Replies

But, I remember learning about the Cuban Missle crisis, I remember learning about the Bay of Pigs. And these two events happened during his short time in office.

Show me the other side of the coin with the laundry list of achievements that he accomplished. And then, try to sell me on the idea that Kennedy's good intentions outweighed the dire consequences.

If you cannot do that, then I cannot believe that he was a wonderful president.

As for your last comment... Kennedy echoed that with, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." This sentiment is no different than FDR rallying America during WWII, or GWBush saying, "In the war on terror, knowledge is power." Both FDR and GWBush calmly and rationally rallied the nation behind a cause.

The fact that Kennedy had similar stirring words of patriotism may have more to do with the audience that he was speaking to, and the era in which they lived, than anything else. In the early sixties in America, life was pretty good. (I admit this means leaving the plight of blacks and civil rights out of the equation for a moment.) But, all in all, it was good. And, perhaps the people were apathetic because it was so good.

For example, people talk of Reagan's presidency as being the "me generation", filled with greed. In hindsight, I would say that this applies more to Clinton's presidency, not only because he passed the buck when it came to terrorism, but also because of things like the Enron scandals, Lewinsky, Clinton's haircut on the tarmac, etc.

When thinking of Kennedy's time, it WAS Camelot, because of it's place in history, after WWII, and before Viet Nam. A time of innocence. How many older people with hippee children during the sixties wished that they could go back to when children didn't care about politics, and all we had to worry about was the Cubans and the Soviets?

I believe that when people look at Kennedy, they see the innocence... Viet Nam was just getting started, but not a big problem, yet. Nixon wasn't in office, thank God! Carter wasn't ruining the economy. GHWBush wasn't ignoring domestic policy while gloriously kicking Saddam out of Kuwait. Clinton wasn't committing immoral acts in the Oval Office! Compared to the history that followed Kennedy, Kennedy was charming.

I think you have clarified some things for me. But cutting to the chase,rallying the troops for some global hegenomy wherein the rallyer and his cronies would ascend to a positon of great power dragging the citizens,the resources and the ideals and principles of this country behind them,or offering them up in advance as payment for favors they hoped would be awarded to them.That seems to be the m.o. of every President of the United States with the exception of Kennedy and Reagan.

I am not trying to convince you that he was a wonderful President,I don't think that myself.But I think he was a better one,even with the Cuban Missile Crisis and the Bay of Pigs than Roosevelt,Truman,Eisenhouer,Johnson,Nixon,Ford,Carter,Bush,Clinton and Bush. They all clearly have had globalist objectives,and brought us more government spending,larger central government,peacekeeping,nation building and wars.

One of the corollary outcomes of all of these endeavors involve losing more and more freedoms.

In fact,the only thing that seems less restricted is we can now have sex,anytime,anyplace as an observer or participant. No problems there.

I am thinking that both Reagan and Kennedy were shot because they did not have the same agenda the men who thought they bought them had.

Kennedy did lower taxes.

We need five parties.