Posted on 04/18/2020 3:52:16 AM PDT by Kaslin
As I said before, it was not an act of courage. Either you stand tall or you hide. He hid.
"Don’t be so sure. Back in the 2012 elections, he actually was a pretty huge rival for Obama retaining his chance at the Presidency for his own side, even managed to beat out Obama in Oklahoma, I think, by 18% of the electorate, a whopping 15 counties."
Terry voters were a protest vote. A pro-lifer would NEVER be allowed to get the Presidential nomination for the Democrat party.
"Helping the likes of McCarthy and actually getting rid of the missiles from Cuba at all instead of dithering and letting them stay on here like Obama’s nuclear program in Iran counts as “anti-Communist credentials”, last I checked. Sure, may not be enough to fully shift things, but it’s still something. Certainly a lot more than any so-called “anti-Communist” actions that Barack Obama and Bill Clinton did, or for that matter Jimmy Carter or Harry Truman."
Doing one thing early on and then doing something in opposition to that later doesn't mean your credentials remain intact. If a war hero saves somebody's life and then goes back home and robs a bank and kills a guard, he is no longer a hero. Abandoning McCarthy and abandoning the Freedom Fighters of Cuba secured JFK's reputation as a gutless weasel. Just a cheap politician seeking power like so many others, especially in his party.
"Actually, many of the left actually wanted to outright DESTROY government"
Yes, that's well known to those who know their true agenda. If they can't run the show as is, they'll undermine and destroy it. Cloward-Piven.
"By that same logic, you’ll have to acknowledge that Nixon was also of the left as well"
Nixon was a liberal Republican. He tended to believe in use of government to solve problems, but he was not attempting to destroy the government and implement Communism. He WAS an anti-Communist. Just not a Conservative. Because he helped expose the Soviet-Communist element in our government, he earned the lifelong enmity of the left.
"and even Ronald Reagan"
Reagan's biggest mistake was allowing Establishment scion Bush on the ticket with him. He also similarly made a mistake in choosing Dick Schweiker as his running mate in 1976. Never pick someone antithetical to your ideology as a Conservative to carry on after you're gone. Failure to choose Paul Laxalt meant that a squish that didn't believe in Conservatism carried on after Reagan, and just as quickly sank everything that he did. Other than that, Reagan still had to work within certain constraints and wasn't able to cut the government and pursue other ideological goals. Still, his policies on demolishing the Soviet Union, the source of international Communist evil, burnished his credentials for all time in freeing their slaves both in Russia and Eastern Europe.
"Heck, might as well state that Abraham Lincoln is left wing as well"
What really is seen as left vs. right in current terms only came about around 1896 when the left-wing seized control of the Democrats and deposed Cleveland and his pro-Gold Bourbon Conservatives. Another individual on FR tried to argue Lincoln was left and keeping slavery was right I found to be a morally repugnant argument. Freedom is a right-wing concept. Tyranny is a left-wing one. Ridding a tyranny of slavery in my estimation made Lincoln a hero of the right, not left.
"Let me rephrase that, I’m doubtful he’d support the BLM movement or the face masks. Maybe he’d still support the KKK, don’t know, and ultimately, it’s irrelevant at this point. What matters is that most of the Democrat contemporaries right now are supporting an up and out Marxist movement like BLM, not to mention social distancing and all of that (and the Democrats would be committing political suicide if they even tacitly admit that they love commies). I’ve had to personally witness this in Dunwoody, so I’d definitely know that much. I’m not even sure if John Patterson even would support BLM (then again, I don’t live in Alabama, so I wouldn’t know)."
The Marxist, anti-Black family BLM is a mainstream Democrat constituency. Unless Patterson has endorsed Trump, he's endorsing - as all Dems are -- the BLM/Antifa agenda by supporting Biden/Harris/Schumer/Pelosi.
"Really? Because Barack Obama certainly was bragging about bringing Communism about even when it was already there, as were various other current Commie Democrat politicians (for goodness sakes, Bernie Sanders doesn’t even TRY to hide that he’s a Communist, and didn’t bother trying to hide it when he was running Vermont). Besides, I don’t think JFK would have ever supported McCarthy if he himself supported Communism. Heck, if anything, his family during World War II was more likely to support the Nazis than the Soviets/Communists. The only one of the Kennedy clan who actually WAS an up and out Soviet supporter was Ted."
These guys are too scared to embrace the Communist label, because the label is unpopular. One of the early adherents running for President was fine with having the Democrats co-opt the Socialist (Communist) agenda under a different label. Shows the inherent disingenuity of the Democrats that they won't openly and unapologetically state what their end goal is. The destruction of our Republic and our Constitution. Sanders himself won't use "Communist." He tries to downplay his agenda by calling it "Democratic Socialism" and comparing it to the (failed) ideology of the Scandinavian countries. But his agenda and goal would make us a Venezuela. If Biden wins tonight, the party and base will expect to push him to move us towards Red Chinese/Venezuelan-level oppression, using their elected officials and packing the judiciary to suspend/bypass the Constitution. They're chomping at the bit to punish all Trump supporters and to roll back everything he has done. The base is not hiding that agenda, even as most of their elected candidates are.
JFK would’ve easily jettisoned the Catholic plank of being pro-life had he made it to the 1970s, just as Ted did. He was fine with jettisoning a center-right agenda he was elected to the Senate on and egregiously cheating to win in 1960 (first over Humphrey, then Nixon). He was also fine with jettisoning the notion of marital fidelity as a “Catholic.”
“JFK would’ve easily jettisoned the Catholic plank of being pro-life had he made it to the 1970s, just as Ted did. He was fine with jettisoning a center-right agenda he was elected to the Senate on and egregiously cheating to win in 1960 (first over Humphrey, then Nixon). He was also fine with jettisoning the notion of marital fidelity as a “Catholic.””
Yeah, and Martin Sheen also jettisoned quite a few Catholic Doctrines just by singing praises for Fidel Castro and trying to get that cop killer acquitted, among other radical leftist causes (many of which were stuff John Paul II and Benedict XVI would NEVER have supported, and if anything, the only Pope I could imagine actually giving any support to the stuff Sheen supported is Francis), yet when push came to shove and he had to deal with Obama’s notoriously in-your-face abortion record, he refused to have anything to do with him (heck, his giving tacit support for the likes of Bill and Hillary Clinton was an implicit support of Abortion as well, so when he refused to back Obama, it’s pretty obvious it’s because he still retained some degree of respect for his Catholic upbringing, no matter how small). If Sheen can do it, so can JFK. And I’m pretty sure even being associated with McCarthy would have permanently tarred Kennedy among the left (and in fact, I’ve seen plenty of leftists, communist leftists at that, outright hate JFK. Like George Lucas, for example. Last I checked, comparing him to Nixon when implicitly describing the creation of the Empire doesn’t strike me as having much fondness for the guy).
“As I said before, it was not an act of courage. Either you stand tall or you hide. He hid.”
He could have easily just hid by outright saying no to McCarthy from the start, even saying he’s afraid of being targeted. The fact that he even helped him at all indicates he stood tall. Besides, I don’t really recall Nixon really standing tall for Conservativism by the 1960s, even managing to ally with China.
“Terry voters were a protest vote. A pro-lifer would NEVER be allowed to get the Presidential nomination for the Democrat party.”
I’m pretty sure if that were the case, Terry wouldn’t have gotten as far as he did in Oklahoma at all.
