayable as such.

Perhaps JFK would be most ashamed that his running mate LBJ then continued to continue down that same path, followed in turn by Nixon, who he defeated in 1960.

 

[Pogo]

I think he would be saddened to see that his party actually considered running a Socialist.

Sure he came with baggage (but in all fairness who wouldn't want to nail Marilyn Monroe?), but he also owned up to his mistakes in office, was a war hero, and had respect for his opposition.

President Kennedy couldn't be a Democrat today.

Kennedy came into office in 1961 --- after years of high tax rates to pay for World War Two during times when this country, untouched by that war outside of Pearl Harbor and therefore not in ruins having to reconstruct -- had plenty of income to tax. By the 1960s there simply was room for a tax cut. Has nothing to do with political parties.

 

[Pogo]

By "party" I meant voters that belong to that party, not the actual political party itself.

Irrelevant. The voters that belong to that party, or voters in general, don't choose the candidate. The party itself chooses the candidate. Regardless of any primaries (again, see Republican convention, 1912). A political party is a private organization -- it does whatever it wants. "Voters" don't have a say in it. Oh they'll construct a massive "primary" circus to make it look like voters are involved. They ain't.

What's the difference between a "democratic socialist" and a "socialist".

You tell me --- you're the one who chose to change the term. Why'd you do that?

I disagree that the electorate got fucked. Do I think both Trump and Hillary were awful candidates? Absolutely. Do I think that both parties dropped the ball? Absolutely. Do I think either party actually gives a shit? No, I don't.

So you "disagree" --- and then you proceed to agree. Pass the dramamine.

You know who I blame? The American voters who keep voting the same assholes into office...and then complain about the same assholes being in office.

See above. What the hell choice did they have? Maybe that's why 45% of the electorate said "fuck it" and didn't bother to vote at all. Ya think?

Third party.

Oh and I called Sanders a "socialist"--you're the one who claimed he was actually a "democratic socialist". I simply asked you to explain the difference. If you can't support your claims, then I suggest that your arguments are rather weak.

YOU made the assertion, Sparkles. I just corrected it.

So why did you change it in the first place? Not very honest, is it.

As for having third party as a choice (in the final election) only voters in locked-red or locked-blue states have that, and by definition since their state is locked it's going to have zero effect. I've done it and it's completely unsatisfying to pore down the state's totals and go "see that little number -- I'm in there". It makes bupkis difference. You might as well have stayed home for all the effect it had.

-What did I change? You stated I changed something?

-A "democratic socialist" is a "socialist"...hence the second word in the title.

-Third parties (over the course of time) CAN eventually be major parties. Hell we have one right now that has the presidency, the House and the Senate. Would you have told the people who voted Republican back in the 1800's that their votes were useless and wouldn't ever affect America?

The Republican Party is in no way a "third" party. It's one of the Duopoly that makes any upstart party a "third" --- the presence of a first (Democratic) and second (Republican). Fer chrissakes it's over 150 years old.

 

[Pogo]

Kennedy fell for the classic blunder.
Never get involved in a land war in Asia.

Yeah -- again, that's Eisenhower. And Truman before him in a different country.

 

[rightwinger]

But I do believe this war started during Eisenhower.

Eisenhower sent the first "advisers" to Vietnam.

escalated by Kennedy and Johnson and ended by Nixon. The USA declared defeat and let 58,000 American die for nothing.

No, actually it was the warmongers who insisted on our getting in the middle of a Civil War that killed 58,000

It was the Jane Fonda's of the world who kept the number from being higher

amazingly stupid and uninformed. Jane Fonda was a traitor who should have been sent to jail for the rest of her life. Were Kennedy and Johnson war mongers?

It was the liberals who believed that we in the USA should tell everyone else in the world how to live and who should be their leaders. USA intervention has been the direct of liberal mindsets that believe that only we have the answers. Its the height or arrogance and the direct cause of 58,000 American deaths in viet nam.

Nope. It was Harry Truman, who was no Liberal and acting on bad advice (Jimmy Byrnes especially) that he didn't bother to vet, that took us down that path. And it was John Foster Dulles, giving Eisenhower the same kind of bad advice that Ike didn't bother to vet, who got us into Vietnam on that same path.

Those aren't "Liberals" or "Conservatives". Those are power-hungry war opportunists, steering the President into dead-end policies. JFK as an intellectual didn't seem to be swayable as such.

