Do you think that JFK would be Conservative?

[TeenageRepublican]

I'm a JFK fan, I like him, he was amazing. I was especially touched by the war story of PT-109. I was also amazed at how he handled the cuban missile crisis. I was wondering, do you think he be a conservative today if he didn't get shot?
His offspring got screwed up, somehow, he's the only kennedy that I like so far. I think he would be Conservative if he was alive today, what do you think?

[Rhino]

He would probably be a left leaning conservative by today's standards.

[Wolfcounsel]

When he said "And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.", I don't think he sounded like a left-leaning welfare bum panderer.:question:

[TeenageRepublican]

When he said "And so, my fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.", I don't think he sounded like a left-leaning welfare bum panderer.:question:

Yeah, exactly, John Kerry, who gets more media attention then he deserves, would've never said that! JFK was a war hero, Kerry didn't turn out to be a war hero, in fact, they caught him giving secerets to an enemy in Paris. Why do people pay more attention to John Kerry than real heroes? I know why! Because he is a Left-Wing war veteran!
I'm sorry, I'm in a grumpy mood today. :flame:

[Naturalized-Texan]

JFK was a conservative on fiscal policy and on national defense. Unfortunately, he screwed up royally with the Bay of Pigs and by failing to react to prevent the building of the Berlin Wall. The weakness he displayed with those failures encouraged the Soviet Union to place missiles in Cuba thus fomenting the Cuban Missile Crisis.

BTW, I have on my hard disk most of JFK's budget message to Congress in which he proposed his tax rate cuts that stimulated the economy through the remainder of the 1960s. If you read that budget message without knowing it had been presented by JFK, you would swear that it was being presented by Ronald Reagan.

If anyone is interested, I could post that budget message in addition to excerpts from his speech to the Economic Club of New York in which he laid the groundwork for his tax rate cuts.

[Rhino]

How big is the file? I might be interested in seeing that.

[TeenageRepublican]

How big is the file? I might be interested in seeing that.

Same Here.

[Naturalized-Texan]

How big is the file? I might be interested in seeing that.
It's a total of 1178 words, a 10KB Word File.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Excerpts from President John F. Kennedy's speech at the Economic Club of New York, December, 14, 1962:

"There are a number of ways by which the federal government can meet its responsibilities to aid economic growth. But the most direct and significant kind of federal action, aiding economic growth, is to make possible an increase in private consumption and investment demand, to cut the fetters which hold back private spending. In the past this could be done, in part, by the increased use of credit and monetary tools. But our balance of payments situation today places limits on our use of those tools for expansion. It could also be done by increasing federal expenditures more rapidly than necessary. But such a course would soon demoralize both the government and our economy. If government is to retain the confidence of the people, it must not spend more than can be justified on grounds of national need or spent with maximum efficiency."

"The final and best means of strengthening demand among consumers and business is to reduce the burden on private income and the deterrent to private initiative which are imposed by our present tax system. When this administration pledged itself last summer to an across-the-board, top-to-bottom cut in personal and corporate income taxes to be enacted and become effective in 1963, I'm not talking about a quickie or temporary tax cut which would be more appropriate if a recession were imminent, nor am I talking about giving the economy a mere shot in the arm to ease some temporary complaint. I am talking about the accumulated evidence of the last five years that our present tax system, developed as it was, in good part, in World War II to restrain growth, exerts too heavy a drag on growth in peace time; that it siphons out of the private economy too large share of personal and business purchasing power; that it reduces the financial incentives for personal effort, investment, and risk-taking. In short, to increase demand and lift the economy, the federal government's most useful role is not to rush into a program of excessive increases in public expenditures but to expand the incentives and opportunities for private expenditures."

"But that after-tax income could and should be greater providing stronger markets for the products of American industry. When consumers purchase more goods, plants use more of their capacity, men are hired instead of laid off, investment increases, and profits are high. Corporate tax rates must also be cut to increase incentives and the availability of investment capital. The government has already taken major steps this year to reduce business tax liability, and to stimulate the modernization, replacement and expansion of our productive plant and equipment."

"When any new tax legislation enacted next year should meet the following three tests: first it should reduce the net taxes by sufficiently early date and a sufficiently large amount to do the job required..."

"For the present patchwork of special provisions and preferences lighten the tax load of some only at the cost of placing a heavier burden on others."

"...economic judgments and channels undue amounts of energy into efforts to avoid tax liability. It makes certain types of less productive activity more profitable than other more valuable undertakings. All this inhibits our growth and efficiency as well as considerably complicating the work of both the taxpayer and the Internal Revenue Service."

" Those are the three tests which the right kind of bill must meet. I'm confident that the enactment of the right bill next year will in due course increase our gross national product by several times the amount of taxes actually cut, profit margins will be improved, and both the incentive to invest and the supply of internal funds for investment will be increased. There will be new interest in taking risks, increasing productivity, and creating new jobs and new products for long-term economic growth."

[Naturalized-Texan]

Excerpts from President Kennedy's Budget Message to Congress for Fiscal Year 1964:

"The checkrein of taxes on private spending and productive incentives must be loosened if our economy is to perform at maximum efficiency. To that end - as I pledged last year - the 1964 budget incorporates a major program of tax reduction and reform, designed to help speed the economy toward full employment and a higher rate of growth with price stability.

"Although, with the passage of time, the economic expansion induced by reduction in tax rates may be expected to yield a higher level of government revenues than the present tax system affords, the initial effect of the proposed tax program will be a revenue loss. In this setting, I have felt obliged to limit severely my 1964 expenditure proposals. In national defense and space programs - where false economy would seriously jeopardize our national interest or even our national survival - I have proposed expenditure increases. Fixed interest on the debt will also rise. But total 1964 expenditures for all other programs in the administrative budget, taken together, have been held to this years level, and even reduced somewhat. Within this total, increases have been confined to those areas most important to the nation's current welfare and future growth, and these will be offset - indeed slightly more than offset - by the reductions I am recommending in expenditures under other programs."

"Unless we release the tax brake which is holding back our economy, it is likely to continue to operate below its potential, federal receipts are likely to remain disappointingly low, and budget deficits are likely to persist. Adoption of the tax program I am proposing will strengthen our nation's economic vitality, and by so doing, will provide the basis for sharply increased budget revenues in future years.

"Nevertheless, the prospect of expanding economic activity and rising federal revenues in the years ahead does not mean that federal outlays should rise in proportion to such revenue increases. As the tax cut becomes fully effective and the economy climbs toward full employment, a substantial part of the revenue increases must go toward eliminating the transitional deficit. Although it will be necessary to increase certain expenditures, we shall continue, and indeed intensify, our effort to include in our fiscal program only those expenditures which meet strict criteria of fulfilling important national needs. Federal outlays must be incurred only where the resulting benefits to the security and well-being of the American people are clearly worth the costs."

"My tax proposals include substantial permanent reductions in individual and corporate income tax rates as well as a number of important structural changes designed to encourage economic growth, increase the equity of our tax system, and simplify our tax laws and administration."

