Dummies engage in Jfk bashing on the 50th anniversary of "Ask Not" speech

[zeitgeist]

How sharper than a serpents tongue





Link here

Octafish  (1000+ posts)        Thu Jan-20-11 11:58 PM
Original message
When I voted for Barack Obama in 2008, in a way, I thought I was voting for JFK. 
 Advertisements [?]I envisioned the the United States of America would return to a path of peace.
And I anticipated an end to secret government for the rich and by the rich.
And I hoped Justice would return to this nation.



Buth it looks like I was mistaken. And some in power think there are things and people We the People should not discuss, like election theft and corrupt public officials:

Government Nanny Censoring "Conspiracy Theories" is Also Responsible for Letting Bush Era Torture and Spying Conspiracies Go Unpunished.

This is to remind everyone on the fiftieth anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's inaugural, and on the tenth anniversary of Democratic Underground, if anything is to preserve our Democratic Party and our democracy, the Right to KNOW the Truth is We the People's business.

Waiting For Everyman  (1000+ posts)        Fri Jan-21-11 12:10 AM
Response to Original message
1. K&R That's a really amazing and scary article too.
 Wow, just wow.

Nothing good comes from the U. of Chicago, does it?

 

Oilwellian  (1000+ posts)        Fri Jan-21-11 11:29 AM
Response to Reply #12
48. Poor Obama
 I guess he didn't have any power over his appointments as well, eh?

As Barack Obama's opus, Team of Rivals, continues its rolling debut, the early reviews are in and the "critics" are full of praise for the cast:

"The new administration is off to a good start."
-- Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell.

"Superb ... the best of the Washington insiders ... this will be a valedictocracy -- rule by those who graduate first in their high school classes."
-- David Brooks, conservative New York Times columnist

"Virtually perfect ... "
-- Senator Joe Lieberman, former Democrat and John McCain's top surrogate in the 2008 campaign.

"Reassuring."
-- Karl Rove, "Bush's brain."

"I am gobsmacked by these appointments, most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain ... this all but puts an end to the 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, the unconditional summits with dictators, and other foolishness that once emanated from the Obama campaign ... Clinton and Steinberg at State should be powerful voices for 'neo-liberalism' which is not so different in many respects from 'neo-conservativism.'"
-- Max Boot, neoconservative activist, former McCain staffer.

"I see them as being sort of center-right of the Democratic party."
-- James Baker, former Secretary of State and the man who led the theft of the 2000 election.

"Surprising continuity on foreign policy between President Bush's second term and the incoming administration ... certainly nothing that represents a drastic change in how Washington does business. The expectation is that Obama is set to continue the course set by Bush ... "
-- Michael Goldfarb of the neoconservative Weekly Standard.

"I certainly applaud many of the appointments ... "
-- Senator John McCain

"So far, so good."
-- Senator Lamar Alexander, senior Republican Congressional leader.

Hillary Clinton will be "outstanding" as Secretary of State
-- Henry Kissinger, war criminal

Rahm Emanuel is "a wise choice" in the role of Chief of Staff
-- Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, John McCain's best friend.

Obama's team shows "Our foreign policy is non-partisan."
-- Ed Rollins, top Republican strategist and Mike Huckabee's 2008 campaign manager

"The country will be in good hands."
-- Condoleezza Rice, George W. Bush's Secretary of State

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/109160/right-wingers... 
 

There is so much going on in this thread I predict a lock or complete removal.

 Name removed (0 posts)      Fri Jan-21-11 12:29 AM
Response to Original message
6. Deleted message
 Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

apocalypsehow (1000+ posts)      Fri Jan-21-11 01:27 PM
Response to Reply #53
62. Non-responsive, and *distorted* non-responsiveness at that. JFK did no such thing, because neither
 Edited on Fri Jan-21-11 01:42 PM by apocalypsehow
Dulles nor Lemnitzer "counseled" any such course of action, as your own link shows.

