First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
Post Reply JFK an overated president
2047 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 1/6/16
Everywhere one looks on TV these days there's a story about JFK. In my daily scan of 400 websites, I've already seen a dozen stories on him.

But, what's the big deal?

Okay, let's all agree that he was a true war hero – unlike another politician from Mass. who will remain unnamed. He served in the House for 6 years, then the Senate for 8 – apparently doing an adequate job. He beat some weak opponents in the primaries and faced Tricky Dick in the General, winning just by 2 10ths of 1 percent. Only because electors from Mississippi, Alabama, and Oklahoma voted for Harry Byrd did he win.

In foreign policy he ended up with the Berlin Wall, the disastrous Bay of Pigs, The Cuban Missile Crisis, supported a dictator in South Vietnam [leading to the expansion of US involvement in that area], backed the Ramadan revolution in Iraq, said Israel would endure, and came up with the Nuclear Disarmament Treaty. He was also responsible for the creation of the Army's Special Forces – known as the Green Berets – an element specially designed for supporting the government of South Vietnam.

He created The Peace Corps, probably his best accomplishment and manged to lower taxes in spite of Democrat opposition in Congress, creating an economic boom.

But what about personally. He was the son of a notorious bootlegger who made millions by breaking the law of the land. He grew up in wealth and luxury, never having to work at a “real” job. And, compared to JFK, Clinton was a virgin. Everybody – including his socially selected wife, knew he dorked women in the White House and almost everywhere else he went – not even counting the notorious affair with Marilyn Monroe. One thing at least – he never stood up before the American people or the world and told bald-face li8es.

So, I again ask – what's the big deal about JFK?
948 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
19 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 1/6/16 , edited 1/6/16
Once somebody gets killed everybody gives them a free pass and dismisses all of their flaws because they don't want to sound like a jerk for criticizing a murder victim.
Posted 1/6/16
I assume it was because he got shot.
11622 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
40 / M / USA
Offline
Posted 1/6/16
Got an airport named after him. That counts for something right? RIGHT?!
1062 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / Northwestern Unit...
Offline
Posted 1/6/16
The affair with Marilyn Monroe is, apparently, pop culture fiction, because many historians haven't been able to prove it, or flat out say it never happened. Not that other affairs didn't, just not Marilyn Monroe's.
Posted 1/6/16

biscuitnote wrote:

Everywhere one looks on TV these days there's a story about JFK. In my daily scan of 400 websites, I've already seen a dozen stories on him.

But, what's the big deal?

Okay, let's all agree that he was a true war hero – unlike another politician from Mass. who will remain unnamed. He served in the House for 6 years, then the Senate for 8 – apparently doing an adequate job. He beat some weak opponents in the primaries and faced Tricky Dick in the General, winning just by 2 10ths of 1 percent. Only because electors from Mississippi, Alabama, and Oklahoma voted for Harry Byrd did he win.

In foreign policy he ended up with the Berlin Wall, the disastrous Bay of Pigs, The Cuban Missile Crisis, supported a dictator in South Vietnam [leading to the expansion of US involvement in that area], backed the Ramadan revolution in Iraq, said Israel would endure, and came up with the Nuclear Disarmament Treaty. He was also responsible for the creation of the Army's Special Forces – known as the Green Berets – an element specially designed for supporting the government of South Vietnam.

He created The Peace Corps, probably his best accomplishment and manged to lower taxes in spite of Democrat opposition in Congress, creating an economic boom.

But what about personally. He was the son of a notorious bootlegger who made millions by breaking the law of the land. He grew up in wealth and luxury, never having to work at a “real” job. And, compared to JFK, Clinton was a virgin. Everybody – including his socially selected wife, knew he dorked women in the White House and almost everywhere else he went – not even counting the notorious affair with Marilyn Monroe. One thing at least – he never stood up before the American people or the world and told bald-face li8es.

So, I again ask – what's the big deal about JFK?


He didn't live long enough to make mistakes, that's why he is immortal.
48597 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
23 / M / AZ
Offline
Posted 1/6/16
The guy was a sex hound
10831 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
13 / F / California
Offline
Posted 1/6/16

WeeabooWarrior wrote:


biscuitnote wrote:

Everywhere one looks on TV these days there's a story about JFK. In my daily scan of 400 websites, I've already seen a dozen stories on him.

But, what's the big deal?

Okay, let's all agree that he was a true war hero – unlike another politician from Mass. who will remain unnamed. He served in the House for 6 years, then the Senate for 8 – apparently doing an adequate job. He beat some weak opponents in the primaries and faced Tricky Dick in the General, winning just by 2 10ths of 1 percent. Only because electors from Mississippi, Alabama, and Oklahoma voted for Harry Byrd did he win.