"There is no discount price on defense. The free world must be prepared at all times to face the perils of global nuclear war, limited conventional conflict, and covert guerrilla activities."

"High levels of effort will continue on developing a defense against missiles..."

"...More powerful and flexible conventional forces - ground, sea, and air - to increase the range of non-nuclear response to aggression."

[Naturalized-Texan]

JFK's tax rate cuts took effect in 1964 and reduced the top marginal rate from 90+% to 70% and all the other tax rates were reduced accordingly. Tax revenues nearly doubled from $106.6 Billion in 1963 to $192.8 Billion in 1970 and the budget was balanced in 1969 with a surplus of $3.2 Billion, despite the Vietnam War. And there was actually a small reduction in government spending between 1964 and 1965: from $118.5 Billion to $118.2 billion. Was that the last time that government spending decreased? I think it was.

More importantly, the Kennedy tax rate cuts triggered an economic boom that lasted until the end of that decade.

[TeenageRepublican]

Okay, this proves it, Kennedy would be a Conservative today if he survived that gunshot. I'm starting to think that the democrats before the hippie generation were actually rational. I think the beginning of the Carter administration was when the Democrats started to turn luney. I hope that doesn't happen to the Republican party!

[EveningStar]

Kennedy would not be a conservative today. While his economic views might still be somewhat to our liking, he would overall try to be in tune with today's Democratic Party.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Okay, this proves it, Kennedy would be a Conservative today if he survived that gunshot. I'm starting to think that the democrats before the hippie generation were actually rational. I think the beginning of the Carter administration was when the Democrats started to turn luney. I hope that doesn't happen to the Republican party!
Actually they turned loony when they nominated McGovern in 1972. The hate-America/pro-terrorist leftists who now control the Democrat party are direct descendants of the McGovern wackos of 1972.

I read a review of Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism by James Piereson in the August 13, 2007, issue of National Review. Mr. Piereson contends that the madness that is now rampant in the Democrat Party can be traced back that assassination. Liberals to this day still believe that some wild-eyed right winger from Dallas killed JFK and that is why they have moved so far left. Mr. Piereson believes that had liberals accepted the fact that JFK was assassinated by a Communist - Lee Harvey Oswald - they would have recoiled in horror from the far left and would have been a more centrist party.

I must admit that Mr. Piereson's argument makes sense because until that assassination, the Democrat Party was heavily populated by patriots, no matter what else one may think of them. It appears that Joe Lieberman is the last of a dying breed - a patriotic liberal.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Kennedy would not be a conservative today. While his economic views might still be somewhat to our liking, he would overall try to be in tune with today's Democratic Party.
I disagree. JFK must be spinning in his grave over what his brother and the other far-left wackos have done to the Democrat Party.

[Beowulf]

Kennedy would not be a conservative today. While his economic views might still be somewhat to our liking, he would overall try to be in tune with today's Democratic Party.

I think Kennedy would have done what Reagan did and left the Democratic Party or as Reagan said, "the Democratic Party left him."
I do believe JFK would be ashamed of what the Democrats have become, especially his older brother, Ted.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I think Kennedy would have done what Reagan did and left the Democratic Party or as Reagan said, "the Democratic Party left him."
I do believe JFK would be ashamed of what the Democrats have become, especially his older brother, Ted.
Teddy is JFK's youngest brother.

[Beowulf]

Teddy is JFK's youngest brother.
I stand corrected. Thanx, NT.

[TeenageRepublican]

Kennedy would not be a conservative today. While his economic views might still be somewhat to our liking, he would overall try to be in tune with today's Democratic Party.

No, in my opinion, he wouldn't. Kennedy wouldn't try that sort of thing after he saw what happened with his party. Kennedy was Catholic, he wouldn't, for one thing, be an abortion supporter. I know a bunch of ex-kennedy-democrats who turned to the Right. Kennedy would be a Conservative today if he was alive.

[TeenageRepublican]

Actually they turned loony when they nominated McGovern in 1972. The hate-America/pro-terrorist leftists who now control the Democrat party are direct descendants of the McGovern wackos of 1972.

I read a review of Camelot and the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism by James Piereson in the August 13, 2007, issue of National Review. Mr. Piereson contends that the madness that is now rampant in the Democrat Party can be traced back that assassination. Liberals to this day still believe that some wild-eyed right winger from Dallas killed JFK and that is why they have moved so far left. Mr. Piereson believes that had liberals accepted the fact that JFK was assassinated by a Communist - Lee Harvey Oswald - they would have recoiled in horror from the far left and would have been a more centrist party.

I must admit that Mr. Piereson's argument makes sense because until that assassination, the Democrat Party was heavily populated by patriots, no matter what else one may think of them. It appears that Joe Lieberman is the last of a dying breed - a patriotic liberal.

That view actually makes sense, do you know if the article is on the Internet or not?

[Naturalized-Texan]

That view actually makes sense, do you know if the article is on the Internet or not?
Only for National Review subscribers or those willing to pay for a National Review Online subscription (it used to be something like $19. I don't know what it is now.)

[TeenageRepublican]

Only for National Review subscribers or those willing to pay for a National Review Online subscription (it used to be something like $19. I don't know what it is now.)

Damn, I was hoping it would be free.

[Rhino]

The interview about it is free.

http://article.nationalreview.com/?q=N2I3YmRlMjZkZTc1ZDI5Y2EzZmEwNTExMjU1M2ZjMjg=

[mateusrosé]

I think that JFK's presidency has been highly overrated due to the obvious emotionalism. That said, I think JFK was, in many ways, conservative. Liberals love to say that today's Republicans bear no resemblance to Lincoln, but today's Dems hardly bear any resemblance to JFK. I think he and Ted, for example, would be miles apart in their philosophies.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Old Joe Kennedy was a Nazi/fascist sympathizer. Today his youngest son, Teddy, is a Nazi/fascist sympathizer - an enviroNazi sympathizer and an IslamoFascist sympathizer. Old Joe would be proud of his youngest son.

[Timberwolf]

Hmmmm...maybe the old man had John & Bobby 'knocked off'...maybe it was Teddy...

[TeenageRepublican]

Old Joe Kennedy was a Nazi/fascist sympathizer. Today his youngest son, Teddy, is a Nazi/fascist sympathizer - an enviroNazi sympathizer and an IslamoFascist sympathizer. Old Joe would be proud of his youngest son.

Joe Kennedy would be ashamed of JFK, I'm not sure about Bobby, he was an extreme Liberal, right? Now, to the conspiracy part, who do you think killed JFK? I think it was a Mafia, hear me out on this. JFK cheated on his wife, supposedly, and I think he cheated on a girl that was related to a Mafia of some type. There could be other explanations, but that one is pretty good.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Joe Kennedy would be ashamed of JFK, I'm not sure about Bobby, he was an extreme Liberal, right? Now, to the conspiracy part, who do you think killed JFK? I think it was a Mafia, hear me out on this. JFK cheated on his wife, supposedly, and I think he cheated on a girl that was related to a Mafia of some type. There could be other explanations, but that one is pretty good.
There can be absolutely no doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald, a Communist, assassinated JFK because he, Oswald, wanted to protect Fidel Castro from JFK's wrath. In fact, I suspect that Castro recruited and paid Oswald to assassinate JFK.