“Doing one thing early on and then doing something in opposition to that later doesn’t mean your credentials remain intact. If a war hero saves somebody’s life and then goes back home and robs a bank and kills a guard, he is no longer a hero. Abandoning McCarthy and abandoning the Freedom Fighters of Cuba secured JFK’s reputation as a gutless weasel. Just a cheap politician seeking power like so many others, especially in his party.”
I’m not sure going to the hospital counts as “abandoning” McCarthy. If anything, Eisenhower’s actions came far closer to outright abandonment than JFK’s did. I know if I were JFK and I wanted to “abandon” McCarthy, I’d attend the hearing as planned, then the very second I get called up, I sell him out with a smile on my face while I watch McCarthy’s face grow upset. I wouldn’t settle for a hospital visit that occurred at the time. Besides, Vader even saving Luke’s life despite spending most of his life being a butchering mass murderer apparently was enough to save his soul in Star Wars.
“Yes, that’s well known to those who know their true agenda. If they can’t run the show as is, they’ll undermine and destroy it. Cloward-Piven.”
Actually, I’m not sure they even planned to run the show at all, just destroy it even if they can run the show their way. Like what Robespierre did and even what Michel Foucault and Karl Marx advocated, not to mention Vladimir Lenin.
“Nixon was a liberal Republican. He tended to believe in use of government to solve problems, but he was not attempting to destroy the government and implement Communism. He WAS an anti-Communist. Just not a Conservative. Because he helped expose the Soviet-Communist element in our government, he earned the lifelong enmity of the left.”
Yeah, and considering JFK actually did help, no matter how little, in McCarthy’s endeavor against Communism, that would have been MORE than enough for JFK and Robert to be tarred and feathered. Either way, any anti-Communist views Nixon might have had ended up gone by the time he made that deal with China, even though I still give him credit for actually beating the Communists in Vietnam.
“Reagan’s biggest mistake was allowing Establishment scion Bush on the ticket with him. He also similarly made a mistake in choosing Dick Schweiker as his running mate in 1976. Never pick someone antithetical to your ideology as a Conservative to carry on after you’re gone. Failure to choose Paul Laxalt meant that a squish that didn’t believe in Conservatism carried on after Reagan, and just as quickly sank everything that he did. Other than that, Reagan still had to work within certain constraints and wasn’t able to cut the government and pursue other ideological goals. Still, his policies on demolishing the Soviet Union, the source of international Communist evil, burnished his credentials for all time in freeing their slaves both in Russia and Eastern Europe.”
I wish you were right about that, but unfortunately, South Africa is still Communist under Nelson Mandela, as was Cuba, and North Korea, all survived the USSR’s collapse, and there’s also some debate as to whether Russia actually gave up on Communism, especially under Putin (let’s not forget, the Lenin Mausoleum is still fully operational, and Karl Marx’s statue is very much prevalent and prominently displayed in Moscow’s square instead of given the same treatment as several Lenin and Stalin statues across Russia and various former Soviet states.). As far as I’m concerned, unless Communism is completely and entirely eradicated from everywhere, to such an extent that the parties are outlawed, similar to the Nuremberg trials in fact, we haven’t actually won.
“What really is seen as left vs. right in current terms only came about around 1896 when the left-wing seized control of the Democrats and deposed Cleveland and his pro-Gold Bourbon Conservatives. Another individual on FR tried to argue Lincoln was left and keeping slavery was right I found to be a morally repugnant argument. Freedom is a right-wing concept. Tyranny is a left-wing one. Ridding a tyranny of slavery in my estimation made Lincoln a hero of the right, not left.”
I want to believe Freedom is exclusively a right-wing concept, but unfortunately, I’ve seen plenty of leftists promote freedom, such as Sacco and Vanzetti, Michel Foucault, Jean-Paul Sartre, Pierre Joseph Proudhon, Mikhail Bakunin, Jean-Paul Sartre, heck, pretty much the whole French Revolution as well as its supporters, including the so-called father of Liberty Thomas Jefferson as well as Thomas Paine (to say little about certain Enlightenment philosophers such as Voltaire, Jean-Jacques Rousseau, Denis Diderot, Alembert, and Marquis de Sade, even the likes of John Locke if Liberty the God that Failed by Christopher A. Ferrara is to be believed). Heck, George Lucas even implied that he only considered France to be tyrannical when King Louis XVI and Napoleon were in power, and that if anything France was “free” when Robespierre was running the joint. In fact, it’s precisely because of those guys that I don’t have much optimism for freedom, as freedom to me means complete and total anarchy on the onset, often killing others simply because you can. You know, similar to the popular conception of the Wild West thanks to our movies. Still, Lincoln freeing the slaves was definitely a good thing.
“The Marxist, anti-Black family BLM is a mainstream Democrat constituency. Unless Patterson has endorsed Trump, he’s endorsing - as all Dems are — the BLM/Antifa agenda by supporting Biden/Harris/Schumer/Pelosi.”
Technically, we haven’t even heard Patterson’s comments one way or another on BLM/Antifa, or for that matter Biden/Harris/Schumer/Pelosi. And considering Martin Sheen broke ranks with Obama precisely BECAUSE of the latter’s obscenely pro-abortion record, I’m pretty sure there are still some Democrats who won’t support the likes of BLM/Antifa, or even Biden/Harris/Schumer/Pelosi.
“These guys are too scared to embrace the Communist label, because the label is unpopular. One of the early adherents running for President was fine with having the Democrats co-opt the Socialist (Communist) agenda under a different label. Shows the inherent disingenuity of the Democrats that they won’t openly and unapologetically state what their end goal is. The destruction of our Republic and our Constitution. Sanders himself won’t use “Communist.” He tries to downplay his agenda by calling it “Democratic Socialism” and comparing it to the (failed) ideology of the Scandinavian countries. But his agenda and goal would make us a Venezuela. If Biden wins tonight, the party and base will expect to push him to move us towards Red Chinese/Venezuelan-level oppression, using their elected officials and packing the judiciary to suspend/bypass the Constitution. They’re chomping at the bit to punish all Trump supporters and to roll back everything he has done. The base is not hiding that agenda, even as most of their elected candidates are.”
Yeah, I know that much, and for the record, Biden didn’t exactly hide what he was planning to do, he made it a bit too obvious what he was planning, as was Sanders for that matter (he kept on singing praises for Nicaragua for example, and even Venezuela when given the opportunity). And Randall Terry was unapologetically pro-Life. Heck, even Obama was unapologetic about his goal of dismantling America (”Fundamental Transformation of America”, remember?). Even Thomas Jefferson, the literal father of the Democrat Party, openly championed the French Revolution in even its worst excesses, and if anything put down anyone who dared speak out on how the Jacobins’ actions were if anything much worse than under King Louis XVI. And if Liberty the God that Failed is to be believed, he also was a pretty huge big government kind of guy DESPITE his reputation as a promoter of Liberty.
JFK USED McCarthy to get elected. When it came time for JFK to reciprocate when McCarthy was in need, he was out of there. A no-class user of people. The whole damn family were entitled users. You have to get over your hero worship for the guy. He was truly rotten. As for Nixon, he was playing the Cold War game by driving a wedge between two rival countries. It worked, at least in the short run.
"I’m pretty sure if that were the case, Terry wouldn’t have gotten as far as he did in Oklahoma at all."