Perhaps JFK would be most ashamed that his running mate LBJ then continued to continue down that same path, followed in turn by Nixon, who he defeated in 1960.

I think LBJ played out JFKs second term the same way Jack would have

LBJ had the same Sec Defense (McNamara) that JFK did. Jack would have gotten the same rotten advice

This thing is a no brainer, you don't want Viet Nam to go commie on your watch, Domino Theory, We will quickly win with minimal losses, The South Vietnamese will do most of the fighting

JFK would have played Viet Nam the same way LBJ did

 

[Pogo]

Democrat party is a proper name. democrat is an adjective and as such should not be capitalized.

"Democrat party" isn't the name of anything Homer. Not in this language.

What's more, democrat, even with a small D meaning a generic advocate of democracy, isn't an adjective anyway --- it's a NOUN. The adjective would be democratic.

Besides all of which, you used the noun democrat with a small D, which means an advocate of democracy, regardless of political party. Now if you had said Democrat you'd be referring to some member of that party.

Reading is a lost art.

Give me the names of current democrats who would say what Kennedy said, or even believe in the concept he was advocating for.

You want a list of registered Democrats?

Not interested -- do your own research. Contact the DNC.

oh geez, grammar 101. nugatory and histrionic

Not a single democrat believes or would say what Kennedy said. Kennedy would be a republican if he was alive today. Not one of today's democrats would call Russia's bluff and do a Cuban blockade, not one would dedicate the country to putting a man on the moon and bringing him back safely. Today's dems are interested in creating an ever larger dependent class that will keep them and their cronies in power and allow them to get rich at the taxpayers' expense.

Link?

Yeah didn't think so.

Look over to the left for a key called "Shift". It's used to type capital letters when rendering a proper name.

 

[Pogo]

Eisenhower sent the first "advisers" to Vietnam.

escalated by Kennedy and Johnson and ended by Nixon. The USA declared defeat and let 58,000 American die for nothing.

No, actually it was the warmongers who insisted on our getting in the middle of a Civil War that killed 58,000

It was the Jane Fonda's of the world who kept the number from being higher

amazingly stupid and uninformed. Jane Fonda was a traitor who should have been sent to jail for the rest of her life. Were Kennedy and Johnson war mongers?

It was the liberals who believed that we in the USA should tell everyone else in the world how to live and who should be their leaders. USA intervention has been the direct of liberal mindsets that believe that only we have the answers. Its the height or arrogance and the direct cause of 58,000 American deaths in viet nam.

Nope. It was Harry Truman, who was no Liberal and acting on bad advice (Jimmy Byrnes especially) that he didn't bother to vet, that took us down that path. And it was John Foster Dulles, giving Eisenhower the same kind of bad advice that Ike didn't bother to vet, who got us into Vietnam on that same path.

Those aren't "Liberals" or "Conservatives". Those are power-hungry war opportunists, steering the President into dead-end policies. JFK as an intellectual didn't seem to be swayable as such.

Perhaps JFK would be most ashamed that his running mate LBJ then continued to continue down that same path, followed in turn by Nixon, who he defeated in 1960.

I think LBJ played out JFKs second term the same way Jack would have

LBJ had the same Sec Defense (McNamara) that JFK did. Jack would have gotten the same rotten advice

This thing is a no brainer, you don't want Viet Nam to go commie on your watch, Domino Theory, We will quickly win with minimal losses, The South Vietnamese will do most of the fighting

JFK would have played Viet Nam the same way LBJ did

I doubt it. JFK was a lot smarter; he was already making noises about severing that dead end, once he got re-elected.

The whole commie-bash/domino thing was still strong at the time, no doubt about that (thanks Truman), but JFK could have articulated the case against it. He also knew not to push it before re-election.

 

[Scamp]

Kennedy fell for the classic blunder.
Never get involved in a land war in Asia.

Yeah -- again, that's Eisenhower. And Truman before him in a different country.

Eisenhower sent about 700 military personnel to Vietnam. Kennedy sent about 16,000.

 

[rightwinger]

escalated by Kennedy and Johnson and ended by Nixon. The USA declared defeat and let 58,000 American die for nothing.

No, actually it was the warmongers who insisted on our getting in the middle of a Civil War that killed 58,000

It was the Jane Fonda's of the world who kept the number from being higher

amazingly stupid and uninformed. Jane Fonda was a traitor who should have been sent to jail for the rest of her life. Were Kennedy and Johnson war mongers?