Both JFK and RFK were solid anti-Communists. However, RFK moved to the far left when he ran for president in 1968. Even then, RFK was a strong supporter of Israel. That's why Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian radical, assassinated him.

[Timberwolf]

3 shots...on target...on a moving target...through the foilage of a tree...with a bolt action rifle...by someone who wasn't THAT good a shot.

Sure...whatever...

[Naturalized-Texan]

3 shots...on target...on a moving target...through the foilage of a tree...with a bolt action rifle...by someone who wasn't THAT good a shot.

Sure...whatever...
So, you believe in conspiracy theories. Who'da thunk it? You should read the interview in the article linked to by Rhino in post #23 above.

[TeenageRepublican]

There can be absolutely no doubt that Lee Harvey Oswald, a Communist, assassinated JFK because he, Oswald, wanted to protect Fidel Castro from JFK's wrath. In fact, I suspect that Castro recruited and paid Oswald to assassinate JFK.

Both JFK and RFK were solid anti-Communists. However, RFK moved to the far left when he ran for president in 1968. Even then, RFK was a strong supporter of Israel. That's why Sirhan Sirhan, a Palestinian radical, assassinated him.

What threat to Castro? If he was a REAL threat to Castro, he would've bombed the hell out of them during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Oswald maybe guilty, yes, but it's still unproven.

[Naturalized-Texan]

What threat to Castro? If he was a REAL threat to Castro, he would've bombed the hell out of them during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Oswald maybe guilty, yes, but it's still unproven.
It has been proven. I realize that you can't listen to Rush when you are in school, so it's likely that you've never heard him talk about JFK's assassination. You also should read the interview in the article linked to by Rhino in post #23 above.

About 2 weeks before the assassination I remember reading an article in the Washington Star (now defunct) describing how President Kennedy was going to get tough with Castro.

BTW, the threat to Castro didn't have to be real for a nutty Communist like Lee Harvey Oswald to perceive that there was a real threat to his hero.

[Timberwolf]

All bow down and worship the great and might Tex...we're not worthy!! we're not worthy!!

sheesh, just because YOU think you know it all, doesn't mean that's the way it went down.

[Timberwolf]

But, then again, I forgot...you believe EVERYTHING the goobermint tells ya.

Good boy. Here's a Scooby Snack.

[Timberwolf]

BTW, the threat to Castro didn't have to be real for a nutty Communist like Lee Harvey Oswald to perceive that there was a real threat to his hero.
Yeppers!! And that threat to his hero all of a sudden made him a "crack shot". Yup...musta been. :rolleyes:

[TeenageRepublican]

It has been proven. I realize that you can't listen to Rush when you are in school, so it's likely that you've never heard him talk about JFK's assassination. You also should read the interview in the article linked to by Rhino in post #23 above.

About 2 weeks before the assassination I remember reading an article in the Washington Star (now defunct) describing how President Kennedy was going to get tough with Castro.

BTW, the threat to Castro didn't have to be real for a nutty Communist like Lee Harvey Oswald to perceive that there was a real threat to his hero.

I'm on summer vacation now, but I am going back in 9 days. I listened to Rush almost every day, Rush was part of my daily activity, but that was when summer began, so I don't know if I missed him saying that or not. Okay, now that I stand corrected, I just want to ask one question, what happened to Oswald after the whole JFK assaniation? :question:

[T-Money]

I just want to ask one question, what happened to Oswald after the whole JFK assaniation? :question:

Before he was killed by Jack Ruby?

[Naturalized-Texan]

But, then again, I forgot...you believe EVERYTHING the goobermint tells ya.

Good boy. Here's a Scooby Snack.:finger:
The left fabricated all kinds of conspiracy theories to absolve one of their own - the Communist, Lee Harvey Oswald - of the Kennedy assassination. The fabricated a second shooter, the grassy knoll, the Mafia, and the theory that Oswald wasn't that good a shot (note: shortly before he assassinated JFK, Lee Harvey Oswald had returned to the U.S. from sharpshooter training in the Soviet Union), and other similar fabrications. What is surprising is that so many on the right have swallowed those fabricated leftist conspiracy theories hook, line, and sinker.

T-Money mentioned the fact that Jack Ruby killed Lee Harvey Oswald. Jack Ruby was a strong supporter of JFK and he was so angered with the fact that Oswald killed his hero that he, in turn, killed Oswald. As James Piereson pointed out in the interview linked to by Rhino, had Jack Ruby not killed Oswald, Oswald would certainly have been convicted of the assassination because the evidence against him was overwhelming.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I'm on summer vacation now, but I am going back in 9 days. I listened to Rush almost every day, Rush was part of my daily activity, but that was when summer began, so I don't know if I missed him saying that or not. Okay, now that I stand corrected, I just want to ask one question, what happened to Oswald after the whole JFK assaniation? :question:
Since I started listening to Rush before you were born, it's likely that Rush would have discussed the Kennedy assassination before you were cognizant of it.

[Wyatt_Junker]

Do you think that JFK would be Conservative?

He was only a conservative in his ideology.

The fact that he was a lecher and on the chronic were probably the only reason he had a D by his name.

[Naturalized-Texan]

TW: I'm glad to welcome back the ad-hominem-attack Timberwolf I used to know and love.:evilgrin:

[Timberwolf]

At least I'm not the one editing a quote from another member...and I don't believe roughly 90% of what the government says.

If anyone had him assassinated, it was LBJ.

[Lubbock]

One observation: TeenageRepublican, you're a pretty sharp kid.

I've been away for a while and there are a lot of Newbies here since I've been away. I'm trying to catch up and assess what/who.

TR, you come out with high marks.

One word of advice, TR: Stick with NT. He won't bullshit you, he's rational, history is on his side, and he knows whereof he speaks.

[TeenageRepublican]

One word of advice, TR: Stick with NT. He won't bullshit you, he's rational, history is on his side, and he knows whereof he speaks.

Yeah, I've noticed that. Thanks for the comments, I wasn't expecting that. The Elucidator apparently has different views about me than you, he called me an illiterate smart-ass because I corrected some one on their spelling. :rotflmbo:
It apparently makes me a smart-ass because I said that I got a whole bunch of complaints when I misspelled a couple words when I was extremely tired. So, I guess I'm an illiterate smart-ass, even though I've written thirty short horror stories, all of which are correct all the way through.
Oh well, life goes on...

[Lubbock]

Don't let it go to your head, TR.

Board etiquite: Don't correct ANYONE one their spelling or typos. It makes you look like a smartass, and it will come back to haunt you when you use their for there, no for know, or make a tpyo.

Self defense: don't call attention to yourself by making a big deal out of someone pointing out what a smartass you make of yourself by critiquing another's spelling or typing abilities. Keep your head down and try to make friends, not enemies.

You're young. You'll catch on.