A ficus plant running in opposition to Zero could've gotten as much as Terry did. The last remnant of old-line Democrats that were sick of the full-on Stalinazi takeover of the party. More than likely those same folks voted Republican in the general.
"I’m not sure going to the hospital counts as “abandoning” McCarthy."
Except it did.
"If anything, Eisenhower’s actions came far closer to outright abandonment than JFK’s did."
Eisenhower was never a fan of McCarthy. He tiptoed around him when McCarthy was still overwhelmingly popular, but was more than happy to see him destroyed by the media. Ike never did a thorough cleaning of the government after 2 decades of Soviet infiltration under FDR & Truman. I don't have a high opinion of Ike, as he destroyed the GOP as a national majority party for decades.
"Actually, I’m not sure they even planned to run the show at all, just destroy it even if they can run the show their way. Like what Robespierre did and even what Michel Foucault and Karl Marx advocated, not to mention Vladimir Lenin."
Whatever works.
"Yeah, and considering JFK actually did help, no matter how little, in McCarthy’s endeavor against Communism, that would have been MORE than enough for JFK and Robert to be tarred and feathered. Either way, any anti-Communist views Nixon might have had ended up gone by the time he made that deal with China, even though I still give him credit for actually beating the Communists in Vietnam."
You give JFK credit he neither deserves nor earned. As I said, you have a very peculiar hero worship for him. He doesn't deserve it. Worshipping politicians is often a foolhardy exercise. Better to save that for Jesus. And, again, as for Nixon, he didn't abandon anti-Communism by reaching out to China, he was working to undermine the Soviets. Quite brilliant, actually. He deserves the credit you erroneously give to JFK.
"I wish you were right about that, but unfortunately, South Africa is still Communist under Nelson Mandela,"
Reagan was under enormous pressure to denounce apartheid, and if he had failed to do so, would've been painted as a racist. Mandela, of course, was an execrable Communist, worshipped as a saint by the left. He only opened the doors for persecution of White South Africans, and it is predictably now, a hellhole.
"as was Cuba,"
For which JFK failed to act on freeing.
"and North Korea,"
For which Truman was responsible. Same for losing China to the Communists under Mao.
"all survived the USSR’s collapse, and there’s also some debate as to whether Russia actually gave up on Communism, especially under Putin (let’s not forget, the Lenin Mausoleum is still fully operational, and Karl Marx’s statue is very much prevalent and prominently displayed in Moscow’s square instead of given the same treatment as several Lenin and Stalin statues across Russia and various former Soviet states.)."
It's not Communist. It is authoritarian and would like to rebuild the old empire (Russian, as opposed to Soviet) with him as a de facto Czar. However, there is popular sentiment in Russia for the old leaders when the Soviets were equal (at least on paper) to the Americans. Putin has also approved and supports the proliferation of the Eastern Orthodox Christian religion and rebuilding of destroyed churches. He also opposes perversion (sodomite agenda), which was pushed by the left in order to destabilize nations (as it has in America). We're far better off with the Russians as they are now under Putin than under the old Communist thugs.
"As far as I’m concerned, unless Communism is completely and entirely eradicated from everywhere, to such an extent that the parties are outlawed, similar to the Nuremberg trials in fact, we haven’t actually won."
Socialism should be outlawed, yes. It has caused more oppression, misery and death than any other political ideology. A demonstrable failure, yet diseased, disturbed individuals still push it because they want absolute control over people's lives.
"I want to believe Freedom is exclusively a right-wing concept, but unfortunately, I’ve seen plenty of leftists promote freedom"
Libertine "freedom" vs. freedom with responsibilities. Usually what leftists promote in the way of "freedom" is strictly done to undermine a given establishment political system. Once deposed, then you have your French Revolution style-madness and mass-murder. Of course, it ultimately consumes itself.
"I’m pretty sure there are still some Democrats who won’t support the likes of BLM/Antifa, or even Biden/Harris/Schumer/Pelosi."
Then they would vote Republican to stop them. We shall know how many have in short order.
"Thomas Jefferson, the literal father of the Democrat Party, openly championed the French Revolution in even its worst excesses"
I was never a big Jefferson fan. Too much a hypocrite. I prefer the Conservative John Adams, who'd have gotten rid of that "peculiar institution" at the Declaration of Independence.
“JFK USED McCarthy to get elected. When it came time for JFK to reciprocate when McCarthy was in need, he was out of there. A no-class user of people. The whole damn family were entitled users. You have to get over your hero worship for the guy. He was truly rotten. As for Nixon, he was playing the Cold War game by driving a wedge between two rival countries. It worked, at least in the short run.”
I’ve seen plenty of far worse guys get elected without so much as even invoking support for McCarthy. Just ask Lodge, for example, who if I recall correctly was also the same guy who single-handedly got Diem assassinated (and based on what I’ve read up on I think the Politically Incorrect Guides, either that or This Time We Won, JFK actually had barely any involvement in Diem’s assassination, and in fact, he specifically requested they discuss it BEFORE officially greenlighting it). I can also cite George McGovern, who actually had the gall to claim that Diem was “popularly elected”, which even JFK and Eisenhower knew was a load of crap. I’m pretty darn certain that JFK wouldn’t have needed McCarthy to get elected (if anything, his war record would have been enough).
And as far as Nixon, I have a different strategy for getting rid of Communism, to be honest: I’d launch nukes at the USSR AND at China, do so at the first possible opportunity to make sure they CAN’T build up their nuclear arsenal, also launch enough nukes at them and the Eastern Bloc to outright exterminate any and all lives in the area, certainly all Communists. Then, I’d move on to Western Europe and even major American cities such as New York City (heck, even minor American towns), launch nukes there, again, to destroy all the Communist members (not even caring if I outright DIE as a result of my launching nukes, and if anything fully brace for it outdoors). To quote Aliens, it’s the only way to be sure, especially after Communism already infiltrated far too many countries outside the Eastern Bloc, including our so-called Western Allies to such an extent that they’re parroting Soviet propaganda, heck, in the case of France during May 1968, they even did protests about American involvement in the Vietnam War despite not having any real skin in the game due to France no longer fighting Vietnam in any capacity during that point. Heck, we even have a Communist Pope in charge currently, after two cases of Popes that were thoroughly anti-Communist (JPII and Benedict XVI), and even more before then. I’d prefer an outright extermination campaign than even working for ONE of them, period. I don’t care if it’s China, the USSR, or heck, even France for that matter since they’re essentially the reason why Communism exists.
“A ficus plant running in opposition to Zero could’ve gotten as much as Terry did. The last remnant of old-line Democrats that were sick of the full-on Stalinazi takeover of the party. More than likely those same folks voted Republican in the general.”
Maybe so, but it still proved there were still some old-school Democrats who definitely didn’t like the direction Obama was taking the party in (and some of them most certainly would have been old enough to vote for Kennedy).
“Except it did.”
You and I clearly have different ideas of what actually qualifies as “abandonment.” For me, it requires actual, undeniable agency in the decision, not allowing for any outside variables to your decision-making, and being sent to the hospital doesn’t exactly allow for full agency in deciding to abandon someone. It’s like saying I abandoned my Final Exams during High School because I had to go through a pneumothorax and undergo surgery for it (and BTW, that actually happened, and I clearly wasn’t happy about it. Fortunately, the school understood and allowed me to take the exam after I was cleared from the hospital.).