Indeed, it was President Kennedy himself who asked to be briefed on the possibility of such a preemptive attack, and he received the dutiful answers he had requested. Nothing more, nothing less. The fact that he may have found the notion of a preemptive attack distasteful does not change the fact that it was Kennedy, not Dulles or Lemnitzer, who requested a plan for such a scenario, and asked to be briefed regarding it. You really should thoroughly read through the links you supply before you post them, especially when you are attempting to employ them to "prove" some point of view that then turns out to be historically inaccurate.

"Kennedy was a Cold Warrior. As President, he became something more."

False. He was a committed Cold Warrior right up until the day Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone and with malice aforethought, brought his life to an end in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963. Did you read the comments from his last freaking delivered speech, or not? It is the very embodiment of bellicose, Cold Warrior rhetoric. The historical record shows that, if anything, he had become more committed to waging the Cold War, not less, as time had gone by, particularly in the area of "containment" and a dedication to holding onto South Vietnam by armed force - the day JFK died there were 20,000 American combat troops in South Vietnam, all but 600 of them sent there on his explicit orders.

Talking about everything else other than the inconvenient facts posted above, of course, is diversionary, non-responsive, and an attempt to "change the subject." It is a tactic with which I am familiar, having seen it employed so often. But instead of posting some other jazz that has little or nothing to do with the topic at hand, why don't you address yourself to the matter of the comments JFK made in his last delivered speech? The topic of my post above? Why can't you do that? 

I'll tell you why: you cannot do so and consistently maintain the narrative that President Kennedy was an enemy of the so-called "military industrial complex"; you cannot do so and maintain the narrative that JFK was some kind of apostle of peace, seeking everywhere and at all times to negotiate with the Soviet Union, instead of opposing them in places as varied as Laos, Berlin, and South Vietnam (which is what the actual record shows); you cannot do so and cling to the narrative that vast, dark, militaristic forces working behind the scenes conspired to have him assassinated, because he was such a foe of the use of force to assert American interests (he was not).

Please try again.


Edit: stray grammar corrected. 

apocalypsehow (1000+ posts)      Fri Jan-21-11 03:29 PM
Response to Reply #71
72. More non-responsiveness. The "dots" of fact-based history have all been "connected" by legitimate
 scholars, and they confirm precisely what I stated above:

1. President Kennedy was an unrepentant, proud Cold Warrior and strong supporter of the so-called "military industrial complex" (into which he pumped billions of dollars through America's national defense apparatus) to the day he died, and...

2. In his last set of delivered remarks in Fort Worth he spent most of it pointing to his record as not only an aggressive Cold Warrior, but also bragging to high heaven about how much his administration has increased defense spending, and the deployment of troops to South Vietnam ("600 percent!" he proudly points out at one point), and...

3. Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone and with malice aforethought, did assassinate President Kennedy in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963, immediately following this speech.

These facts are undisputed, and remain so, despite your continued attempt to obfuscate and change the subject.

I say again: why won't you address the specific remarks he gave in his last freakin' speech on earth wherein he openly and effusively brags about having pumped billions of dollars into the so-called "military industrial complex"? Where he talks about holding the line against the communists in South Vietnam, among other places?

To ask the question is to answer it, and is why you continue to evade & duck answering those specific questions about that specific speech.

Which is in and of itself a roundabout way of conceding that I am right, and you are wrong. Very well: concession accepted. Again. 

FrenchieCat  (1000+ posts)        Fri Jan-21-11 03:04 AM
Response to Original message
17. ME.....
 I thought I was voting for the Magic Negro.....A sorta Bill Withers with a swagger that would preach Black Liberation groovy ideology ("chicken coming home to roost" type shit)and liberate us all from the evil corporate stronghold of the past century in one fell swoop after making himself dictator and then, shortly after that everyone would love him!
Boy was I wrong!
Guess next time, when I vote, I'll be more realistic about what to expect,
and understand that in history, Black folks have been oppressed, discriminated against,
and judged unfairly as not being good enough unless perfect, and no...not made magical.

