Welcome to The Conservative Cave©!Join in the discussion! Click HERE to register.
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.
Democratic Underground Forums If DU had been around in 1962, we'd have post after post condemning Posted by hedgehog on Tue Feb-22-11 01:52 PM JFK for failing to support the Civil Rights movement with enough vigor and for having advisors in Vietnam! 616626, And we'd have been right. Posted by Jackpine Radical on Tue Feb-22-11 01:53 PM 616628, Deleted sub-thread Posted by Name removed on Tue Feb-22-11 01:55 PM Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules. 616736, +1 Posted by Ignis on Tue Feb-22-11 04:26 PM 616749, Truly. We would have. When OBAMA IS WRONG, HE'S WRONG! Posted by roguevalley on Tue Feb-22-11 04:38 PM How hard is that for some people to get. He's president, not God. AND HE'S WRONG! 616796, exactly Posted by Enrique on Tue Feb-22-11 05:30 PM my answer to this OP is "duh". DU has never cared for centrists, why would JFK be liked here? 616630, Indeed Posted by bluestateguy on Tue Feb-22-11 01:55 PM JFK would not have been liked here. He was rather mealy mouthed in the Ole Miss fiasco in '62. 616631, The "advisors in Vietnam" thing didn't work out all that well. eom Posted by Hello_Kitty on Tue Feb-22-11 01:55 PM 616632, And don't even get me started on what would have been done here to FDR. Posted by impik on Tue Feb-22-11 01:56 PM 616635, "You never loved him!" Posted by Hello_Kitty on Tue Feb-22-11 01:57 PM :cry: :nopity: :eyes: 616679, Institutional racists deserve to be attacked. nt Posted by ZombieHorde on Tue Feb-22-11 02:45 PM 616688, His civil rights record was worse than JFK Posted by bluestateguy on Tue Feb-22-11 03:01 PM I'd say Eisenhower had a better CW record than FDR. 616753, He would have been loved because he wasn't a coward and he Posted by roguevalley on Tue Feb-22-11 04:40 PM stood up for people suffering. Amazing how just saying he would have been trashed, the greatest president ... a god in many people's minds to this day... somehow would make it so. Projection, not just for narcissists anymore. 616640, I certainly hope you're right Posted by villager on Tue Feb-22-11 02:01 PM n/t 616641, And that would have been the right thing for us to do. Posted by damntexdem on Tue Feb-22-11 02:01 PM JFK supported civil rights only very reluctantly at best. It was LBJ who actually got civil rights legislation passed. JFK got us deeper into Vietnam, after Eisenhower first intervened. Then LBJ betrayed us with the full mess after the U.S. faked the "Gulf of Tonkin Incident." 616643, And we'd have thread after thread of cutesy People Magazine-ish photos. Posted by Wilms on Tue Feb-22-11 02:03 PM The teen-idol like fascination with Obama is...fascinating. 616644, Carter too Posted by bluestateguy on Tue Feb-22-11 02:04 PM I bet most of DU would have been for the Ted Kennedy primary challenge in 1980. 616675, So, then Posted by PVnRT on Tue Feb-22-11 02:38 PM Having advisors in Vietnam and not publicly supporting civil rights protests was a good thing? 616677, Since JFK was slow - very slow - to move on Civil Rights and sent the first 20,000 combat troops to Posted by apocalypsehow on Tue Feb-22-11 02:45 PM Vietnam, I say some criticism from the Left would have been warranted. Wouldn't you say? 616681, Ralph Abernathy did Posted by zipplewrath on Tue Feb-22-11 02:49 PM Well after the assassination too. JFK was not the darling of the civil rights movement at the time, nor afterward, by anyone on the "inside". It was LBJ that they all saw as the real "hero" of civil rights. History bears that out as well. So I guess DU is rather prescient you're saying. 616682, I was really disillusioned with JFK by 1962 Posted by starroute on Tue Feb-22-11 02:50 PM There were a few bright spots in 1962-63, but not many. And when Kennedy was shot, I swore I'd never let myself forget that I'd pretty much given up on his administration. I wasn't too happy with Congress either. I didn't them giving the communication satellites away to private industry. So the OP is not some kind of ironic commentary on liberals. It's straight scoop. We would have been pissed -- and we would have been right. 616697, This one is too easy -- Fish in a barrel Posted by Armstead on Tue Feb-22-11 03:22 PM As others have said, you are probably correct but we would have been right to complain. If JFK had backed off from that little thing in Vietnam, hundreds of thousands of lives might have been spared. 616698, If it was around during the 1920s and 30s--we'd have destroyed FDR and probably advocated a coup. nt Posted by vaberella on Tue Feb-22-11 03:26 PM 616703, So you would have backed Prescott Bush? Posted by thelordofhell on Tue Feb-22-11 03:33 PM 616735, Would you have supported the internment camps for anyone who looked East Asian? Posted by vaberella on Tue Feb-22-11 04:24 PM Because many Chinese-Americans were put in those camps too. 616760, yes, the reverse telescope of history. We have camps like that now Posted by roguevalley on Tue Feb-22-11 04:43 PM for Arab 'terrorists'. what have you done about it? Or are the only targets those from another time who are now dead? 616777, Me? I wrote out against it in my paper Posted by vaberella on Tue Feb-22-11 04:59 PM about the Pariahzation of Muslim American in New York post 9/11. I attended a few marches and protests that support Muslim Americans especially when that atrocity happened in Times Square of Seiks being arrested because they were believed to be "terrorists". So I did what I could. Despite the Prejudices and actions of limited Americans. I find it a comparison of apples and oranges. Rather than really limiting "Arabs" as you say---we find it's the American people who were actually more "interned" when you look at the Patriot Act. But even then...spying and actual abuse do to race within the United States as declared by an active President; has not happened. So no...it's not the same nor is it even reverse history. And if you're suggesting the camps of prisoners of war (let's say this is a straight definition). You will compare that to AMERICANS rounded up from their bloody homes in the UNITED STATES to possible enemy combatants in another nation during a time of war? Unbelievable. 