“Eisenhower was never a fan of McCarthy. He tiptoed around him when McCarthy was still overwhelmingly popular, but was more than happy to see him destroyed by the media. Ike never did a thorough cleaning of the government after 2 decades of Soviet infiltration under FDR & Truman. I don’t have a high opinion of Ike, as he destroyed the GOP as a national majority party for decades.”
Maybe so, but he’s still considered among GOP circles to be ultimately the better choice. And personally, I think the likes of Ronald Reagan failed to do all of that AND failed to demolish the United Nations and/or stop Nelson Mandela (I won’t count al Qaeda regarding this, as the 9/11 commission report made it clear they were never funded by us, heck, Bin Ladin’s own #2 made it far too clear in one of his works that he never saw even a cent of American money go to their operations against the Soviets).
“Whatever works.”
Actually, I’m pretty sure it’s more the default position, while “whatever works” is more they do it if there’s no ideal solution in hand. To put it another way, their reaction would be “there’s a more beneficial solution that won’t harm anyone, but we’ll hurt everyone anyways simply because we find it fun to do so.”
“You give JFK credit he neither deserves nor earned. As I said, you have a very peculiar hero worship for him. He doesn’t deserve it. Worshipping politicians is often a foolhardy exercise. Better to save that for Jesus.”
“And, again, as for Nixon, he didn’t abandon anti-Communism by reaching out to China, he was working to undermine the Soviets. Quite brilliant, actually. He deserves the credit you erroneously give to JFK.”
I never gave JFK credit for getting rid of China, if that’s what you are implying, I was saying that JFK actually DID attempt to fight Communism (and I’m not dissing on Nixon at all. Far from it, I actually have a lot of respect for him for taking out Alger Hiss AND doing a far better job at fighting Vietnam than LBJ did, or for that matter JFK). And for the record, I’d consider getting the USSR to get rid of the missiles at all to be a victory overall, even though I definitely preferred it if JFK actually went further and actually went out of his way to end Soviet control over Cuba, and for that matter, ended Castro’s control. At least there, there’s no chance at a missile strike (and I’m not even sure if removing the missile silos at Turkey was an actual loss for us either, as even the Politically Incorrect Guide to the 1960s made it very clear that we were already planning to get rid of the silos before then due to nuclear subs making them obsolete, and bear in mind the author of that book was not at all fond of JFK either, so he wasn’t saying that because he liked him). And for the record, him being anti-Communist enough to support McCarthy at all is the ONLY reason I have any respect for the guy (well, that, and cutting taxes, which even Conservapedia noted was a conservative trait of his). If it weren’t for that, I’d view him as trash and a disgrace to my Catholic views. So it’s not “hero worship”, it’s giving credit where it’s due. If you tell me about his extramarital affairs, his drug problems, or anything like that, guess what, I’d probably bash him to Hell far more than you’ve been doing. Heck, I’d even bash him for his stupid “Missile Gap” thing as well, especially when Eisenhower knew they didn’t overtake us. And like I said, my idea of a strategy for getting rid of Communism is closer to an outright extermination campaign, especially when I outright refuse to support ANY Communist groups, not even to get rid of another. I’d rather fight both. In fact, if I had existed during World War II, I’d be more like Patton and try to exterminate both the Nazis AND the Soviets.
“Reagan was under enormous pressure to denounce apartheid, and if he had failed to do so, would’ve been painted as a racist. Mandela, of course, was an execrable Communist, worshipped as a saint by the left. He only opened the doors for persecution of White South Africans, and it is predictably now, a hellhole.”
Me, I would have ignored said pressure, and if anything if they told me to denounce apartheid, I’d blatantly shoot those guys in the face in response, or at the very least shove a machine gun stock into it. Like I said, not willing to listen to the left and would prefer to outright get rid of them, ESPECIALLY after what they’ve done back then and now, so I’d have absolutely NO reason to listen to them, no matter what the pressure. Don’t care if it makes me look like a dictator, I am NOT going to cave to leftist demands, and would rather kill leftists en-masse than cave to them.
“For which JFK failed to act on freeing.”
Yeah, agreed with that, and I also made it clear it was a shame that JFK didn’t actually free them. However, at least we don’t have Soviet missiles pointed at us from then until the USSR’s collapse (and make no mistake, Khrushchev could have just as easily decided after getting everything he wanted from JFK to just keep the missiles there anyways as a further attempt at rubbing salt on the wound, and based on what Ion Mhai Pacepa stated, he was NOT happy about having to remove the missiles from Cuba despite getting everything he wanted from JFK, and if Politically Incorrect Guide to the 1960s by Jonathan Leaf is of any indication, it’s not even clear if the removal of the Missile Silos from Turkey was an actual loss for us, especially when if anything the nuclear subs actually made us even MORE dangerous to the Soviets than the silos ever did due to not actually being traced easily.).
“For which Truman was responsible. Same for losing China to the Communists under Mao.”
I don’t think we were ever in disagreement there. Heck, Vinegar Joe and even George Marshall played a huge role regarding China falling to Mao, bragged about disarming several anti-Communists if New American is to be believed. However, my idea is if we are to get rid of Communism, we must do it in one fell swoop, and more than just bankrupting the USSR.
“It’s not Communist. It is authoritarian and would like to rebuild the old empire (Russian, as opposed to Soviet) with him as a de facto Czar. However, there is popular sentiment in Russia for the old leaders when the Soviets were equal (at least on paper) to the Americans. Putin has also approved and supports the proliferation of the Eastern Orthodox Christian religion and rebuilding of destroyed churches. He also opposes perversion (sodomite agenda), which was pushed by the left in order to destabilize nations (as it has in America). We’re far better off with the Russians as they are now under Putin than under the old Communist thugs.”
I’d beg to differ there. There’s been plenty of sources, some of whom are even posted by several Freepers on here, that indicate that Putin is still very much a Communist (even comparing Lenin’s artifacts and heck, Communist doctrine as a whole, to those of saints artifacts and Christian doctrine, respectively), not to mention actually using Stalin’s image and rehabilitating that monster, and pretty much backing Communist allies, including Venezuela. Also, being against homosexuality in his home nation or being for rehabilitating Christian Churches isn’t exactly an anti-Communist sentiment, either. Let’s not forget that even the likes of Stalin often put homosexuals into GULAGs, and actually helmed the ROC during World War II (and in fact, there’s even evidence to suggest he took the opportunity to install NKVD/KGB agents into the roles of various religious figures afterward, up to and even including the Primarch). In fact, here’s a couple of articles making it very clear that Putin’s still an unrepentant Communist:
*https://www.trevorloudon.com/2017/12/is-vladimir-putin-a-communist/
*https://www.dw.com/es/la-alianza-estrat%C3%A9gica-de-maduro-y-putin/a-46618225
*https://www.infobae.com/america/venezuela/2019/06/06/vladimir-putin-volvio-a-respaldar-a-maduro-y-dijo-que-sus-asesores-militares-cumpliran-las-obligaciones-de-rusia-en-venezuela/
I strictly limited it to articles that come strictly from Conservative-based sites (or at least, what I think are Conservative-based sites. Christian News Monitor might be in the gray area however, but I’m DEFINITELY not citing LA Times or Newsweek even when I most certainly could do so if I wished).