In foreign policy he ended up with the Berlin Wall, the disastrous Bay of Pigs, The Cuban Missile Crisis, supported a dictator in South Vietnam [leading to the expansion of US involvement in that area], backed the Ramadan revolution in Iraq, said Israel would endure, and came up with the Nuclear Disarmament Treaty. He was also responsible for the creation of the Army's Special Forces – known as the Green Berets – an element specially designed for supporting the government of South Vietnam.

He created The Peace Corps, probably his best accomplishment and manged to lower taxes in spite of Democrat opposition in Congress, creating an economic boom.

But what about personally. He was the son of a notorious bootlegger who made millions by breaking the law of the land. He grew up in wealth and luxury, never having to work at a “real” job. And, compared to JFK, Clinton was a virgin. Everybody – including his socially selected wife, knew he dorked women in the White House and almost everywhere else he went – not even counting the notorious affair with Marilyn Monroe. One thing at least – he never stood up before the American people or the world and told bald-face li8es.

So, I again ask – what's the big deal about JFK?


He didn't live long enough to make mistakes, that's why he is immortal.


Bay of Pigs.
Posted 1/6/16
I just like his wife.
16843 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / L'Étoile du Nord,...
Offline
Posted 1/6/16
JFK will probably be a hot topic forever more. His untimely death, via assassination, is probably the main reason for his popularity today. If he wasn't assassinated, he might have just gone down in history as another president and nothing special.....emphasis on "might have", though, because his administration was as interesting as he was individually, at least at the time. His administration consisted of people of different political parties.

JFK wasn't perfect, and I don't know if he was this great man that some make him out to be. He had a good share of screw-ups, such as the failed Bahía de Cochinos invasion, and most especially him getting us involved in Vietnam. Aside from that, I heard that a lot of old people in the US Government disliked and distrusted President Kennedy. I remember reading something online back in 2003 saying that the real reason why JFK was assassinated was because he was going to expose details about MJ-12. Today, I doubt that was the sole reason for his assassination, but he did make a speech about secrecy and how we Americans are supposed to be opposed to it, which might have upset some people in the government, at least people involved in black operations.

The time of the JFK Administration was probably when liberalism in America came to be. I don't think JFK or his administration should be directly blamed, so all I can say is that the JFK Administration was witness to the rise of American liberalism. Liberalism isn't an evil thing per se. However, it was like the birth of a new life-form, having been exposed to the world, and it responds with extremity....as such, the early years of American liberalism gave way to a lot of extremist beliefs and movements, to at least to mention are things such as the Weatherman and the SCUM Manifesto.

Since I wasn't alive at the time of the JFK Administration, I'll never have a proper grasp of the realities of life at the time. For sure, I'll always have trouble knowing whether or not JFK was this great guy. It's possible that his attempts to do the right thing in life are what cost him his life.
1062 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / Northwestern Unit...
Offline
Posted 1/6/16

Gross1985 wrote:
The time of the JFK Administration was probably when liberalism in America came to be. I don't think JFK or his administration should be directly blamed, so all I can say is that the JFK Administration was witness to the rise of American liberalism. Liberalism isn't an evil thing per se. However, it was like the birth of a new life-form, having been exposed to the world, and it responds with extremity....as such, the early years of American liberalism gave way to a lot of extremist beliefs and movements, to at least to mention are things such as the Weatherman and the SCUM Manifesto.
.


Errr, I'm not really sure you can call things like the SCUM Manifesto or the Weathermen "liberal". This is a big problem with US politics, because we somehow conceptualize the entire Left as being "liberal" and the entire Right as being "conservative". Also I'm not certain we can blame the rise of neo-liberalism in the US as the reason for radical Leftists politics, as there are many sources which can be traced quite far back, historically, that aided in some way to the rise of radical politics (Black Liberation movement which spawned out of the Civil Rights movement, which had been going on since at least the mid-1800s; the Women's Liberation movement which spawned out of the Women's Movement, which spawned out of the Suffragette movement, etc. going back to the 1800s, at least; a rejuvenation of Communist and Socialist political movements in response to the "excess" of the 1950s; etc.).
16843 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
31 / M / L'Étoile du Nord,...
Offline
Posted 1/6/16

Usuguraii wrote:


Gross1985 wrote:
The time of the JFK Administration was probably when liberalism in America came to be. I don't think JFK or his administration should be directly blamed, so all I can say is that the JFK Administration was witness to the rise of American liberalism. Liberalism isn't an evil thing per se. However, it was like the birth of a new life-form, having been exposed to the world, and it responds with extremity....as such, the early years of American liberalism gave way to a lot of extremist beliefs and movements, to at least to mention are things such as the Weatherman and the SCUM Manifesto.
.