It was the liberals who believed that we in the USA should tell everyone else in the world how to live and who should be their leaders. USA intervention has been the direct of liberal mindsets that believe that only we have the answers. Its the height or arrogance and the direct cause of 58,000 American deaths in viet nam.

Nope. It was Harry Truman, who was no Liberal and acting on bad advice (Jimmy Byrnes especially) that he didn't bother to vet, that took us down that path. And it was John Foster Dulles, giving Eisenhower the same kind of bad advice that Ike didn't bother to vet, who got us into Vietnam on that same path.

Those aren't "Liberals" or "Conservatives". Those are power-hungry war opportunists, steering the President into dead-end policies. JFK as an intellectual didn't seem to be swayable as such.

Perhaps JFK would be most ashamed that his running mate LBJ then continued to continue down that same path, followed in turn by Nixon, who he defeated in 1960.

I think LBJ played out JFKs second term the same way Jack would have

LBJ had the same Sec Defense (McNamara) that JFK did. Jack would have gotten the same rotten advice

This thing is a no brainer, you don't want Viet Nam to go commie on your watch, Domino Theory, We will quickly win with minimal losses, The South Vietnamese will do most of the fighting

JFK would have played Viet Nam the same way LBJ did

I doubt it. JFK was a lot smarter; he was already making noises about severing that dead end, once he got re-elected.

The whole commie-bash/domino thing was still strong at the time, no doubt about that (thanks Truman), but JFK could have articulated the case against it. He also knew not to push it before re-election.

I think after JFKs assassination, he was glorified as never making a bad decision (Bay of Pigs) and his ability to foresee Viet Nam is overstated

I think ANY politician of either party would have gotten us into Viet Nam. JFK faced an election in 1964. He was not going to run on being soft on Communism. Nobody would.
LBJ said he hated the idea of going into Viet Nam....but he wasn't going to let it go Communist on his watch
LBJ went in on the assumption that South Viet Nam just needed a "little help" to turn the tide. South Viet Nam was totally corrupt and worthless and we ended up sending in more and more troops a little at a time

JFK would have fallen into the same trap


.

 

[Pogo]

No, actually it was the warmongers who insisted on our getting in the middle of a Civil War that killed 58,000

It was the Jane Fonda's of the world who kept the number from being higher

amazingly stupid and uninformed. Jane Fonda was a traitor who should have been sent to jail for the rest of her life. Were Kennedy and Johnson war mongers?

It was the liberals who believed that we in the USA should tell everyone else in the world how to live and who should be their leaders. USA intervention has been the direct of liberal mindsets that believe that only we have the answers. Its the height or arrogance and the direct cause of 58,000 American deaths in viet nam.

Nope. It was Harry Truman, who was no Liberal and acting on bad advice (Jimmy Byrnes especially) that he didn't bother to vet, that took us down that path. And it was John Foster Dulles, giving Eisenhower the same kind of bad advice that Ike didn't bother to vet, who got us into Vietnam on that same path.

Those aren't "Liberals" or "Conservatives". Those are power-hungry war opportunists, steering the President into dead-end policies. JFK as an intellectual didn't seem to be swayable as such.

Perhaps JFK would be most ashamed that his running mate LBJ then continued to continue down that same path, followed in turn by Nixon, who he defeated in 1960.

I think LBJ played out JFKs second term the same way Jack would have

LBJ had the same Sec Defense (McNamara) that JFK did. Jack would have gotten the same rotten advice

This thing is a no brainer, you don't want Viet Nam to go commie on your watch, Domino Theory, We will quickly win with minimal losses, The South Vietnamese will do most of the fighting

JFK would have played Viet Nam the same way LBJ did

I doubt it. JFK was a lot smarter; he was already making noises about severing that dead end, once he got re-elected.

The whole commie-bash/domino thing was still strong at the time, no doubt about that (thanks Truman), but JFK could have articulated the case against it. He also knew not to push it before re-election.

I think after JFKs assassination, he was glorified as never making a bad decision (Bay of Pigs) and his ability to foresee Viet Nam is overstated

I think ANY politician of either party would have gotten us into Viet Nam. JFK faced an election in 1964. He was not going to run on being soft on Communism. Nobody would.
LBJ said he hated the idea of going into Viet Nam....but he wasn't going to let it go Communist on his watch
LBJ went in on the assumption that South Viet Nam just needed a "little help" to turn the tide. South Viet Nam was totally corrupt and worthless and we ended up sending in more and more troops a little at a time

JFK would have fallen into the same trap

But again, that's why he wouldn't have campaigned on it and would have manifested it after getting re-elected. Kind of Woodrow Wilson 1916 in reverse.