And for the record, a restoration of Tsarist Russia (the one helmed by the Russian Tsars, aka, people like Nicholas II) would actually be better off for America, Christendom as a whole in fact, than letting Putin run around. And so far, Putin’s solely showing interest in trying to restore the USSR, not Tsarist Russia. Besides, I’m pretty sure if he truly wanted to get rid of Communism as a whole, he would have made sure to have that Karl Marx statue in Teatralyana Square torn down and broken apart, not to mention bulldoze the Soviet Mausoleum/Lenin’s Tomb while having Lenin’s corpse hung from a lamppost for all to see. That’s certainly what I would have done in his shoes. Heck, during 19th World Festival of Youth and Students, he helmed it and even gave a glowing speech of solidarity to them. Were it me in his position, I’d outright BAN that World Festival, and even go so far as to state that anyone who dares attend that festival will end up shot.
“Socialism should be outlawed, yes. It has caused more oppression, misery and death than any other political ideology. A demonstrable failure, yet diseased, disturbed individuals still push it because they want absolute control over people’s lives.”
Fully agreed on that front, and as you can notice from my more extreme strategies of getting rid of it, I see it as something that simply cannot be allowed to be practiced. We really wasted a good opportunity to do a Nuremberg-style tribunal against the heads of the Soviet Union when it collapsed, not to mention other Communist leaders.
“Libertine “freedom” vs. freedom with responsibilities. Usually what leftists promote in the way of “freedom” is strictly done to undermine a given establishment political system. Once deposed, then you have your French Revolution style-madness and mass-murder. Of course, it ultimately consumes itself.”
Yeah, and in the case of the French Revolution, they tried to continue getting rid of any government at all even when they clearly held all the cards by that point and could continue the government their way if they so wished, and clearly tried to continue their freedom of licentiousness even when it was very obviously not working (sort of like the Wild West or at least how media tended to portray the Wild West as literally lawless). Ironically, Napoleon’s probably the only reason France is just barely still Catholic instead of a full-on Atheist state, not to mention why France even had ANY law and order afterward, and he’s the one deemed a dictator by the left (and to a certain degree the right). On a side note, it really distresses me when I see fellow Conservatives sing praises for Voltaire and quote his “I don’t agree with what you say, but I would die to the death for your right to defend it” (which is actually pretty out of character for Voltaire since he actually used the courts and freedom of speech to SILENCE Christians and exile the Jesuit order, via SJW-type tactics).
“Then they would vote Republican to stop them. We shall know how many have in short order.”
Yeah, we shall. Good thing Florida went for Trump, and a Black Republican won a House seat.
“I was never a big Jefferson fan. Too much a hypocrite. I prefer the Conservative John Adams, who’d have gotten rid of that “peculiar institution” at the Declaration of Independence.”
Fully agreed there, not to mention came the closest to being a Big Government ogre among the Founding Fathers. I do find it a shame that Dinesh D’Souza seems to think the rot in the Democrat Party started with Andrew Johnson, though. If you ask me, it was started as early as Jefferson. All Jackson did was continue it. The only respect Jefferson has from me is the formation of the Navy and the Louisiana Purchase. That’s it. Well, that, and the Declaration of Independence, but then again, considering he played a role in drafting the infamous Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen, I’d say in that particular case we narrowly dodged a bullet. Not sure what you meant by “peculiar institution” that Adams got rid of, though, other than it clearly had something to do with Jefferson. More of a fan of Adams and Hamilton (and I really hate how Lin Manuel Miranda tarnished him and the founding fathers with that stupid musical).
And in case you’re wondering about that Marx statue that I alluded to: https://web.archive.org/web/20111114084716/http://www.lindsayfincher.com/potd-the-last-karl-marx-monument-in-moscow.html
I've never fully looked in to the Diem business and who ordered the hit, but from what I have heard on the subject, JFK was to blame for it and it was just another thing he effed up in a long line of things. Yet another reason he should never have been President.
"I’m pretty darn certain that JFK wouldn’t have needed McCarthy to get elected (if anything, his war record would have been enough)."
Lodge was the incumbent Senator and was popular in his state. JFK most certainly did need to use the popularity of McCarthy, who was the premiere Irish Catholic politician in America at that time. There was a book I read, the name escapes me, which detailed that Senate contest. The family, led by Joe, Sr., was trying to navigate a road to power by center-right means, and to acquire allies. They backed Nixon for Senator in 1950 against the leftist Helen Gahagan Douglas (an Irish-American pol), for example. No doubt expecting a return on their investment in the long run.
"And as far as Nixon, I have a different strategy for getting rid of Communism, to be honest: I’d launch nukes at the USSR AND at China"
When ? In 1961 ? The time to have gone against China was a dozen years earlier. No sane politician or elected official could've won on a platform of massive nuclear bombardment of these nations. The whole point was to avoid such a horror that would've resulted in tens of millions of casualties, perhaps hundreds of millions. You'd be ending civilization as we know it. Even the Soviets didn't really want to provoke that even if they enjoyed sabre-rattling. Lunatics like Che Guevera, however, did want a nuclear war to ensue in order to satisfy his bloodlust. He'd prefer (to quote Milton) to rule in hell rather than serve in heaven.
"You and I clearly have different ideas of what actually qualifies as “abandonment.”"
Apparently. I remain baffled at your hero worship of JFK. He was neither the leader nor the hero this nation needed. It's like seeing a piece of cake with a thin layer of yummy frosting, but when you bite into the cake, it's utterly rotten and disgusting.
"Maybe so, but he’s still considered among GOP circles to be ultimately the better choice."
The better candidate lost in 1952. Taft should've been nominated (with Gen. MacArthur as his running mate). Eisenhower would've been better off having been the Democrat nominee. The GOP would've been preserved as a viable national majority party, for which it ceased to be thanks to him, after 1958.
"I never gave JFK credit for getting rid of China, if that’s what you are implying, I was saying that JFK actually DID attempt to fight Communism"
No, I said you hero worship the guy and he isn't worthy of it. His administration helped put this country on a rapid downward spiral from which we haven't ever recovered. Politically, socially, ethically, morally. You look at 1960 vs. 2020. It is simply astounding. We may have better technology, but our culture and government are as rotten and corrupt as at any time in our history. We may have had differences on some issues, but we were far more united as a people and the culture wasn't sick. We may have won the Cold War over the Soviets in the short term, but the left has destabilized us as a country, society and people in the long run. That we now, as of this writing, see a very frightening attempt by the corrupt Derp State left to steal the Presidency and countless other offices to install a corrupt, senile, child molester and puppet of America's enemies shows just how far we have fallen. It's curious that just as in 2020 that JFK's media and pop culture allies in 1960 installed "their guy" by lying about who he truly was (a physically ill, drug dependent sex addict). Add murderer to the mix, because I absolutely believe he and RFK had Marilyn Monroe permanently quieted when she threatened to expose her sexual affairs with them both, and on the brink of the midterm elections.
"And for the record, him being anti-Communist enough to support McCarthy at all is the ONLY reason I have any respect for the guy (well, that, and cutting taxes"
He didn't cut taxes, he only proposed doing so. That was a no-brainer regardless, since tax rates had been punitive for decades, and kept economic growth rates down. It ought to be in the Constitution that taxes cannot be higher than 10% for persons. If 10% is good enough for God, it's good enough for America. Conversely, if you're a Demonrat, I favor a 90% tax rate. You want Socialism, you pay for it.