616904, Of course I wouldn't.......but I wasn't around in that era......and neither were you Posted by thelordofhell on Tue Feb-22-11 07:20 PM Putting our modern sensibilities and 20/20 hindsight on a tragic part of our history will always paint a bad picture. What if DU was around during the Trail Of Tears?? The burning of Atlanta?? But, this is all moot, for you never answered my question......once again, Prescott Bush advocated the overthrow of the United States government.....would you have been behind him? 616706, You're right. DU is too centrist to have embraced the New Deal. Posted by cui bono on Tue Feb-22-11 03:44 PM Today too much of DU is happy to have not even gotten a public option. 616739, My focus is on Internment camps....which I think would have eaten his Presidency. Posted by vaberella on Tue Feb-22-11 04:29 PM Additionally. No one is bloody happy that we didn't get the public option. To even suggest that is stupid, to me. However, we also know the political climate. When Democrats say they won't support a public option, or I should say HCR if it even has PO, no matter what; when PO is not even written on the Health Care bill but talked about---then I think people have resigned to the fact that we have a very difficult Congress that caused a lot of problems. However, too many here put the blame solely on the President. It doesn't work like that. He doesn't vote on law or bills to get passed. His cabinet shouldn't even be the one primarily writing these things. 616743, Does Obama share some blame for the failure of the public option? Posted by Cali_Democrat on Tue Feb-22-11 04:34 PM 616763, I've thought about that. Posted by vaberella on Tue Feb-22-11 04:44 PM I'd have to say on some part no. Why? Because he massively pushed the PO in any every feasible way. I watched all of his news conferences, I heard everything in relation to the HCR bill and in about 95% of them---early in the game he was pushing the PO. He pushed it relentlessly. However, on the flip side we had 5-7 Democrats in the Senate say Hell No before it was put in the bill. Then they were even selling some of the lies about the bill and particularly what the PO would do to Health Insurance companies, that Republicans were selling. The House was on board, but we had a very polarized Democratic party---meaning we had enough Dems who were against the PO in the Senate that the entire thing would fail. Short of physical violence and personal threats (which would have gotten Obama in jail) I seriously doubt there was nothing else he could do. Sorry those are Dems and Lieberman included. I don't think Obama failed when I weighed all the facts. He did as best he could in the climate. His unfortunately was not successful. I won't deny he failed in getting the PO----but not for failure of the PO (that to me would suggest the PO was already a law). Or in some way the PO was part of the legislation. When the PO never made it to cut it wasn't even really written into the bill, just talked about. So no, he doesn't share any "failure in the PO" as he didn't vote against it or advocate against it. I hold that responsibility against people who didn't want it. People like Lieberman, Lincoln, Landrieu---these people are directly to blame for the failure of the PO without a doubt and of course Republicans. But he did not fail in trying to get it. That he did to extremes---because he actually went to town halls and pushed it and answered questions on it. I mean people like to deny he didn't do enough. I always felt it was people who didn't see all the news on it. 616768, So I take that as a no? Posted by Cali_Democrat on Tue Feb-22-11 04:48 PM 616774, I clearly said so...I'm quoting myself..."I don't think Obama failed when I weighed all the facts." Posted by vaberella on Tue Feb-22-11 04:52 PM It's the first line of the second paragraph. ~sigh~ It's not that hard to grasp. 616776, You wrote a lot Posted by Cali_Democrat on Tue Feb-22-11 04:56 PM I just wanted to summarize your response to my question :hi: 616779, Two paragraphs is a lot? Okay. ~sigh~ Whatever. n/t Posted by vaberella on Tue Feb-22-11 05:00 PM 616801, I just wanted a straight yes or no, but that's fine. Posted by Cali_Democrat on Tue Feb-22-11 05:35 PM :hi: 616815, Yes, but when did Obama ever try for the public option? He sold out Posted by cui bono on Tue Feb-22-11 06:00 PM before he even got to the negotiations. Anyone can see he does that time and time again. He's filled his cabinet with Wall Street, the HRC was a rehash of a Republican plan, I mean come on... he's not fighting for the people. He's not even trying to pretend he is anymore. To not put any blame on him is stupid, to me. 616758, based on what? What makes you say that as if it would be true? Posted by roguevalley on Tue Feb-22-11 04:42 PM You can speak for all of us? Proof. And criticizing Obama when he's wrong is not proof. 616780, What are you on about? I clearly stated in post #22 what I was referring too. n/t Posted by vaberella on Tue Feb-22-11 05:01 PM 616732, Why are people here so obsessed with other DU posters? Posted by Cali_Democrat on Tue Feb-22-11 04:18 PM Why not just post OP's that discuss the issues rather than other DU posters? 