The Conservative Cave
Current Events => The DUmpster => Topic started by: zeitgeist on March 07, 2011, 02:45:59 PM
-
This is an old thread that I took a copy of just -- to have.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x616624
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? :shrug:
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
MMMM MMMM mmmm. I love me the smell of fried dummy in the mornin.
-
You have to remember one thing. Raising taxes on the wealthy is not about generating revenue, it's all about fairness and punishing the rich. Obama himself said exactly that before.