"I’d be more like Patton and try to exterminate both the Nazis AND the Soviets."
Ideally, they should've wiped each other out. How we ever sided with the Soviets, who were worse than the Nazis, boggles the mind. Up until FDR, we did not even maintain diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union and did not recognize them after they deposed the Russian Czar. I'd have maintained such a policy of non-recognition.
"Me, I would have ignored said pressure (on apartheid)"
Easier said than done. Sometimes you have to deal with pesky issues you'd rather not as President. Reagan didn't really want to because of the situation with Communist support of Mandela. Unfortunately, the South African government there created the problem and should've found a way to resolve it without keeping clear racial discrimination laws.
"Yeah, agreed with that, and I also made it clear it was a shame that JFK didn’t actually free them."
That's what you get for not having put the 1960 winner in the White House. Nixon would've.
"Khrushchev could have just as easily decided after getting everything he wanted from JFK to just keep the missiles there anyways as a further attempt at rubbing salt on the wound"
Khrushchev agreed to a nothingburger "removal." JFK gave away the store. Khrushchev also couldn't renege on such deals, because it would be tantamount to a declaration of war.
"However, my idea is if we are to get rid of Communism, we must do it in one fell swoop, and more than just bankrupting the USSR."
All-out nuclear war was not a serious option.
"I’d beg to differ there. There’s been plenty of sources, some of whom are even posted by several Freepers on here, that indicate that Putin is still very much a Communist"
There's some FReepers who think Putin is the boogeyman. I don't. Strongman and authoritarian, yes. Not a Communist. He knows that economic system was a total failure. The Russians want to dominate the planet again as they did in the pre-1991 days, but not under that Communist system. They are our opponents, of course, not strictly allies. Putin may cut deals with America's enemies (such as Venezuela), but it's not about rebuilding a Communist network, but to build up a network of dependent allies (and that VZ has a lot of oil plays a part, too).
"On a side note, it really distresses me when I see fellow Conservatives sing praises for Voltaire and quote his “I don’t agree with what you say, but I would die to the death for your right to defend it” (which is actually pretty out of character for Voltaire since he actually used the courts and freedom of speech to SILENCE Christians and exile the Jesuit order, via SJW-type tactics)."
I'm more partial to saying that one is entitled to their own OPINION, but they are NOT entitled to their own FACTS. I see a lot of nitwits running around saying they're "living their own TRUTHS." "Truth" as they define it, might mean believing they're a dolphin trapped in a human woman's body. Too much insanity in the culture.
"Not sure what you meant by “peculiar institution” that Adams got rid of, though, other than it clearly had something to do with Jefferson"
Slavery was the "peculiar institution." Sadly, too many states were so CULTURALLY attached to it that they couldn't rid our nation as a whole from it. Jefferson and many other slaveowning men were personally attached to the benefits of it (sexual domination of slaves). One other FReeper flipped his lid on a vigorous discussion of the slave issue when I brought that up, as if I was airing his personal dirty laundry. But imagine a situation where, as a slaveowning man, if your wife turns you down, he can go and satisfy his lustful desires with his property who cannot refuse their advances. You can see why the slaveowning class did NOT want to give this arrangement up.
“I’ve never fully looked in to the Diem business and who ordered the hit, but from what I have heard on the subject, JFK was to blame for it and it was just another thing he effed up in a long line of things. Yet another reason he should never have been President.”
You can look up the Politically Incorrect Guide to the 1960s (which has a slightly more sympathetic view on Kennedy, admittedly, but not enough to really say he came out an angel at all). I definitely remember that book definitely gave more details about the events that led to Diem’s... “ousture”. I think I even quoted that part of the book in one of my old posts on FreeRepublic, now that I think about it.
“Lodge was the incumbent Senator and was popular in his state. JFK most certainly did need to use the popularity of McCarthy, who was the premiere Irish Catholic politician in America at that time. There was a book I read, the name escapes me, which detailed that Senate contest. The family, led by Joe, Sr., was trying to navigate a road to power by center-right means, and to acquire allies. They backed Nixon for Senator in 1950 against the leftist Helen Gahagan Douglas (an Irish-American pol), for example. No doubt expecting a return on their investment in the long run.”
Unfortunately, I’ve seen plenty of leftist politicians outright screw over people simply for more leftist points, even if they are conservative, and literally got reelected despite it otherwise being a stupid and suicidal method (case in point, Harry Truman reigning in Douglas MacArthur during Korea and forcing him to resign, and he somehow managed to win reelection after that despite literally conceding to Communism and ensuring a victory for them). Even with McCarthy, I’m doubtful the Kennedys would have backed him if they wanted to curry with various voters. As you yourself said, Nixon was running against Douglas, who was Irish-American politician and very left-wing. They could have just as easily backed her instead of Nixon, and if anything curried even MORE voters from the Catholic bloc. If Barack Obama and several CBC members can keep on getting reelected despite promoting policies that blatantly stabbed their constituents in the backs, I’m pretty sure the Kennedys could do the same thing even back then.
“When ? In 1961 ? The time to have gone against China was a dozen years earlier. No sane politician or elected official could’ve won on a platform of massive nuclear bombardment of these nations. The whole point was to avoid such a horror that would’ve resulted in tens of millions of casualties, perhaps hundreds of millions. You’d be ending civilization as we know it. Even the Soviets didn’t really want to provoke that even if they enjoyed sabre-rattling. Lunatics like Che Guevera, however, did want a nuclear war to ensue in order to satisfy his bloodlust. He’d prefer (to quote Milton) to rule in hell rather than serve in heaven.”
I would prefer not using nukes at all, but unfortunately, ESPECIALLY considering what’s been going on lately in the world, including the rise of Communism in places like Venezuela, our own Catholic Church being run by a blatant Marxist, plenty of Christian churches of protestant and even Eastern Orthodox sects already being taken over by Communists, the fact that we’ve got a lot of communists in media who right now aren’t even TRYING to hide their Marxist ties, not to mention how we literally bankrolled the Soviet Union, and via Capitalist institutions no less, based on what a book mentioned about how Bankers bankrolled the Bolsheviks despite the latter publicly vowing to lynch the so-called “fatcats” like themselves, and our having had a Marxist president from 2008-2012 (maybe even during the 1990s as well if we count Clinton), and Communism has thoroughly infested out College Campuses, and we’ve even got countries that really should have been our allies by this time like Germany, France, and even Japan promoting Communism in various media that they export to us (Metal Gear, especially by the time of Peace Walker, probably is as blatant about its Communism promotion as either the Prequel Trilogy of Star Wars or The Last Jedi), and how even the most conservative of our presidents just let Communism grow due to essentially lacking a spine to say “no”, and there’s already growing evidence that Russia hasn’t actually fully given up Communism at all, I am really beginning to think we really SHOULD have nuked the various Communists from the get go, and not just in Communist countries, I’d even launch them at allies that have an infestation of Communism as well such as in France, heck, even launch them at America if that’s what it takes. Heck, I even suspect from various articles that the UN is essentially the reason the Hungarian Revolution failed, due to them transmitting rebel identities to Stalin after literally forcing the guy to name names to “cite sources”. I’m that broken at what I’ve seen go on regarding Communism making too many inroads for my comfort. In fact, unlike Che, I don’t even plan to rule in Hell as a result, I just plan to get myself blown up as a result, anything to get rid of Communism, even if it costs me my life. Doesn’t help either that “Not a Shot Was Fired” already made it clear that even threatening to deal military force on the Soviets if they dared militarily invade is going to do any good, since they did that without even needing to use any guns at all, so extermination campaign is indeed the only way to go, not stop until ALL communism is destroyed, even if it means ending all of humanity in the process, myself included.