Kennedy had already given indications he knew it was a dead end, and had already given other indications he would defy the MIC/CIA/FBI/etc --- which defiance might have gotten him killed.

Without question JFK has been glorified as a direct result of assassination, but that doesn't mean he had no backbone. We can only speculate on what might have been but JFK appeared heading in the other direction. LBJ reversed his course.

 

[Pogo]

Kennedy fell for the classic blunder.
Never get involved in a land war in Asia.

Yeah -- again, that's Eisenhower. And Truman before him in a different country.

Eisenhower sent about 700 military personnel to Vietnam. Kennedy sent about 16,000.

And before Eisenhower caved to Dulless and did that -- we sent 0.
You want a starting point --- there it is. The moment "0" becomes ">0".

 

[Markle]

Going from a 38 percent highest tax bracket to a 70 percent?

The top income tax rate in 1963 was 91%.

What you left out is that, at the time (1963), anyone (a single person) earning $4,000 per year or less paid income tax at the rate of 20%. Adjusted for inflation, that would be $31,800.00 per year. That translates to everyone earning LESS THAN $31,800 PER YEAR WOULD PAY 20% INCOME TAX. Gosh, that sure would eliminate that 48% that pay no income tax today! Way to go!

As for the top rate of your beloved 91% in 1963, that was paid by those earning over $400,000.00 Adjusted for inflation, that would be $3,186,770.00 today. Do you want to tell us that 1% of the nation earns of 3.2 MILLION PER YEAR? Really?

In the same year, employees paid 3.625% for Social Security and the employer paid nothing. Not quite the 15.2% of today.

Now, do you really want to go back to those rates? Are you aware of the long, long list of deductions in 1963? All interest on everything and the list goes on.

https://www.tax-brackets.org/federaltaxtable/1963

FICA & SECA Tax Rates

The Inflation Calculator

 

[rightwinger]

Going from a 38 percent highest tax bracket to a 70 percent?

The top income tax rate in 1963 was 91%.

Kennedy dropped it to 70 percent

I am willing to go with JFKs tax rate for the highest bracket. Conservatives honor him for giving us a 70% tax rate

 

[mgh80]

By "party" I meant voters that belong to that party, not the actual political party itself.

Irrelevant. The voters that belong to that party, or voters in general, don't choose the candidate. The party itself chooses the candidate. Regardless of any primaries (again, see Republican convention, 1912). A political party is a private organization -- it does whatever it wants. "Voters" don't have a say in it. Oh they'll construct a massive "primary" circus to make it look like voters are involved. They ain't.

What's the difference between a "democratic socialist" and a "socialist".

You tell me --- you're the one who chose to change the term. Why'd you do that?

I disagree that the electorate got fucked. Do I think both Trump and Hillary were awful candidates? Absolutely. Do I think that both parties dropped the ball? Absolutely. Do I think either party actually gives a shit? No, I don't.

So you "disagree" --- and then you proceed to agree. Pass the dramamine.

You know who I blame? The American voters who keep voting the same assholes into office...and then complain about the same assholes being in office.

See above. What the hell choice did they have? Maybe that's why 45% of the electorate said "fuck it" and didn't bother to vote at all. Ya think?

Third party.

Oh and I called Sanders a "socialist"--you're the one who claimed he was actually a "democratic socialist". I simply asked you to explain the difference. If you can't support your claims, then I suggest that your arguments are rather weak.

YOU made the assertion, Sparkles. I just corrected it.

So why did you change it in the first place? Not very honest, is it.

As for having third party as a choice (in the final election) only voters in locked-red or locked-blue states have that, and by definition since their state is locked it's going to have zero effect. I've done it and it's completely unsatisfying to pore down the state's totals and go "see that little number -- I'm in there". It makes bupkis difference. You might as well have stayed home for all the effect it had.

-What did I change? You stated I changed something?

-A "democratic socialist" is a "socialist"...hence the second word in the title.

-Third parties (over the course of time) CAN eventually be major parties. Hell we have one right now that has the presidency, the House and the Senate. Would you have told the people who voted Republican back in the 1800's that their votes were useless and wouldn't ever affect America?