[TeenageRepublican]

Don't let it go to your head, TR.

Board etiquite: Don't correct ANYONE one their spelling or typos. It makes you look like a smartass, and it will come back to haunt you when you use their for there, no for know, or make a tpyo.

Self defense: don't call attention to yourself by making a big deal out of someone pointing out what a smartass you make of yourself by critiquing another's spelling or typing abilities. Keep your head down and try to make friends, not enemies.

You're young. You'll catch on.

Wait, all those people that were bitching about my spelling were also correcting me, so does that mean that they're smart-asses? The Elucidator was the first one to point out that I had spelling errors!

[Timberwolf]

TW: I'm glad to welcome back the ad-hominem-attack Timberwolf I used to know and love.:evilgrin:
There ya go confusing an ad hom with a simple observation.

Too bad Zapruder didn't keep panning to his right just a few more seconds...then we'd KNOW who was beyond the grassy knoll...you know, the one's who shot Pres. Kennedy in the forehead...

[Naturalized-Texan]

BTW, TW, all the shots were from behind, according to the autopsy. You've been swallowing too many conspiracy theories fabricated by the left. See the interview in the link posted by Rhino in post #23.

I forgot to mention 2 other conspiracy theories fabricated by the left: 1) the CIA did it; 2) LBJ did it.

[TeenageRepublican]

BTW, TW, all the shots were from behind, according to the autopsy. You've been swallowing too many conspiracy theories fabricated by the left. See the interview in the link posted by Rhino in post #23.

I forgot to mention 2 other conspiracy theories fabricated by the left: 1) the CIA did it; 2) LBJ did it.

Okay, I think the two best theories are
1: Oswald
2: Mafia

NT, I wouldn't be surprised if it was the Mafia, but the best one is Oswald. But, if they do find it was the Mafia, don't be surprised. :biggrin:

The Wost Therories are:
1: Bush killed him (why hasn't anybody mentioned this one)?
2: Aliens killed him.

[Lubbock]

Due to the fact that the murder investigation was handled in such a piss-poor manner, and there was such a concerted effort on the part of everyone living and breathing to cover up what might not have needed to be covered up, and due to the fact the LHO was murdered right on the heels of Kennedy's death, no one will ever know for sure.

There have been more "scientific" investigations into the assissanation than I can keep track of, and everyone of them seem to "prove" something different; you'll never convince me that every "investigator" who has done one doesn't have an agenda, thus his result is skewed from the git-go.

Personally, I will always believe that Kennedy was killed by one lone nut with a gun and a lucky shot.

But I can't prove that, and no one can "prove" that it isn't so.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Okay, I think the two best theories are
1: Oswald
2: Mafia
If the Mafia did it, they would have had to hire Lee Harvey Oswald to carry out the deed since we know that he was the assassin. That doesn't make sense since the Mafia had their own assassins. They wouldn't have needed to hire an outsider like Oswald.

[TeenageRepublican]

If the Mafia did it, they would have had to hire Lee Harvey Oswald to carry out the deed since we know that he was the assassin. That doesn't make sense since the Mafia had their own assassins. They wouldn't have needed to hire an outsider like Oswald.

Well, what if Oswald was in the Mafia? I'm not arguing, I'm just thinking of the possibilities. :thumb:

[Timberwolf]

I've seen the film...ONE of the shots hit him in the right side of his forehead and snapped his head backwards...the Warren Commission can claim whatever it wants...but it doesn't change what's on the film.

[TeenageRepublican]

I've seen the film...ONE of the shots hit him in the right side of his forehead and snapped his head backwards...the Warren Commission can claim whatever it wants...but it doesn't change what's on the film.

Do you know a site that has the film? I've seen it, just not closely, it was a brief part in "In the Line of Fire", which was a kick-ass movie by the way. I rented the film, so I couldn't really study it since it didn't cross my mind at the time.

I have never seen the movie "JFK", so, can anyone tell me if it's good or not? The ones about JFK that I've seen so far is "PT-109" and "Thirteen Days", which was about the Cuban Missile Crisis, I saw that one in the theater when I was seven. As you probably have guessed, I really didn't get it, come on, I was seven! It was my dad's turn to pick a movie. Anyway, yeah, this is where I'm going to stop.

[Rhino]

During the investigation, and later, many filmed gunshots were reviewed. The human body does indeed recoil in the direction of the bullet sometimes, especially with head shots. I've seen some explanation of that, but I don't remember the specifics. In any case, it happens often enough that the direction that Kennedy's head snapped really proves nothing.

[Naturalized-Texan]

During the investigation, and later, many filmed gunshots were reviewed. The human body does indeed recoil in the direction of the bullet sometimes, especially with head shots. I've seen some explanation of that, but I don't remember the specifics. In any case, it happens often enough that the direction that Kennedy's head snapped really proves nothing.
Except for providing grist for for leftist fabrication of conspiracy theories designed to absolve one of their own - a Communist, Lee Harvey Oswald - of the assassination.

[Naturalized-Texan]

What threat to Castro?
Castro had to have felt threatened by JFK for at least 3 reasons:

1) The Bay of Pigs Invasion that had been approved by JFK: If JFK hadn't reneged on his promise of air and naval support for the invasion, it is likely that it would have been successful in overthrowing Castro.

2) The Cuban Missile Crisis: JFK forced the Soviet Union remove the intermediate range missiles that the Soviet Union was installing in Cuba. Having those missiles was the most important thing in Castro's mind so that he could blackmail the U.S.

3) JFK's CIA attempted, but failed, to assassinate Castro using explosive cigars. Don't laugh. There was such an attempted assassination.

Given the above, it makes perfect sense that Castro would hire someone like Lee Harvey Oswald, a member in good standing of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (a Commuist front), to get rid of JFK.

[Lubbock]

Slightly off the subject, but I'm interested in NT's thoughts on the subject:

NT, what will happen in Cuba when Castor dies?

Raul is a drunk, and if you believe the reports, no one has any respect or regard for him. I can't see Raul picking up where Fidel leaves off.

Will there be an absolute revolution? Is Chavez poised to step in and pick up where Fidel leaves off, and put down a revolution or overthrow?

Is the oppressed population so beaten down that they won't rise up and overthrow whatever machine steps in?

Will the military revolt against whoever seps in, and no longer keep their jackboots on the throats of the people?

Aside from Jimmy Carter renting a private plane and leading the Lib Delegation to the funeral [with Teddy sitting in the co-pilot seat] I just can't conceive of what will become of that tiny island nation when Fidel kicks.

I'm convinced that he will outlive me.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Slightly off the subject, but I'm interested in NT's thoughts on the subject:

NT, what will happen in Cuba when Castro dies?

Raul is a drunk, and if you believe the reports, no one has any respect or regard for him. I can't see Raul picking up where Fidel leaves off.
Raul is the heir apparent and if he is still alive when Fidel drops dead, he will take over. As bad as Fidel is, Raul will be much worse, so it's possible that, with the help of Cuban exiles from Florida, Raul will be overthrown.