616744, Uh...this is a forum. Why are you marginalizing the post by calling it "obsession"? Posted by vaberella on Tue Feb-22-11 04:35 PM No one would post on a topic if maybe they weren't interested in something the person who posted the topic had said. Hardly obsession. These post can range from personal opinions, posts by other people--from freepers to other board members, and articles. I didn't realize there was some law or rule that says we can't discuss what someone else said, I don't see how DU members are immune to this. Calling out names could be seeing as blasting or maybe bullying, but a phrase that was said without names doesn't seem to be under any protected right here. 616748, Skinner repeatedly has said to discuss issues and ideas not DU posters. Posted by tekisui on Tue Feb-22-11 04:38 PM 616765, Where in hell is the OP talking about a DU poster? Did JFK post on DU recently? n/t Posted by vaberella on Tue Feb-22-11 04:45 PM 616784, The OP said, "DU would have post after post..." Posted by tekisui on Tue Feb-22-11 05:04 PM That is about DU posters' posting habits and possible motives. I don't really care, I was just correcting you. 616761, I didn't say there was a law against it.....LOL Posted by Cali_Democrat on Tue Feb-22-11 04:43 PM I just think it's a tactic reserved for people who can't debate the issues. They create posts discussing the state of DU rather than political issues. I must say that your defensiveness is rather telling. 616772, I don't know what it's telling. The OP asked how would DU feel if it was around during the 60s. Posted by vaberella on Tue Feb-22-11 04:50 PM "Telling..." What does it tell? I'm not much on grasping cryptic talk---I need it straight forward. I don't see the big deal. Or even pertains to a particular DU'ers. Secondly, I don't see what the big deal is if one questions the ideas of another poster. I had one poster say they wanted Assange of Wikileaks to run for the American President. So if I started a thread on this---that would be me not wanting to debate the issues? It boggled my mind that people found this man so great that he should be able to run American politics even though he was from another country. When I asked if they were serious---they said for sure. So I'm trying to see how that would be a problem. Further more, this question by the OP is not new. Many people have asked what would DU be like during the time of Clinton, or Reagan or Nixon. So I'm trying to see the point here. 616781, Here's the difference between this OP and your hypothetical Assange post Posted by Cali_Democrat on Tue Feb-22-11 05:03 PM Creating a post discussing the issue of whether or not Assange should run for Prez is different than creating a post discussing what DU (and it's posters) would have been like in 1962 and what kind of posts we would see. 616764, because some people here like to broad brush the lot of us, Posted by roguevalley on Tue Feb-22-11 04:44 PM tell us what we think and what we would do even though they don't know us and its not true. Divert attention from the real matter, that Obama is a coward from time to time and won't take a liberal stand on anything. 616750, Last night I was watching a documentary on JFK Posted by Jokinomx on Tue Feb-22-11 04:39 PM They showed footage from the press conferences after the bay of pigs.... footage of several press conferences actually and what I noticed... He was very nervous and seemed unsure of himself following the fiasco. His advisers were all gun ho hawks and they were all falling in line with the domino theory and pretty much didn't give any other option for the President to deal with Vietnam. It was very clear they wanted a full scale war and Kennedy wasn't keen on any war. He also backed down from war when the Berlin wall was put up. But the thing that got me... during the press conferences the right wing was treating him as badly as they treat any Democratic president. Nothing has changed... they were vile warmongers and they won. We ended up at war. I am now convinced that because Kennedy was not 100% on board for going to war... factions of our own government allowed the assassination to take place if not out right involved. my humble opinion 616783, Those are justified criticisms of JFK, and many, many people made them. n/t Posted by QC on Tue Feb-22-11 05:03 PM 616791, Too bad it wasn't around... Posted by Gr8Dem on Tue Feb-22-11 05:25 PM .. because those criticisms would have been well deserved, and might have made a difference. 616802, I hope so. Posted by OwnedByFerrets on Tue Feb-22-11 05:35 PM 616809, Washington was weak on the British, and didn't fight hard enough. Posted by boppers on Tue Feb-22-11 05:41 PM If he was really on our side, we would have taken Canada when they were on the run. :evilgrin: 616820, I'll take Washington Posted by hulka38 on Tue Feb-22-11 06:10 PM over Benedict Arnold. 