The Republican Party is in no way a "third" party. It's one of the Duopoly that makes any upstart party a "third" --- the presence of a first (Democratic) and second (Republican). Fer chrissakes it's over 150 years old.

Re-read my post. I stated that third parties over time can rise to power and cited the Republicans.

The Republican Party WAS a third party (to the Whigs and Democrats).

The fact that the part is over 150 years old (your words-not mine), proves my point since our country is ~250 years old.

It's ok to be wrong. Everybody is wrong at times. Own it and move on.

 

[Pogo]

Irrelevant. The voters that belong to that party, or voters in general, don't choose the candidate. The party itself chooses the candidate. Regardless of any primaries (again, see Republican convention, 1912). A political party is a private organization -- it does whatever it wants. "Voters" don't have a say in it. Oh they'll construct a massive "primary" circus to make it look like voters are involved. They ain't.


You tell me --- you're the one who chose to change the term. Why'd you do that?


So you "disagree" --- and then you proceed to agree. Pass the dramamine.

See above. What the hell choice did they have? Maybe that's why 45% of the electorate said "fuck it" and didn't bother to vote at all. Ya think?

Third party.

Oh and I called Sanders a "socialist"--you're the one who claimed he was actually a "democratic socialist". I simply asked you to explain the difference. If you can't support your claims, then I suggest that your arguments are rather weak.

YOU made the assertion, Sparkles. I just corrected it.

So why did you change it in the first place? Not very honest, is it.

As for having third party as a choice (in the final election) only voters in locked-red or locked-blue states have that, and by definition since their state is locked it's going to have zero effect. I've done it and it's completely unsatisfying to pore down the state's totals and go "see that little number -- I'm in there". It makes bupkis difference. You might as well have stayed home for all the effect it had.

-What did I change? You stated I changed something?

-A "democratic socialist" is a "socialist"...hence the second word in the title.

-Third parties (over the course of time) CAN eventually be major parties. Hell we have one right now that has the presidency, the House and the Senate. Would you have told the people who voted Republican back in the 1800's that their votes were useless and wouldn't ever affect America?

The Republican Party is in no way a "third" party. It's one of the Duopoly that makes any upstart party a "third" --- the presence of a first (Democratic) and second (Republican). Fer chrissakes it's over 150 years old.

Re-read my post. I stated that third parties over time can rise to power and cited the Republicans.

The Republican Party WAS a third party (to the Whigs and Democrats).

The fact that the part is over 150 years old (your words-not mine), proves my point since our country is ~250 years old.

It's ok to be wrong. Everybody is wrong at times. Own it and move on.

WRONG. The Whigs were already gone by then. Abe Lincoln had been one. The RP drew its population largely FROM the ex-Whigs.... who didn't have a party any more. It had collapsed. The Know Nothings collapsed around the same time. By then only the Democratic Party was surviving as a viable organization -- the race was on to establish a viable second party to challenge it with comparable force. That's what the RP did. Many tried, the RP held on and became that second party. And it's been Duopoly ever since.

An example of a "third party" at the time would be the short-lived Constitutional Union party which ran John Bell in 1860. That party was another offshoot of ex-Whigs.

There have been other third parties but none made much of a splash against the Duopoly, excepting Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 who came in second, pushed the Republican to third place and handed Wilson the election. But TR was already a former POTUS who had won the primaries and was denied the nomination by the Republican Party, so he already had a support base directly from the Duopoly, along with 7+ years in the White House.

 

[Markle]

Problem is, Kennedy's tax cuts never balanced the budget. The only year of a budget surplus was 1969,

as a result of the 1968 SURTAX put in place to pay for the Vietnam War.

We have never had a year where our Nationa Debt has decreased. Of course, petulant former President Barack Hussein Obama set RECORDS. The first president in our history to have our debt exceed the amount of our GDP. You must be so proud!

 

[Markle]

If Bob Hope had pulled a Walter Cronkite and come out against a war that was uselessly slaughtering our soldiers, the war would have ended three years earlier

The war would have ended at least three years sooner had the war been run by the military instead of politicians. Politicians play to not lose, winners play to WIN. Hillary Clinton and her advisors played to not lose the election. Donald Trump played to win. See the difference?

 

[Scamp]

Let's face it, LBJ totally screwed up the war that he inherited from Kennedy.