What do you guys think about John F. Kennedy?

[asdfghjkl]

What do you guys think about John F. Kennedy?
Any opinions about him..?

-thanks.

[Danke]

A real lady's man.

[malkusm]

I have wondered what the board's opinion of JFK is....

Big plus to him for issuing silver certificates and for (seemingly) speaking out against the status quo.

However, many of his speeches seemed to go in the direction of Obama's compulsory youth brigade.

I'm interested to hear the consensus, but I'm pretty sure it will be negative overall, as I've picked out the only positive things I can think of for his presidency.

[LibertyEagle]

leftist.

[muzzled dogg]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11110

[LibertyEagle]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Executive_Order_11110

http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=jfkmyth&refpage=issues

[Old Ducker]

Lousy PT boat driver.

[LibertyEagle]

What do you guys think about John F. Kennedy?
Any opinions about him..?

-thanks.

A quick check of the threads you have started in your short time here, makes it appear that you are data mining. What's up with that?

[Kludge]

I think he's dead.

Now, between my friends at Stormfront, the Al Quaeda forum I frequent, and the Hal Turner audio stream I enjoy listening to, I'm not entirely sure that he ever even lived.

Indeed, perhaps "JFK" was actually a plot by our "White" Reptilian overlords to drum up "White" Rights & gov't sympathy.

[stag15]

The Obama Deception makes him seem like the the last non-puppet president.

[LibertyEagle]

There's only one Kludge.

lol.

[Kludge]

I won't believe it! I won't submit!

Kill your TV.

Package that fluoridated shit the gov't is trying to force you to consume, take it to a private shipping institute, and send it to Mexico where they wouldn't think twice about shitting on our vegetables!

[Danke]

I think he's dead.

Now, between my friends at Stormfront, the Al Quaeda forum I frequent, and the Hal Turner audio stream I enjoy listening to, I'm not entirely sure that he ever even lived.

Indeed, perhaps "JFK" was actually a plot by our "White" Reptilian overlords to drum up "White" Rights & gov't sympathy.

You have friends?

[Kludge]

You have friends?

Pfff, I have like.... 160 friends on Facebook... Like Ron Paul.

Yeah, he's my friend.

Jealous?

[Reason]

A quick check of the threads you have started in your short time here, makes it appear that you are data mining. What's up with that?

was about to say that.

[Icymudpuppy]

One thing he said was quite prescient:

"Those who would make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable." - JFK

[LibertyEagle]

The Obama Deception makes him seem like the the last non-puppet president.

Think so?


THE NEW AMERICAN has frequently described the origins and significance of State Department Document 7277, entitled Freedom From War: The United States Program for general and Complete Disarmament in a Peaceful World. Proposed by President John F. Kennedy in a 1961 address to the UN General Assembly, Freedom From War outlined a three-stage plan to disarm all nations--including our own--while simultaneously building up the UN's "peacekeeping" capacity.


THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM
FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE
DISARMAMENT IN A PEACEFUL
WORLD


DEPARTMENT OF STATE


DEPARTMENT OF STATE PUBLICATION 7277
Disarmament Series 5
Released September 1961

Office of Public Services
BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

http://www.mikenew.com/pub7277.html

[Rael]

I think he pissed some powerful people off and was eliminated because of it.

[South Park Fan]

Bad overall, but having done good things in a few areas (silver certificates and the Cold War) most likely cost him his life.

[Carson]

I think he pissed some powerful people off and was eliminated because of it.


Did you see this one.

On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business.

Snip...


President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 and the United States Notes he had issued were immediately taken out of circulation. Federal Reserve Notes continued to serve as the legal currency of the nation.


The link;

http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/thefederalreserve.htm

[Danke]

Did you see this one.

On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business.

Snip...


President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 and the United States Notes he had issued were immediately taken out of circulation. Federal Reserve Notes continued to serve as the legal currency of the nation.