Will there be an absolute revolution?
See above. However, if Fidel and Raul are both gone, I think that there will be a revolution and possibly a democracy/republic.

Is Chavez poised to step in and pick up where Fidel leaves off, and put down a revolution or overthrow?
Chavez may try, but the U.S. should step in to prevent Chavez from interfering. That's another reason that electing a Republican president and Congress in 2008 is essential.

Is the oppressed population so beaten down that they won't rise up and overthrow whatever machine steps in?
I don't think so. According to my wife's nephew (a free market professor of economics) and his wife who visited Cuba a few years ago, there is a thriving underground free market economy and much clandestine entrepreneurship in Cuba that would provide the incentive to set up a free-market government. They pointed out that while the people live in squalor, their 1950s-era American cars are immaculate and in perfect running order. The reason: they OWN their cars.

Will the military revolt against whoever steps in, and no longer keep their jackboots on the throats of the people?
I think that the military will be with the people. At least I hope so.

Aside from Jimmy Carter renting a private plane and leading the Lib Delegation to the funeral [with Teddy sitting in the co-pilot seat] I just can't conceive of what will become of that tiny island nation when Fidel kicks.

I'm convinced that he will outlive me.
I think that Cuba will be a free nation again sooner or later, the sooner the better.

I hope that when the Castros are gone the U.S. will do everything possible to help free the people of Cuba from decades of murderous oppression.

[gnome]

I'm with N-T on the Kennedy assassination, in that I think Lee Harvey Oswald did it substantially as described. I remain curious if he was doing so on the direct behalf of another, including Castro, but the fact remains he was nutty enough to decide to do it all by himself.

I came to this conclusion after my own research... all the conspiracy theories had bigger holes in it than the official story. The famous "faked photograph" had me interested for a while, but two things turned me off of that... the first was when I read an analysis explaining the "anomalous" shadows with real photographic examples of how just such a shadow could result from a real photo taken from that angle. Then I saw another picture from a different angle taken at the same time, of LHO holding the same rifle. I can probably dig these up if it helps.

Combined with the studies that show how the head could have tossed in the direction of the bullet (due to a "jet" effect) and appropriate demonstrations, and finding out just how many blatant factual errors were in "JFK", I stopped thinking there was more than one shooter.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I'm with N-T on the Kennedy assassination, in that I think Lee Harvey Oswald did it substantially as described. I remain curious if he was doing so on the direct behalf of another, including Castro, but the fact remains he was nutty enough to decide to do it all by himself.
Being a fervent Castro supporter and a member of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee, Oswald very well could have been so incensed with JFK's treatment of his hero, Fidel Castro, that he could have decided to do it all by himself.

[M.C.]

John F. Kennedy was a Kennedy. Maybe not the worst Kennedy, but a Kennedy nonetheless. Sure, I wasn't alive during his administration, but hell, from what I know and have studied for many years, he was very much a liberal. Sure, he's no Michael Moore looney toon, but he was sort of an inbetweener by today's standards. Similar to perhaps Giuliani. Regardless, not a man I'd want to lead this nation.

[Naturalized-Texan]

John F. Kennedy was a Kennedy. Maybe not the worst Kennedy, but a Kennedy nonetheless. Sure, I wasn't alive during his administration, but hell, from what I know and have studied for many years, he was very much a liberal. Sure, he's no Michael Moore looney toon, but he was sort of an inbetweener by today's standards. Similar to perhaps Giuliani. Regardless, not a man I'd want to lead this nation.
Unlike his "little" brother Teddy, JFK was a patriot. A liberal, yes, but definitely a patriot. However, he was well to the right of today's Democrat Party and he would probably be a moderate Republican today - perhaps like Rudy.

[TeenageRepublican]

Castro had to have felt threatened by JFK for at least 3 reasons:

1) The Bay of Pigs Invasion that had been approved by JFK: If JFK hadn't reneged on his promise of air and naval support for the invasion, it is likely that it would have been successful in overthrowing Castro.

2) The Cuban Missile Crisis: JFK forced the Soviet Union remove the intermediate range missiles that the Soviet Union was installing in Cuba. Having those missiles was the most important thing in Castro's mind so that he could blackmail the U.S.

3) JFK's CIA attempted, but failed, to assassinate Castro using explosive cigars. Don't laugh. There was such an attempted assassination.

Given the above, it makes perfect sense that Castro would hire someone like Lee Harvey Oswald, a member in good standing of the Fair Play for Cuba Committee (a Commuist front), to get rid of JFK.

Golly! You're a lot smarter than my 7th grade History teacher. She's a Liberal, which may explain it, but let's not get into that. The Cuban Missile Crisis sealed the deal for me. I was very surprised at how well he handled it. :thumb:
P.S. I stand corrected :biggrin:.

[Naturalized-Texan]

Golly! You're a lot smarter than my 7th grade History teacher.
It's because at nearly 75 years of age I'm a LOT older than she is. :biggrin:

Of course, if she's a liberal, it's a sure bet that her version of history bears no resemblance to reality.

[TeenageRepublican]

It's because at nearly 75 years of age I'm a LOT older than she is. :biggrin:

Of course, if she's a liberal, it's a sure bet that her version of history bears no resemblance to reality.

Why do you think I got an F in her class?:biggrin: I stood up to her, in front of the class, when she started bitching about how mankind is to blame for Global Warming.

[gnome]

So your grades earned passing marks, and she decreed you an F anyway?

[TeenageRepublican]

So your grades earned passing marks, and she decreed you an F anyway?

It's a long story...

[gnome]

Maybe I shouldn't pry... but stories of teachers giving academic retaliation for a political difference are a hot issue for me, so my urge is typically to find out if it's that simple...

[TeenageRepublican]

Maybe I shouldn't pry... but stories of teachers giving academic retaliation for a political difference are a hot issue for me, so my urge is typically to find out if it's that simple...

No harm here, don't need to regret what you said. :thumb:

[Alex]

Unlike his "little" brother Teddy, JFK was a patriot. A liberal, yes, but definitely a patriot. However, he was well to the right of today's Democrat Party and he would probably be a moderate Republican today - perhaps like Rudy.

It's interesting that you describe JFK as a liberal - even though he was probably well to the right of today's Democratic party.

I happen to be reading Robert Dallek's biography of John F Kennedy right now. And on the question of his liberalism, Dallek says that during his first months as a senator (in 1953) Kennedy received a number of letters from the Boston intelligentsia complaining that he wasn't acting on the principles of a "true liberal". He denied that he had ever been a liberal, but claimed he had always been and would continue to be a "realist".


Alex.

[Naturalized-Texan]

It's interesting that you describe JFK as a liberal - even though he was probably well to the right of today's Democratic party.

I happen to be reading Robert Dallek's biography of John F Kennedy right now. And on the question of his liberalism, Dallek says that during his first months as a senator (in 1953) Kennedy received a number of letters from the Boston intelligentsia complaining that he wasn't acting on the principles of a "true liberal". He denied that he had ever been a liberal, but claimed he had always been and would continue to be a "realist".


