Posted on 11/16/2013 9:48:54 PM PST by fella
And the Cuban Missile Crisis, on some subsequent readings of history, was not a triumph of bold statesmanship as it was hailed at the time, but a piece of foolhardy grandstanding that unnecessarily humiliated the Soviets and precipitated the arms race that defined the Cold War.
Even on civil rights – the subject of one of Kennedy's greatest speeches in June 1963, when he vowed that "Every American ought to have the right to be treated as he would wish to be treated, as he would wish to have his children treated." – the reality never matched the myth.
Kennedy made good on his campaign promises on equal rights but only, we now know, after being forced to intervene by growing violence in the South. Until that point, along with his brother Robert, the attorney-general, it was pragmatism not principle that had governed decision-making.
(Excerpt) Read more at telegraph.co.uk ...
actually, he couldn’t be a RAT today.
He was for cutting taxes and got congress to cut taxes.
-reduced top marginal income tax rate from 91% to 70%
-reduced corporate tax rate from 52% to 48%
Read his inaugural address. Everyone quotes “ask not....”, but that comes at the end of the address. What comes before is powerful. It wouldn’t make it out of editing today.
http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=8032
Truman didn’t ‘get us’ into Vietnam, we have advisers everywhere, sending in 16,000 troops and escalating involvement and participating in killing leaders, etc, is what ‘got us into Vietnam’.
What revisionist nonsense, about such a depraved man.
Don’t let the public language of all politicians of the 1950s lead you to think that they would not still be democrats today.
Reagan of that era, in a personal letter to the vice-president asked to campaign for the republican and register republican, to counter what Reagan labelled a Marxist, in the letter.
“”No Republican, no matter how liberal, is going to woo a Democratic vote; but a Republican bucking the giveaway trend might re-create some voters who have been staying home.
One last thought - shouldn’t someone tag Mr. Kennedy’s bold new imaginative program with its proper age? Under the tousled boyish haircut is still old Karl Marx - first launched a century ago. There is nothing new in the idea of a Government being Big Brother to us all. Hitler called his ‘State Socialism’ and way before him it was ‘benevolent monarchy.’””
There are also interviews with Mitt Romney claiming that he and his father BOTH marched with MLK, neither of which is true.
Those threads were really nasty, as the Romney crowd threw everything they could into defending the false history.
Don’t forget the allowing of government employees to unionize via an EO over an Easter recess weekend or the Swimmer’s Immigration Bill of 1965.
I’ll say it again: Except for the sister that dared to marry a Protestant and the other sister that was lobotomized, the entire Kennedy Klan should have been Einsatzgruppened with extreme prejudice.
The Kennedys unleashed more destruction on this nation than any other source, period.
100% agree.
NEA and Unions maybe too.....
An interesting interview
Sure! No tears from me.
They don’t believe in the one true God revealed in Scripture. Hence, JFK(or what they imagine he was like) serves as their substitute. How else can one explain the never ending string of movies they kept making about the Kennedys whether they’re successful or not?
Daily Telegraph is conservative, the Guardian is liberal. I despise the Guardian.
Thank you! I will check out that book. I feel like I’m starting out from scratch when it comes to learning history and I’m always looking for truth.
The American fascination with the myth of "Camelot" is eerily similar to the fascination the British have with their "royal family."
I actually had neighbors once who were very much like Prince Charles and Diana. The man was sort of effeminate, had big ears, was kind of goofy and wore a lot of sweaters. The woman always was fussing over her hair and wearing fancy clothes. They hired people to do their housework and yard work for them. Not that there's anything wrong with that but I got to thinking that there really wasn't much difference between them and the royal pair over in England.
I've had a few celebrity encounters in my life and they are just regular people. I saw Donald Trump in Atlantic City and said hello to him just like he was anybody else. He returned the favor. In Anaheim, California, I ran into Reggie Jackson and Jim Rice in 1984 after a pre-season ballgame. I didn't ask them for their autograph, just wished them well in their upcoming seasons and went about my regular business. Ric Ocasek of The Cars got in line behind me in a Dunkin Donuts near Kenmore Square and I didn't bother moving aside for him. I let him wait behind me while I ordered a cup of regular coffee and a blueberry muffin. I didn't bother acknowledging him even though others around me were all starstruck. He's just a guy who happens to put nonsense lyrics to bouncy tunes.
So the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination is coming up and everybody's all a-flutter over Camelot again. I don't have any reason to dislike the guy but basically his whole life was charmed because he happened to be born to a wealthy family whose patriarch had established valuable connections with the mob, politicians and other such influential types. His antics in the PT-109 incident would have gotten a regular Joe court-martialed. If he was a regular Joe, Jacqueline Onassis would not have given him the time of day.
I don't have any reason to dislike JFK (like I do his little brother Teddy) but I'm certainly not starstruck by him. Same goes for politicians I do like. Such as Ronald Reagan. Now Reagan was a fine president so far as presidents go but he made a lot of mistakes too. I don't put Reagan on a pedestal, but I'd definitely vote for him again if I could go back in time and do my life all over again.
I believe I have heard it said before, the Kennedys were sort of like American Royalty. To an extent, I suppose I can accept JFK but most of the rest of the family became very abhorrent in their lifestyles and views. This when they probably could have had a positive impact but chose to be the flagship of extreme left-wing thought and policies.
A hit piece on JFK. Was he perfect ? Heck no. Was he the POS this “journalist” describes ? Hell, no.
Wow, a hit piece on the left’s media created hero, an incompetent boob and a completely depraved individual in every way?
You’re welcome. I think that you will enjoy reading Mr. Johnson’s book. He writes so well that you are drawn into the narrative, unlike many history books, which tend to be, well, “rather dry.” Scholarship is not sacrificed, either.
The difference between Reagan and JFK is night and day, JFK was not real, he was created by the media, Reagan earned his two terms, and was a great and effective leader. When one looks deeply into the behind the scenes Reagan and his life, he becomes a hero, greater than all but few people know, a man that we cannot help but respect, with JFK it is the opposite, when one starts looking into the man, he becomes a disgusting figure, a man that we cannot respect.
The two are night and day.
Wow . . . . somebody is actually catching on to the reality that socialism = communism = monarchy. It’s the old “Give us a king” thing that appears to be hard wired into our DNA. It appeals to all of the 7 sins in one way or another. True freedom and liberty is personal responsibility and not depending on someone or something else to provide material things for you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.