616889, The fact that it was JFK who cut tax rates for the rich Posted by The Green Manalishi on Tue Feb-22-11 07:03 PM a great deal. Don't forget he was incredibly rich. Far beyond anything the Bush family could dream of. The Kennedy tax cuts, as a percentage of national income, far dwarfed any other tax cuts of any one year and just about equaled ALL the tax cuts of President Bush. The maximum tax rate was 91 percent before the millionaire Kennedy took office. "It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus." – John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government." – John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964 "In today's economy, fiscal prudence and responsibility call for tax reduction even if it temporarily enlarges the federal deficit – why reducing taxes is the best way open to us to increase revenues." – John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: "The Economic Report Of The President" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "It is no contradiction – the most important single thing we can do to stimulate investment in today's economy is to raise consumption by major reduction of individual income tax rates." – John F. Kennedy, Jan. 21, 1963, annual message to the Congress: "The Economic Report Of The President" -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Our tax system still siphons out of the private economy too large a share of personal and business purchasing power and reduces the incentive for risk, investment and effort – thereby aborting our recoveries and stifling our national growth rate." – John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, message to Congress on tax reduction and reform, House Doc. 43, 88th Congress, 1st Session. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "A tax cut means higher family income and higher business profits and a balanced federal budget. Every taxpayer and his family will have more money left over after taxes for a new car, a new home, new conveniences, education and investment. Every businessman can keep a higher percentage of his profits in his cash register or put it to work expanding or improving his business, and as the national income grows, the federal government will ultimately end up with more revenues." – John F. Kennedy, Sept. 18, 1963, radio and television address to the nation on tax-reduction bill -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "I have asked the secretary of the treasury to report by April 1 on whether present tax laws may be stimulating in undue amounts the flow of American capital to the industrial countries abroad through special preferential treatment." – John F. Kennedy, Feb. 6, 1961, message to Congress on gold and the balalnce of payments deficit -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "In those countries where income taxes are lower than in the United States, the ability to defer the payment of U.S. tax by retaining income in the subsidiary companies provides a tax advantage for companies operating through overseas subsidiaries that is not available to companies operating solely in the United States. Many American investors properly made use of this deferral in the conduct of their foreign investment." – John F. Kennedy, April 20, 1961, message to Congress on taxation -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Our present tax system ... exerts too heavy a drag on growth ... It reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking ... The present tax load ... distorts economic judgments and channels an undue amount of energy into efforts to avoid tax liabilities." – John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, press conference -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The present tax codes ... inhibit the mobility and formation of capital, add complexities and inequities which undermine the morale of the taxpayer, and make tax avoidance rather than market factors a prime consideration in too many economic decisions." – John F. Kennedy, Jan. 23, 1963, special message to Congress on tax reduction and reform -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "In short, it is a paradoxical truth that ... the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan have borne this out. This country's own experience with tax reduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus." – John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, news conference -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "The largest single barrier to full employment of our manpower and resources and to a higher rate of economic growth is the unrealistically heavy drag of federal income taxes on private purchasing power, initiative and incentive." – John F. Kennedy, Jan. 24, 1963, special message to Congress on tax reduction and reform -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "Expansion and modernization of the nation's productive plant is essential to accelerate economic growth and to improve the international competitive position of American industry ... An early stimulus to business investment will promote recovery and increase employment." – John F. Kennedy, Feb. 2, 1961, message on economic recovery -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "We must start now to provide additional stimulus to the modernization of American industrial plants ... I shall propose to the Congress a new tax incentive for businesses to expand their normal investment in plant and equipment." – John F. Kennedy, Feb. 13, 1961, National Industrial Conference Board -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- "A bill will be presented to the Congress for action next year. It will include an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in both corporate and personal income taxes. It will include long-needed tax reform that logic and equity demand ... The billions of dollars this bill will place in the hands of the consumer and our businessmen will have both immediate and permanent benefits to our economy. Every dollar released from taxation that is spent or invested will help create a new job and a new salary. And these new jobs and new salaries can create other jobs and other salaries and more customers and more growth for an expanding American economy." – John F. Kennedy, Aug. 13, 1962, radio and television report on the state of the national economy --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