Alex.
JFK was a liberal when compared to the rest of the American political world of 1960. In today's American political world, he would be, at worst, a moderate or, at best, a moderate conservative. The 1960 election was a typical liberal vs. conservative battle of that era, with JFK being the liberal and Nixon being the conservative. If we hadn't moved from PA to NY just prior to the 1960 election, we would have been able to vote for Nixon, the conservative.

[TeenageRepublican]

JFK was a liberal when compared to the rest of the American political world of 1960. In today's American political world, he would be, at worst, a moderate or, at best, a moderate conservative. The 1960 election was a typical liberal vs. conservative battle of that era, with JFK being the liberal and Nixon being the conservative. If we hadn't moved from PA to NY just prior to the 1960 election, we would have been able to vote for Nixon, the conservative.

Yes, if only he were alive today...
Hey, do you know a website that has the movie of his last moments? Which was in the car and getting shot, I'd like to observe it.

[Alex]

JFK was a liberal when compared to the rest of the American political world of 1960. In today's American political world, he would be, at worst, a moderate or, at best, a moderate conservative. The 1960 election was a typical liberal vs. conservative battle of that era, with JFK being the liberal and Nixon being the conservative. If we hadn't moved from PA to NY just prior to the 1960 election, we would have been able to vote for Nixon, the conservative.
Do you think that anyone studying the progress of American liberal opinion over the last 50 years would find it has become more "extreme"? In other words, that American liberalism of today is much closer to socialism than it was in the time of JFK.

I believe this is true, and that it's a ideological trend we can observe in other Western societies. I could give reasons for thinking this way, but I don't want to pull this thread in another direction.

Alex.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

JFK may have been somewhat (more) conservative than his liberal counterparts that have survived to today, however I believe had HE lived, he would be just as liberal as they are now. It's the nature of the beast.

(Disclaimer: Sorry, not a JFK fan here.)

[Alex]

JFK may have been somewhat (more) conservative than his liberal counterparts that have survived to today, however I believe had HE lived, he would be just as liberal as they are now. It's the nature of the beast.

(Disclaimer: Sorry, not a JFK fan here.)
His brother Teddy is still on the scene and he certainly confirms your prediction. As for JFK, I'm no fan of his either. However, I wonder if his liberalism was a pose - an expedient that helped to get him elected as president?

Alex.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

His brother Teddy is still on the scene and he certainly confirms your prediction. As for JFK, I'm no fan of his either. However, I wonder if his liberalism was a pose - an expedient that helped to get him elected as president?

Alex.

He was a Kennedy -- IMHO, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

[Lubbock]

If JFK had not moved an inch politically in lo-these-many-years, NT would be exactrly correct.

Like Homes, I figure he would have gone as far Lib/Left as the rest of his ilk.

As far as I'm concerned, he was just another low-life Liberal philanderer. I've always found it interesting that he was Billy Jeff's idol.

[TeenageRepublican]

He was a Kennedy -- IMHO, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.

ROFL :rotflmbo:!

Homes, this has to be the very first time I've disagreed with you. Thank God this is a little issue. NASA, the anti-Global Warming organization, was created by JFK.
You know how the members of the CGW, who are mostly Liberals, would hate, hate, JFK for making NASA. JFK frankly wouldn't give a damn, then he wouldn't be welcome on today's left wing. He would be forced to become a Moderate Republican, where he would be welcomed.
JFK was a great man, I wish Oswald went to prison for doing what he did.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

ROFL :rotflmbo:!

Homes, this has to be the very first time I've disagreed with you. Thank God this is a little issue.

That's the wonderful thing about living in this country, we are free to disagree without resorting to violence, :smirky: .
Regarding JFK and the "good" he did ... even a stopped clock is right twice a day, :biggrin:. I doubt that had he lived he would have been on the outside of his party/ideology looking in, but rather an extension of it produced gradually. I'm not so certain that his strong stances were generated from personal positions held or from wisdom come by surrounding one's self with those yet wiser.
Yes, he most certainly was better than Carter and Clinton, but really, that's not saying too much is it? :smirky:

[Naturalized-Texan]

He was a Kennedy -- IMHO, the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.
Both John Kennedy and Bobby Kennedy were staunch anti-Communists and both were supporters of Joe McCarthy. In fact, Bobby Kennedy was on the staff of Joe McCarthy's Senate Committee that investigated the Communist infiltration of the government and he contributed much information to support McCarthy's charges. Moreover, Bobby, as John's AG, ordered the wire-tapping of Martin Luther King's telephone and the bugging of his office because he believed that MLK was being controlled by the Communists.

Bobby only flip-flopped to the left when he decided to run for president against LBJ in 1968. In that he was a typical political opportunist.

If JFK had lived and had stuck to his principles, he would have been no worse than a moderate in today's American politics.

BTW, old Joe Kennedy was a Nazi sympathizer. If it was true that JFK and Bobby didn't fall far from the tree, they would have also been Nazi sympathizers.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

If JFK had lived and had stuck to his principles, . . .

Therein lies the crux. I don't believe he would have, and I also question whether they were really his principles to begin with. That is my opinion, and it obviously differs from the majority, but that's okay :smirky:.

[TeenageRepublican]

That's the wonderful thing about living in this country, we are free to disagree without resorting to violence, :smirky: .
Regarding JFK and the "good" he did ... even a stopped clock is right twice a day, :biggrin:. I doubt that had he lived he would have been on the outside of his party/ideology looking in, but rather an extension of it produced gradually. I'm not so certain that his strong stances were generated from personal positions held or from wisdom come by surrounding one's self with those yet wiser.
Yes, he most certainly was better than Carter and Clinton, but really, that's not saying too much is it? :smirky:

Indeed he was, but think about it, Kennedy was killed before the hippie generation. Don't you think, since he was Catholic, that he would've avoided that hippie crap?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Indeed he was, but think about it, Kennedy was killed before the hippie generation. Don't you think, since he was Catholic, that he would've avoided that hippie crap?

Most all polliticians avoided the "hippie crap". Furthermore, that's irrelevant. I believe he would have been influenced by the same factors which have influence many a democrat down the liberal line. IMHO, his true motivation was power, not principle.

[Rhino]

But ... and more importantly ... would he have inhaled?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

But ... and more importantly ... would he have inhaled?

http://www.freeconservatives.com/vb/images/icons/biglaugh.gif :thumb:

[Naturalized-Texan]

Therein lies the crux. I don't believe he would have, and I also question whether they were really his principles to begin with. That is my opinion, and it obviously differs from the majority, but that's okay :smirky:.
Earlier in this thread I posted excerpts JFK's speech to the Economic Club of New York and from his FY1964 Budget Message to Congress. If one would read those excerpts without knowing who presented them, one could easily believe that President Reagan presented them. President Reagan borrowed many of JFK's economic, fiscal, and national defense policies as presented in those excerpts.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Earlier in this thread I posted excerpts JFK's speech to the Economic Club of New York and from his FY1964 Budget Message to Congress. If one would read those excerpts without knowing who presented them, one could easily believe that President Reagan presented them. President Reagan borrowed many of JFK's economic, fiscal, and national defense policies as presented in those excerpts.