Then the fight began....

Freddie Stubbs (1000+ posts)        Fri Jan-21-11 10:05 AM
Response to Reply #36
38. The same JFK who sent Marines to the Dominican Republic?
 The same JFK who increased the number of helicopters, military advisers and undeclared U.S. Special Forces in SE Asia?

The same JFK who began Operation Ranch Hand, a a broad scale aerial defoliation effort began on the roadsides in South Vietnam which may be a violation of the Geneva Conventions?

The same JFK whose CIA helped the Ba'ath party gain control in Iraq?

The same JFK who cut taxes for the rich?

The same JFK who voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act?

This will not end well. Saint John shall not be besmirched. 

H2O Man  (1000+ posts)        Fri Jan-21-11 11:01 AM
Response to Reply #38
42. Yes, that's him!
 I wasn't aware that there were others.

Did JKF have flaws? Yes. Some big ones? Absolutely.

I suspect that if one wants to speak of JFK's responsibility for the CIA, it would be fair to take one thing in isolation. There is a much fuller picture worthy of examination. Would you agree?

JFK's record on Civil Rights before his presidency could accurately be described, to borrow one of Moynihan's more unfortunate phrases, as "benign neglect." Even early in his presidency, he did not have the feel for civil rights that one had hoped for, based upon his call to Mrs. King towards the end of the campaign. However, much like the business about the CIA, one can only be fair when one takes his entire presidency into account -- including that which he had stated as his aim from June, 1963 on.

His policy in SE Asia was flawed. It was based on a foundation that began with Truman, which was distinct from what FDR had aimed at. But, again, an accurate picture must include what he did to prevent the previous administration's plans in Laos -- which by all accounts was considered more significant in terms of US interests at that time.

I could easily add more serious concerns. JFK did, at times, act in a manner that promoted the concept of an imperial presidency. By no coincidence, one could find -- at least in part -- roots going back to Harry Truman.

The reason that many of us -- and I do not want to imply that I in any way speak for my Brother Octafish -- is because he clearly had the capacity to accurately access a given situation which included his past mistakes, and to change. He recognized that only by changing, could he change those circumstances that most concerned him.

His speech to the American University was more than mere words. It was an outline of the path he intended to take in his remaining five years as President of the United States. It's the path that many of us, based upon candidate Barack Obama's fine words, believed he entended to take. Like JFK, we recognize that it's not easy: the machine isn't geared to do that, and like all people, including JFK, President Obama is sad and weakly human. We expected mistakes. But we believed that he was going to do his best to lead this nation onto a different path. And we see that he isn't.

Still no lock but the Name removed posts are mounting up. 


Octafish is dumber than dirt. Lock and load this thread has some great ammunition. Who do you wack JFK or Obie Wun?   


 

[Godot showed up]

KossackRealityCheck (122 posts)      Fri Jan-21-11 03:53 PM
Response to Original message
75. Huh? You wanted a militarist, whore-mongering assassin who did nothing for civil rights?
 Is that your point? Is that who you thought you were voting for? Kennedy beat Nixon by criticizing Ike for allowing a "missile gap" with the Soviet Union. He killed (Diem) or tried to kill (Castro) foreign leaders. He recklessly slept around, including with the girlfriend of a mafia chieftain. He, unlike his successor, LBJ, did virtually nothing on civil rights.

By that standard, Obama is head and shoulders above what you thought you were voting for.

Wow. Nasty. Of course, WE have a bone to pick with Kennedy becaue he FAILED to kill Castro. So, taking a fairer look at the man, I'd have to admit he just can't win. And, naturally enough, the DUmmies don't like that Kennedy helped seriously build up our nuclear arsenal.