As far as the Soviets’ self-preservation methods, I’m still doubtful about that. Let’s not forget that the guy who founded Communism as we know it, Karl Marx, openly desired a gorier remake of the worst excesses of the Reign of Terror (and based on that, he most likely knew about the events in the Vendee, especially the bit where fellow Republican Army soldiers often killed each other just to satiate bloodlust under Grignon’s orders), and Vladimir Lenin even demanded that they not hold back in inflicting cruelty onto each other, which most likely meant if Lenin was still alive by that time, he’d openly RISK launching nukes at the US by that time. Heck, the fact that the Soviets had absolutely no problem with lionizing Che Guevara after his defeat in Bolivia as a leftist saint for pure propaganda value despite the fact that he literally nearly caused Nuclear War makes me think they ultimately WOULD have tried to push for nuclear war if push comes to shove. And while Mao Zedong didn’t necessarily go as far as to outright attempt to launch nukes at the United States, he nevertheless made it very clear he would have welcomed nuclear war, even implying they’d survive whatever we launched at them simply because they’ve got more people. Heck, the fact that the Soviets even GOT nuclear missiles via embedded spies in the Manhattan Project indicates they ultimately had a desire to use them.
“Apparently. I remain baffled at your hero worship of JFK. He was neither the leader nor the hero this nation needed. It’s like seeing a piece of cake with a thin layer of yummy frosting, but when you bite into the cake, it’s utterly rotten and disgusting.”
It’s not hero worship, it’s just recognizing that he did something good. Want my overall opinion of JFK, completely ignoring his anti-Communism, which, BTW, the Conservative site Conservapedia stated was valid in his article here: https://www.conservapedia.com/John_F._Kennedy, is that he is a retrobate who probably shouldn’t be dogcatcher. So I don’t have a very fond view of him at all. Maybe more fond of a view of him than Ted Kennedy, but then again, a rat with the bubonic plague would be more preferable to interact with than Ted Kennedy. And for the record, I suggest you take it up with Conservapedia, which as indicated by its name is very unapologetic with pushing Conservative views as its POV and eschews Neutrality due to viewing it as a leftist tool. And if you really don’t want to do it, I’ll do it in your stead. I made sure to address your views about MLK on the latter’s talk page as well.
“The better candidate lost in 1952. Taft should’ve been nominated (with Gen. MacArthur as his running mate). Eisenhower would’ve been better off having been the Democrat nominee. The GOP would’ve been preserved as a viable national majority party, for which it ceased to be thanks to him, after 1958.”
Perhaps so, but then again, after MacArthur got forced to stand down by Truman, the latter somehow got reelected despite literally sabotaging American victory in that war, so I have no way to be sure of that.
“No, I said you hero worship the guy and he isn’t worthy of it. His administration helped put this country on a rapid downward spiral from which we haven’t ever recovered. Politically, socially, ethically, morally. You look at 1960 vs. 2020. It is simply astounding. We may have better technology, but our culture and government are as rotten and corrupt as at any time in our history. We may have had differences on some issues, but we were far more united as a people and the culture wasn’t sick. We may have won the Cold War over the Soviets in the short term, but the left has destabilized us as a country, society and people in the long run. That we now, as of this writing, see a very frightening attempt by the corrupt Derp State left to steal the Presidency and countless other offices to install a corrupt, senile, child molester and puppet of America’s enemies shows just how far we have fallen. It’s curious that just as in 2020 that JFK’s media and pop culture allies in 1960 installed “their guy” by lying about who he truly was (a physically ill, drug dependent sex addict). Add murderer to the mix, because I absolutely believe he and RFK had Marilyn Monroe permanently quieted when she threatened to expose her sexual affairs with them both, and on the brink of the midterm elections.”
You think I don’t know that bit about JFK’s various character flaws? Of COURSE I know about those bits, and I even made it very clear that were it not for his even holding to any anti-Communist views at all, I’d view him as scum who deserved to die painfully, him and his brother Robert and his father. So like I said, I don’t “hero worship” him at all. Just because I recognize some good he did doesn’t automatically make me a hero-worshipper of him. And as far as your other point, believe me, the left diseased our country far before what you claimed, before even when Gold got deposed. In fact, I’d argue the rot started with Thomas Jefferson during the late 1700s to early 1800s, as does Christopher A. Ferrara, especially when the latter sang praises for the Jacobin murders even when it became extremely apparent to the other founding fathers that they were horrible by the time of the September Massacres.
“He didn’t cut taxes, he only proposed doing so. That was a no-brainer regardless, since tax rates had been punitive for decades, and kept economic growth rates down. It ought to be in the Constitution that taxes cannot be higher than 10% for persons. If 10% is good enough for God, it’s good enough for America. Conversely, if you’re a Demonrat, I favor a 90% tax rate. You want Socialism, you pay for it.”
I agree fully. However, my idea of God is that he won’t tolerate any taxes at all, precisely because he literally wants 100% of everything, leave humanity to starve. That’s the main reason why I’m not too fond of that whole “Give to Caesar what belongs to Caesar and give to God what belongs to God”, since in my view, God would feel betrayed and angered that Jesus just advocated denying even a miniscule percent toward God and proceed to furiously slay Jesus via his powers, not even caring if that sabotaged his plan of saving our souls. Yes, my view of God comes across as exceptionally selfish.
“Ideally, they should’ve wiped each other out. How we ever sided with the Soviets, who were worse than the Nazis, boggles the mind. Up until FDR, we did not even maintain diplomatic relations with the Soviet Union and did not recognize them after they deposed the Russian Czar. I’d have maintained such a policy of non-recognition.”
Yeah, I agree, though I’d probably not take the chance of even one of them surviving the fight, as that inevitably means they’d take over the world after winning their internal squabble. Think of it along the lines of the Light/Dark ending of Super Smash Bros. Ultimate, and how to get the true ending, you needed to face both Darkhon and Galeem and wipe them both out.
“Easier said than done. Sometimes you have to deal with pesky issues you’d rather not as President. Reagan didn’t really want to because of the situation with Communist support of Mandela. Unfortunately, the South African government there created the problem and should’ve found a way to resolve it without keeping clear racial discrimination laws.”
Come to think of it, after what Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson pulled, to say little about several of the so-called Civil Rights leaders, including Malcolm X, I ought to add, I’m actually beginning to think segregation may be better off for all of us, and I’m not fond of the thought myself. We did what they want, and they still race bait us. What’s the point of ending segregation when they’re clearly still going to act like they’re treated like dirt for pure money raising to line their own pockets?
“That’s what you get for not having put the 1960 winner in the White House. Nixon would’ve.”
We’ll see. I still think his making that deal with China was a mistake (like I said, I’d prefer wiping BOTH sides out, period). He definitely deserves chops for Vietnam, though.
“Khrushchev agreed to a nothingburger “removal.” JFK gave away the store. Khrushchev also couldn’t renege on such deals, because it would be tantamount to a declaration of war.”