That was then, this is now. The idea of the question posed was whether JFK would be a Conservative NOW, if he had lived. We can only speculate from his past, and the path his party has taken since then. I believe he would succumbed to liberalism's strong pull, because I believe his motivation was power not principle. Doesn't really matter though, he's gone, and we are left with the devastation wrought by his party (regardless if that was or had been his ideological bent).

[TeenageRepublican]

But ... and more importantly ... would he have inhaled?

JFK was taking prescription drugs for his PT-109 wound, which was in the back, so, for medical reasons, he just might have if he survived. :biggrin:

[Naturalized-Texan]

That was then, this is now. The idea of the question posed was whether JFK would be a Conservative NOW, if he had lived. We can only speculate from his past, and the path his party has taken since then. I believe he would succumbed to liberalism's strong pull, because I believe his motivation was power not principle. Doesn't really matter though, he's gone, and we are left with the devastation wrought by his party (regardless if that was or had been his ideological bent).
As I have stated several times here, I am convinced that today JFK would be, at worst, a moderate or, at best, a moderate conservative. In other words, he would be either like Joe Lieberman or George W. Bush.

I think that he is spinning in his grave over what his "little" brother, Teddy, is up to.

[Lubbock]

One thing is for danged-sure: We will never know.

Everything else is a guessing game.

I think it's a sin and shame that he was assassinated, however it happened. That we can all agree on.

I probably wouldn't have wished that on Billy Jeff when he was in office.

Probably . . .

[TeenageRepublican]

I think that he is spinning in his grave over what his "little" brother, Teddy, is up to.

I know, Teddy is what JFK isn't, personality and morally wise.

[Naturalized-Texan]

I think it's a sin and shame that he was assassinated, however it happened. That we can all agree on..
I was working in Arlington, VA, on a contract for the DIA, when JFK was assassinated. One of the guys returned from a late lunch and told us that Kennedy had been shot. Someone in the office had a radio so we turned it on and learned that he was pronounced dead. We were immediately released from work as were all government employees. I had to drive through DC to get to our home in MD, about 25 miles from the White House. The drive home was eerily quiet, like everyone was driving in a daze.

[TeenageRepublican]

I was working in Arlington, VA, on a contract for the DIA, when JFK was assassinated. One of the guys returned from a late lunch and told us that Kennedy had been shot. Someone in the office had a radio so we turned it on and learned that he was pronounced dead. We were immediately released from work as were all government employees. I had to drive through DC to get to our home in MD, about 25 miles from the White House. The drive home was eerily quiet, like everyone was driving in a daze.

It was like that in Colorado when 9/11 happened.

[Lubbock]

I was working in Arlington, VA, on a contract for the DIA, when JFK was assassinated. One of the guys returned from a late lunch and told us that Kennedy had been shot. Someone in the office had a radio so we turned it on and learned that he was pronounced dead. We were immediately released from work as were all government employees. I had to drive through DC to get to our home in MD, about 25 miles from the White House. The drive home was eerily quiet, like everyone was driving in a daze.

I was living in Pakistan. We got the news from a retired British Major, an early riser, listening to the BBC on his short-wave radio with his morning coffee. He came running down the street, knocking on the doors of all Americans on the street, waking everyone up, telling us, "Your President has been shot. Your President has been shot."

I think it was about 4:30 in the morning.

I still have the news paper from that day, The Pakistan Times. It's in Urdu.

[TeenageRepublican]

I was living in Pakistan. We got the news from a retired British Major, an early riser, listening to the BBC on his short-wave radio with his morning coffee. He came running down the street, knocking on the doors of all Americans on the street, waking everyone up, telling us, "Your President has been shot. Your President has been shot."

I think it was about 4:30 in the morning.

I still have the news paper from that day, The Pakistan Times. It's in Urdu.

What were you doing in Pakistan?

[Alex]

As I have stated several times here, I am convinced that today JFK would be, at worst, a moderate or, at best, a moderate conservative. In other words, he would be either like Joe Lieberman or George W. Bush.

I think that he is spinning in his grave over what his "little" brother, Teddy, is up to.
It seems that by 1940, Joe Kennedy planned to buy the White House for one of his sons. The first born Joe junior would have been chosen to run for president had he not been killed in the war. So the mantle passed to JFK, and after his death, to Bobby. Had it not been for the Chappaquiddick incident, it's possible that Teddy would have succeeded in following in JFK's footsteps.

Whether the Kennedy Klan had any deeply held political principles which they hoped to apply in the public interest seems moot: they seem to have adjusted their principles to whatever expediency seemed most likely to get them elected. Perhaps, with the benefit of hindsight, this is why JFK can appear to be both a "conservative" and a "liberal" politician at the same time.

Alex.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

Whether the Kennedy Klan had any deeply held political principles which they hoped to apply in the public interest seems moot: they seem to have adjusted their principles to whatever expediency seemed most likely to get them elected. Perhaps, with the benefit of hindsight, this is why JFK can appear to be both a "conservative" and a "liberal" politician at the same time.

Alex.

My thoughts exactly.

[TeenageRepublican]

Here's a couple more reasons on why I think he would be a Conservative:

1: He married one woman, had alot of children, and went to the Catholic church every Sunday.

2: I think 60% of Conservatives end up Conservative as soon as they realize the truth of the world after something bad happens. JFK was a real War Hero, he transported most of the crew across shark infested waters, with a broken back, carrying a man, and didn't give up no matter what. You would think that would turn a Libtard into a Conservative, a modern day Libtard would say the sinking of PT-109 was an accident and that the Japanease were good people.
A Conservative would say, "You Japanease bastards, you'll pay for this!" I'm not reffering to Japanease in this culture, I'm just saying that in World War 2, the Japanease did do some bad stuff to us, so did we to them.

3: For those who have seen "Team America", do you remember that part where the man from the United Nations comes and tries to talk with Kim, the Korean headcase? Here's how it went:
Kim: What happens if I don't give up my weapons?
Man: Then we will write you a letter and will be very mad with you.

The man ended up in a shark tank, for those of you that haven't seen it. Here's how it would've gone if JFK encountered him:
Kim: What happens if I don't give up my weapons?
JFK: Then we will blow your commie ass straight to where it belongs, in hell.

I bet JFK would've done that if Castro hadn't lowered his weapons, but, JFK did a great job when it came to convincing foreign leaders to stop whatever.

I'm not a big fan of RFK, he turned a little Liberal when he was campaining. The Kennedy's have sort of an evolution: The first person, starting from JFK, is Conservative, the next Kennedy gets more and more Liberal. Thus, a monster is born, Teddy Kennedy. :eek:

I hope Teddy doesn't spawn any devil children, who could more far left then that?

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

For someone who says he's not a big fan, you sure come off sounding like one. TR, you need to dig a little deeper into history. Read lots of sources, don't just believe everything at face value.