Errr, I'm not really sure you can call things like the SCUM Manifesto or the Weathermen "liberal". This is a big problem with US politics, because we somehow conceptualize the entire Left as being "liberal" and the entire Right as being "conservative". Also I'm not certain we can blame the rise of neo-liberalism in the US as the reason for radical Leftists politics, as there are many sources which can be traced quite far back, historically, that aided in some way to the rise of radical politics (Black Liberation movement which spawned out of the Civil Rights movement, which had been going on since at least the mid-1800s; the Women's Liberation movement which spawned out of the Women's Movement, which spawned out of the Suffragette movement, etc. going back to the 1800s, at least; a rejuvenation of Communist and Socialist political movements in response to the "excess" of the 1950s; etc.).

Yeah; I forgot to point out that then, even to this day, we Americans continue to have trouble defining "liberal". I think the rise of liberalism in the US was supposed to encourage open-mindedness, resulting in various factors that would lead to significant progress (socially, at least)....because, per my understanding, one element of liberalism involves progress. And I was of the opinion that things such as civil rights movements and women's liberation were "progress". The problem is that extremist elements claim to adhere to "progress", and as such, titles such as "liberal" or "progressive" are corrupted.

Hell, I don't know what defines a liberal. Wasn't being a liberal supposed to be "middle of the road", not adhering to a left wing or right wing political ideology? Yet, far-left people in America are called liberals. It's confusing.
1062 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
21 / Northwestern Unit...
Offline
Posted 1/6/16

Gross1985 wrote:
Yeah; I forgot to point out that then, even to this day, we Americans continue to have trouble defining "liberal". I think the rise of liberalism in the US was supposed to encourage open-mindedness, resulting in various factors that would lead to significant progress (socially, at least)....because, per my understanding, one element of liberalism involves progress. And I was of the opinion that things such as civil rights movements and women's liberation were "progress". The problem is that extremist elements claim to adhere to "progress", and as such, titles such as "liberal" or "progressive" are corrupted.

Hell, I don't know what defines a liberal. Wasn't being a liberal supposed to be "middle of the road", not adhering to a left wing or right wing political ideology? Yet, far-left people in America are called liberals. It's confusing.


I think you might be confusing some things. The liberalism that spawned out of the social movements of the 60s and 70s is what's referred to now as "neo-liberalism", because it's fundamentally different than the "classical liberalism" that founded this country in the 18th century. Liberalism, in general, is quite complex as philosophical and political theory, but from what I understand (which admittedly isn't a whole lot) is that Classical Liberalism addressed issues of state-rule versus monarchy, etc. Classical Liberals are people like Voltaire or Jefferson, people who wrote excessively about a State that was somewhat laissez-faire and allowed the citizenry a great deal of freedoms, socially, politically, and otherwise. It wasn't necessarily concerned with progressivism, although it was considered progressive since the law of the land at the time was Monarchy. Now Neo-liberalism isn't a revival of these philosophical posturings, rather, it's an ideology that suggests that the government should intervene in issues of social justice and adheres, at least theoretically, to the principles of progressivism.

If anything, Neo-liberalism is a progression, or perhaps a response, to the New Left of the late 60s and 70s. The New Left, as the name suggests, attempted to revitalize the spirit of the US Left of the early 20th century, however, it was a miserable failure, so people looked for other options to push towards their progressive ideals. Thus neo-liberalism springs up, as neo-liberalism works within the framework of our current political system to advocate for change, while most other Leftist ideologies would call for some sort of dismantling or reordering. I think the reason why everyone on the Left is referred to as liberals (even me, when my own personal political beliefs lean much more further towards anarcho-communism) has a lot to do with one, the way in which our political system is set up; two, political education (and of course McCarthyism); and three, ease for the people in power. It's much easier to divide people into two distinct camps, liberal and conservative, than it is to have many, many different camps that are all supposed to adhere to similar ideologies. It's kind of funny liberalism is even considered on the Left at all, because if anything, it's very much a moderate ideology. As is American conservatism, for that matter, although it is becoming progressively more and more Right-leaning as each election passes.
17031 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / F / In a van down by...
Offline
Posted 1/7/16

biscuitnote wrote:


So, I again ask – what's the big deal about JFK?




Pussy. If it had boobs, he nailed it.
10187 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / F / The state of Wash...
Offline
Posted 1/7/16
way over rated. LB J was the man. JFK was too much like obama. LBJ was not afraid to to things.
First  Prev  1  2  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.