The fact that the man gave his life for his country doesn't seem to factor into Kossack's thinking (or anyone else's at the DU), but in this I'll admit they're just being consistent: they don't give a damn about those in the military who give their lives for their country.

I'm wondering what Kossack here thought/thinks of Clinton, since he has this problem with "recklessly sleeping around" (for others, in any case).
 

[Chris_]

The most stirring line of JFK's inaugural address,

"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country,"

echoed similar exhortations made by many others, including Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and President Warren G. Harding, who told the 1916 Republican convention, "We must have a citizenship less concerned about what the government can do for it and more anxious about what it can do for the nation."This has always amused me.

[zeitgeist]

The most stirring line of JFK's inaugural address,  echoed similar exhortations made by many others, including Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. and President Warren G. Harding, who told the 1916 Republican convention, "We must have a citizenship less concerned about what the government can do for it and more anxious about what it can do for the nation."This has always amused me.

Just another plagiarist from the Commonwealth?     


My favorite legend:  If he hadn't been Dickin' Angie the night before he wouldn't have had to wear his truss and thus would have been able to duck after the first shot was fired.

[jukin]

It is no longer the democratic party, nothing like that exists anymore.

It is the Communist Democrat Party.

[GOBUCKS]

Some time when you have a couple of minutes, read the democrat platform that JFK ran on. It's easy to find if you google the 1960 democratic platform, and it's a fairly short document to read through. It's shocking when you compare it to DUmp orthodoxy. Today's democrat party members would call it fascist and to the right of Palin.

[Carl]

Some time when you have a couple of minutes, read the democrat platform that JFK ran on. It's easy to find if you google the 1960 democratic platform, and it's a fairly short document to read through. It's shocking when you compare it to DUmp orthodoxy. Today's democrat party members would call it fascist and to the right of Palin.

I have said it before...JFK would not be allowed in the democrat party of today.

[DefiantSix]

I have said it before...JFK would not be allowed in the democrat party of today.

Though his death made a handy martyr which the leftists could use to lay blame for all the ills of society upon the resistance of conservatives to their benevolent plans for America.

Yeah, I thought I'd seen that play used recently, too.  Must be all that hateful right wing rhetoric getting to me... 

[zeitgeist]

Wow.  It is still getting posts.

defendandprotect  (1000+ posts)        Fri Jan-21-11 06:45 PM
Response to Original message
102. K/R -- back later to fully read ... we need candidates who don't want to be
 Edited on Fri Jan-21-11 06:46 PM by defendandprotect
candidates -- people like Bernie Sanders, Tom Hayden -- Martin Sheen?

Basically we need candidates who aren't already owned by corporations!!

Anyone who can run on a Dem ticket --

And maybe we need to start having candidates signs PLEDGES -- ????

Remember what Pelosi said of Obama -- which I thought was quite courages of her! --

"Obama was for a lot of things when he was campaigning -- which he is no longer for!"


 

[AllosaursRus]

JFK was the last Democrat my Nana voted for! That's sayin' somethin'! She had been a lifelong Dem before that. Since then the family has been staunch Republicans!

I guess we figured out which party would let us keep more of our money!

ETA:

I remember goin' around on my bike and defacing Nixon bumper stickers with my pals! I think I was about 6!

[Chris_]

I remember goin' around on my bike and defacing Nixon bumper stickers with my pals! I think I was about 6!

Hoodlum

[AllosaursRus]

Hoodlum

Oh, when I was a young lad I was a handful!

[zeitgeist]

Oh, when I was a young lad I was a handful!

...and as a fella once said, "anything more than a hand full is a waste."

I favored Nixon but was vastly out numbered, guess I as precocious at eleven.   

I did a 180 on Nixon for a few years in college and came back to the fold a few years later. 


What fascinates me is the dummies dumping on JFK while venerating RMN.   And there are plenty of they  dumping on Obie as a 'capitalist tool';  he77 to me he is left of Stalin.