JFK was a notorious womanizer, not unlike Bill Clinton. That alone makes me highly suspicious of his character, not to mention the likelihood of such a situation effecting his ability to lead the country.

I'm not going to get into a fight regarding Kennedy, just suffice it to say he doesn't necessarily deserve the pedestal he's been put up on by history writers.

[TeenageRepublican]

For someone who says he's not a big fan, you sure come off sounding like one. TR, you need to dig a little deeper into history. Read lots of sources, don't just believe everything at face value.

JFK was a notorious womanizer, not unlike Bill Clinton. That alone makes me highly suspicious of his character, not to mention the likelihood of such a situation effecting his ability to lead the country.

I'm not going to get into a fight regarding Kennedy, just suffice it to say he doesn't necessarily deserve the pedestal he's been put up on by history writers.

I know all about how he was a womanizer, JFK Jr. slept with a hooker, and he probably inherited it from his father. I read a book on it, it came out a few months ago, and it's extremely good. I'm not a fan of his because of that, I'm a fan of his because the man did more good things in three years than Bill Clinton did in eight.
I think Reagan was a better President, but, JFK had an extremely moderate life. That's what interests me so much about him, my grandma, a flaming Liberal, hates his guts. I did a ton of research on JFK, when he was born, where he was born, and what his life was like.
I've had about seven Libtards tell me that they hate him, and here's what's shocking. The Libtards said that there were no nuclear weapons in Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis (watch the movie "Thirteen Days", great true story, and it's all about the Cuban Missile Crisis), they said that JFK was planning on this event since the forties.
Bullcrap, I saw the pictures, the Cubans had nuclear weapons, and they killed one pilot because he was taking pictures of the nukes. Now, take the War on Terror, what do the Libtards say? There are no nuclear weapons in Iraq, which is also full of it, but, this the JFK thread, and I need to stay on subject.
If JFK were alive today, I can bet you money that he would be a moderate Conservative. He wouldn't take all that crap from the Libtards, if nuclear weapons were found, then he would've taken care of it. And he wouldn't give a damn about what the Libtards feel. The Libtards would eat him alive if he was still here for attacking a Country that has actually threatened us and has proof of weapons in that Country.
I'm not that big of a fan of his, it is funny though, the Libtards turned on one of their best Presidents from their party. Unlike them, we Conservatives actually appreciate our Presidents, and know when they are/n't a good President.

[gnome]

I know that there's been a lot of debate about the presence or lack of WMD's in general, but this is the first time I've heard anyone assert that there were actual functioning nuclear weapons held by Saddam. Where can I read up on that? Maybe that should be a different thread.

[HomeschoolrsRUs]

I know that there's been a lot of debate about the presence or lack of WMD's in general, but this is the first time I've heard anyone assert that there were actual functioning nuclear weapons held by Saddam. Where can I read up on that? Maybe that should be a different thread.

Are you referring to TR's post? If so, he was talking about the CUBAN Missle Crisis, not Saddam and WMD's.

[Rhino]

I know that there's been a lot of debate about the presence or lack of WMD's in general, but this is the first time I've heard anyone assert that there were actual functioning nuclear weapons held by Saddam.I haven't seen anyone assert that. Where are you getting that from?

[TeenageRepublican]

I know that there's been a lot of debate about the presence or lack of WMD's in general, but this is the first time I've heard anyone assert that there were actual functioning nuclear weapons held by Saddam. Where can I read up on that? Maybe that should be a different thread.

I'm comparing how Libtards wasn't there isn't any WMD in JFK's case and Bush's case. :biggrin:

[gnome]

Now, take the War on Terror, what do the Libtards say? There are no nuclear weapons in Iraq, which is also full of it

I took that to mean that the libtards were "full of it" to say that there are no nuclear weapons in Iraq...

If that's not what is meant I withdraw my comments. :P

[Rhino]

This makes me curious, though. TR, on what do you base the claim that the liberals said there were no missiles in Cuba?

[TeenageRepublican]

This makes me curious, though. TR, on what do you base the claim that the liberals said there were no missiles in Cuba?

My grandma is part of a Liberal group thing, and one of seniors had a son that was supposedly part of the blockade against Cuba. He supposedly said that there were no weapons. There's like, 20 people in this group, and they believe it.

[Rhino]

I can't speak for that group, but it was pretty universally accepted back then that the nukes were there, even amongst liberals. The pictures of them were kind of hard to deny.

[TeenageRepublican]

I can't speak for that group, but it was pretty universally accepted back then that the nukes were there, even amongst liberals. The pictures of them were kind of hard to deny.

This group says that they were fake and/or altered somehow. You know, kind of like they say that the moon landing never happened.

[Naturalized-Texan]

My grandma is part of a Liberal group thing, and one of seniors had a son that was supposedly part of the blockade against Cuba. He supposedly said that there were no weapons. There's like, 20 people in this group, and they believe it.
Ironically, there were reconnaissance photos that showed conclusively that the Soviets were building missile silos in Cuba by August 1962, more than 2 months before JFK took action. I was living in NY State at the time and our Republican Senator at the time, Kenneth Keating, showed those photos on the floor of the US Senate in August and demanded that Kennedy take action.

The Soviet missiles in Cuba became the major issue in the 1962 Congressional campaign and it appeared that the Republicans were going to make huge gains in those elections and maybe even gain control of Congress. It appeared to me at the time that Kennedy intentionally timed the Cuban Missile Crisis (late October) so that the Democrats could gain maximum advantage in the 1962 elections, and it worked.

[TeenageRepublican]

Ironically, there were reconnaissance photos that showed conclusively that the Soviets were building missile silos in Cuba by August 1962, more than 2 months before JFK took action. I was living in NY State at the time and our Republican Senator at the time, Kenneth Keating, showed those photos on the floor of the US Senate in August and demanded that Kennedy take action.

The Soviet missiles in Cuba became the major issue in the 1962 Congressional campaign and it appeared that the Republicans were going to make huge gains in those elections and maybe even gain control of Congress. It appeared to me at the time that Kennedy intentionally timed the Cuban Missile Crisis (late October) so that the Democrats could gain maximum advantage in the 1962 elections, and it worked.

Wow, that's just like, confusing. So he stopped Cuba so he could win the votes of the Americans? And of course, to not be blown to pieces, but still.

[Rhino]

This group says that they were fake and/or altered somehow. You know, kind of like they say that the moon landing never happened. Well, that explains a few things. That group is obviously subject to severe flights of fantasy. So in this case, consider the source.

[MarlinsFan]

I always rate JFK in the bottom half of U.S. Presidents and a big reason was his role in the failure of the Bay of Pigs invasion.

[TeenageRepublican]

Well, that explains a few things. That group is obviously subject to severe flights of fantasy. So in this case, consider the source.

I know, if the source to them is what they believe, then they only rely on that. That's why I don't go there on:
Friday
Wednesday
Thursday
Saturday

All those days are when they meet.

[TeenageRepublican]

You know what this thread proves? You can't have a thread about JFK without a couple of conspiracy ideas about his death. I know that's stating the obvious, but somebody needed to say it.