Not if they knew JFK was a weak and inept president and couldn’t do a thing if they decided to keep the missiles in Cuba. If anything, removing the nukes made JFK look stronger, which would have been a huge PR blunder for the Soviets. Heck, the fact that LBJ had to suppress Soviet involvement in JFK’s assassination (and based on his comments to the Chiefs of Staff when planning the Vietnam War, he outright FEARED even the tiniest prospect of nuclear war) would suggest that if anything we Americans were far more afraid of nuclear war than the Soviets ever were. Khrushchev actually won far more in his last encounter with JFK in Austria than he did in Cuba. And like I said, Ion Mihai Pacepa, who was a former DIE agent and had a hand in various Soviet disinformation campaigns, not to mention his boss at the time, Gheorghe-Dej, gives some pretty credible evidence that Khrushchev was upset at how they had to remove the Cuban missiles, or at the very least KGB ordering a blockade: http://www.scientiapress.com/kgb-kennedy And it also suggests that, at the very least, Khrushchev was indeed responsible for Mary Meyer (the question’s up in the air as to whether the Soviets deliberately tried to kill JFK or if LHO went rogue, but their Operation Dragon disinformation campaign definitely points to Soviet involvement in the latter’s assassination, which is the main reason why I’m definitely not going to call JFK a deep state victim). In fact, if I were in Khrushchev’s shoes, I’d deliberately let the missiles stay in Cuba precisely BECAUSE I know JFK’s too weak to do anything about it due to conceding everything, and thus obviously can’t actually declare nuclear war on me at all.
“All-out nuclear war was not a serious option.”
If the Soviets can outright lionize the guy who came the closest to anyone to actually causing nuclear war as a left-wing latter day saint who could do no wrong post-mortem in a pure political propaganda move to bolster Communist morale despite such a move being even MORE damaging to their reputation towards being against nuclear war than assassinating Kennedy would have been (especially given the Cuban Missile Crisis was still in human memory), it’s pretty obvious all-out nuclear war would have still been a serious option. And that’s not even counting Mao’s following statement during his “American Imperialism is a Paper Tiger” speech: “I’m not afraid of nuclear war. There are 2.7 billion people in the world; it doesn’t matter if some are killed. China has a population of 600 million; even if half of them are killed, there are still 300 million people left. I’m not afraid of anyone.”
“There’s some FReepers who think Putin is the boogeyman. I don’t. Strongman and authoritarian, yes. Not a Communist. He knows that economic system was a total failure. The Russians want to dominate the planet again as they did in the pre-1991 days, but not under that Communist system. They are our opponents, of course, not strictly allies. Putin may cut deals with America’s enemies (such as Venezuela), but it’s not about rebuilding a Communist network, but to build up a network of dependent allies (and that VZ has a lot of oil plays a part, too).”
Even if that were the case, there was absolutely no reason for Putin to actually declare solidarity for the Communist World Peace and Youth Movement or compare Christian relics/statutes to that of Lenin and Marx’s dictates/relics, or for that matter keeping Karl Marx’s bust up for public display on Teatralyana Square, or even pulling the same crap Stalin did during World War II, or even bragging about still retaining his KGB badge. I know if I were in Putin’s position, including being an authoritarian and ESPECIALLY anti-Communist, I would have made SURE that Marx’s statue met the exact same fate as the various Lenin and Stalin statues throughout the old Soviet blocs, made sure the Lenin Mausoleum was bulldozed, and have Lenin publicly hung from a streetlamp so all passerbys can see how Communism kills and have them watch as crows eat him out, among other things, and I sure as heck wouldn’t compare Communist literature to the Bible or for that matter compare Christian relics to Lenin (far from it, I’d actually go out of my way to emphasize how they are irreconcilable and that’s yet another reason why Communism must NEVER be reinstated). Believe me, if he merely focused on restoring Tsarist Russia, then authoritarian figure or not, I’d have no problem at all, heck, I’d even support him if it means restoring the Tsars and bring Russia back to Christendom sooner. But when he’s invoking Soviets as the good guys, he’s an enemy, no ifs ands or buts. And for the record, some of those sources I cited included New American, which was owned by the JBS, which is probably up your alley.
“I’m more partial to saying that one is entitled to their own OPINION, but they are NOT entitled to their own FACTS. I see a lot of nitwits running around saying they’re “living their own TRUTHS.” “Truth” as they define it, might mean believing they’re a dolphin trapped in a human woman’s body. Too much insanity in the culture.”
Pretty much, though in my case, I view opinions as no different than lies. If it’s not a fact, it’s a lie (and there’s only one set of facts at all, and facts are NEVER individual at all).
“Slavery was the “peculiar institution.” Sadly, too many states were so CULTURALLY attached to it that they couldn’t rid our nation as a whole from it. Jefferson and many other slaveowning men were personally attached to the benefits of it (sexual domination of slaves). One other FReeper flipped his lid on a vigorous discussion of the slave issue when I brought that up, as if I was airing his personal dirty laundry. But imagine a situation where, as a slaveowning man, if your wife turns you down, he can go and satisfy his lustful desires with his property who cannot refuse their advances. You can see why the slaveowning class did NOT want to give this arrangement up.”
I can see the pragmatic reason why the slave holding business couldn’t just end immediately, so I’m not quite as willing to fault Jefferson there (though I AM willing to fault him for never actually freeing his slaves on his deathbed, which Washington at least had the decency to do). My ire against Jefferson has more to do with his singing praises for the French Revolutionaries and their slaughters, even helping set up their Declaration of the Rights of Man and of the Citizen and reign of terror actively (and in his case, he KNEW what that was actually like due to actually seeing up close what would later being known as Bastille Day, in person, based on his journal entries. At least the other founding fathers, even Washington, who did make the mistake of accepting one of Bastille’s keys from the Jacobins, had the obvious complications with timely communication between the Atlantic Ocean during that time as an excuse for initially being unaware of what was truly going on. Jefferson KNEW from direct first-hand evidence that what they were doing was absolutely nothing like what we did (the difference between the Bastille raid’s results and those of, say, the Boston Massacre between regarding how the rebels of both events handled their enemies is as different as night and day, for example. We did a fair trial via John Adams against the Brits, and only scalded their thumbs in response. Those guys chopped the guards up to pieces and paraded them through the streets without even a trial of any sort, let alone a fair one.), yet still cheered them on anyways and even encouraged them to kill the king and made remarks you’d expect from the likes of Trotsky, Rohm, or Che Guevara about permanent revolution, which is much worse.). Even moreso considering that by doing that, Jefferson essentially and openly cheerleaded the French Revolutionaries into massacring scores of Catholics and other religions in the first instance of state atheism, something that not even MLK and JFK would ever have done, whether out of genuine kinship for their religion or even just for pure political points is irrelevant. So yeah, I have a LOT more contempt for Jefferson than I do for MLK or JFK for that reason alone. What Jefferson did, to put it another way, is closer to what Pope Francis did to those Chinese Catholics who refused to be under state control, where he not only did absolutely nothing to help out his flock, but even gave the go-ahead to slaughter them to the Chinese Government. I’ll give him credit for the Louisiana Purchase and the creation of our navy. Nothing more, and quite frankly, he should have suffered for what he did to us Catholics during that time. It’s actually rather fortunate that he wasn’t at the Constitutional Convention at the time it was occurring, or else we would have had a French-style Revolution of our own (and we nearly did with the Whiskey Rebellion).
Sorry, that should have been “or at the very least JFK ordering a blockade”.
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.