Posted: Mon Oct 23, 2006 6:15 pm
Nerrilyn Diefenbach wrote:Thank you for your replies. I respect your opinions and I certainly hear your passion.JFKs 'lack of substance' was referring to his moral character. Something I, personally, have great difficulty with. I believe there was an underlying insensitivity, immorality and irresponsibility about JFK that was down right dangerous. And you're right Myra 'politically expedient', is somewhat of an understatement when talking about LBJ. I'm not an LBJ fan, but rather was just using him to try to make a point.I think one thing we do agree on is that on 22/11/06 something really precious was lost and it was more than JFK the man and whatever he may have achieved. And it wasn't just America that lost it.As far as George Bush is concerned you'll get no arguments from me Bob. Nor from a young Australian called David Hicks who has been held in Guantanamo bay since December 2001. After two and a half years in custody he was finally charged with conspiracy, attempted murder and aiding the enemy. No allegations have been made that Hicks killed or specifically harmed anyone. It appears that Hicks has been guilty of 'thought crimes' against America. Whatever happened to 'innocent until proven guilty'? Whatever happened to a fair trial? This legal limbo where he is unable to invoke the writ of habeas corpus to test the legality of his imprisonment, makes an absolute mockery of the very democratic values that US (and Australian) intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq was meant to uphold.Shame! Shame! Shame!
Thank you Nerrilyn. As you've observed, the subject of JFK is very emotional for me. The american fascists stole his life and stole our right to pick our leaders. I don't want them to also succeed in stealing the good reputation he deserves.
And he does deserve that good reputation. That does not mean that he didn't commit adultry. But I have to remind myself that the media over here is owned by the right wing, Kennedy's enemies. They are on a mission to assassinate JFK's reputation and image. That is always the second piece to an assassination after killing the person. They then have to assassinate their reputation. They have to make sure that they don't become a martyr, so they assault us with constant propaganda about what a bad guy Kennedy was. It's very hard to know what the truth is in such an environment. In all likelyhood the truth is somewhere in the middle of the extremes: Kennedy had affairs but not to the extent we're led to believe. (Obvious speculation on my part.)
BUT...the propaganda "media," while assassinating JFK's image, will *not* report on affairs of right wing presidents. For example it's well known the Bush 1 had a longtime secretary that "served under him in a variety of positions." Ahem. Bush 2 is pretty clearly gay, and even seems to like little boys. We won't read that in the mainstream media. See what I mean? There's a double standard, and JFK's foibles will be magnified while the fascist's foibles will be masked.
So let's keep it in context. The US is just as aggressive with propaganda wars as they are with military wars. And the insiders and media hate Kennedy just as much today as the day they killed him.
>I think one thing we do agree on is that on 22/11/06 something really
>precious was lost and it was more than JFK the man and whatever he
>may have achieved. And it wasn't just America that lost it.
Good point. Very true. The US war machine is a cancer on the planet.
Shame shame shame for sure on the US. Sadly it's only the people, who have been under a regime they haven't voted for for forty years, who feel the shame. The regime itself is shameless.
I hope you don't think that US citizens actually elected Bush either time. He has stolen his two elections. Very publically and very...shamelessly.
Thank you Nerrilyn. As you've observed, the subject of JFK is very emotional for me. The american fascists stole his life and stole our right to pick our leaders. I don't want them to also succeed in stealing the good reputation he deserves.
And he does deserve that good reputation. That does not mean that he didn't commit adultry. But I have to remind myself that the media over here is owned by the right wing, Kennedy's enemies. They are on a mission to assassinate JFK's reputation and image. That is always the second piece to an assassination after killing the person. They then have to assassinate their reputation. They have to make sure that they don't become a martyr, so they assault us with constant propaganda about what a bad guy Kennedy was. It's very hard to know what the truth is in such an environment. In all likelyhood the truth is somewhere in the middle of the extremes: Kennedy had affairs but not to the extent we're led to believe. (Obvious speculation on my part.)
BUT...the propaganda "media," while assassinating JFK's image, will *not* report on affairs of right wing presidents. For example it's well known the Bush 1 had a longtime secretary that "served under him in a variety of positions." Ahem. Bush 2 is pretty clearly gay, and even seems to like little boys. We won't read that in the mainstream media. See what I mean? There's a double standard, and JFK's foibles will be magnified while the fascist's foibles will be masked.
So let's keep it in context. The US is just as aggressive with propaganda wars as they are with military wars. And the insiders and media hate Kennedy just as much today as the day they killed him.
>I think one thing we do agree on is that on 22/11/06 something really
>precious was lost and it was more than JFK the man and whatever he
>may have achieved. And it wasn't just America that lost it.
Good point. Very true. The US war machine is a cancer on the planet.
Shame shame shame for sure on the US. Sadly it's only the people, who have been under a regime they haven't voted for for forty years, who feel the shame. The regime itself is shameless.
I hope you don't think that US citizens actually elected Bush either time. He has stolen his two elections. Very publically and very...shamelessly.