The link;

http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/thefederalreserve.htm

Might what to read what G. Edward Griffin has to say:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2142082&postcount=6

[Cowlesy]

You have an interesting posting history. Mining data?

[Conza88]

leftist.

False left / right paradigm fail.

You mean socialist. They reside on the right aswell.

And no, your JBS model is flawed. I've addressed this at length to you numerous times and you always ignore the post.

In terms of op question.. meh, neither here nor there. Still up in the air.

Plan to consider what AJ thinks on the matter... it's connection with the NWO etc. He pissed off powerful well connected people is evident.

[Carson]

Kennedy was loved by most of us to a certain degree.

He did scare us to death though with his handling of international affairs.

The Cuban Crises had I wondering if we were going to die of a nuclear war and had us pleading with our parents for an answer.

"Are we going to die?"

We ended up removing some missiles from Turkey, I think, and they removed the ones from Cuba.

[Carson]

Might what to read what G. Edward Griffin has to say:

http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2142082&postcount=6



Thanks for the link Danke.


Interesting. He sure does like to muddy up an issue, is my first impression.

This is what the amendment says from what I gather from another source.




Executive Order 11110

AMENDMENT OF EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10289
AS AMENDED, RELATING TO THE PERFORMANCE OF
CERTAIN FUNCTIONS AFFECTING THE DEPARTMENT OF THE TREASURY

By virtue of the authority vested in me by section 301 of title 3 of the United States Code, it is ordered as follows:

SECTION 1. Executive Order No. 10289 of September 19, 1951, as amended, is hereby further amended --

(a) By adding at the end of paragraph 1 thereof the following subparagraph (j):

"(j) The authority vested in the President by paragraph (b) of section 43 of the Act of May 12, 1933, as amended (31 U.S.C. 821 (b)), to issue silver certificates against any silver bullion, silver, or standard silver dollars in the Treasury not then held for redemption of any outstanding silver certificates, to prescribe the denominations of such silver certificates, and to coin standard silver dollars and subsidiary silver currency for their redemption," and

(b) By revoking subparagraphs (b) and (c) of paragraph 2 thereof.

SEC. 2. The amendment made by this Order shall not affect any act done, or any right accruing or accrued or any suit or proceeding had or commenced in any civil or criminal cause prior to the date of this Order but all such liabilities shall continue and may be enforced as if said amendments had not been made.

JOHN F. KENNEDY

THE WHITE HOUSE,
June 4, 1963.

http://www.lib.umich.edu/govdocs/jfkeo/eo/11110.htm




I'll bet reading the EXECUTIVE ORDER NO. 10289 that this amends is really going to confuse things.

Oh Yah. It's a doozy.

http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/10289.html

I'd like to know what Paragraph 2 subparagraphs b. and c. said before they were revoked.

[Brooklyn Red Leg]

THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM
FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE
DISARMAMENT IN A PEACEFUL
WORLD

Public Law 87-297

The law to disarm Americans. Fuck Jack Kennedy as he was a fascist douchenozzle like his old man. He was no more our friend than Roosevelt, Wilson, Johnson, Nixon or our current fucko Obama.

[torchbearer]

I think he's dead.

Now, between my friends at Stormfront, the Al Quaeda forum I frequent, and the Hal Turner audio stream I enjoy listening to, I'm not entirely sure that he ever even lived.

Indeed, perhaps "JFK" was actually a plot by our "White" Reptilian overlords to drum up "White" Rights & gov't sympathy.

truth. JFK was an inside job.

[Carson]

Here is a John F. Kennedy speech to check out if you have time.

YouTube - John F Kennedy speech on secret Mason Jew 666 NWO meetings (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-jHmhNJJys)

I've heard some say it was never made.

Some say this is the speech that got him killed.



I think what ever it is, it is current to our times.

[Rael]

Did you see this one.

On June 4, 1963, a virtually unknown Presidential decree, Executive Order 11110, was signed with the authority to basically strip the Federal Reserve Bank of its power to loan money to the United States Federal Government at interest. With the stroke of a pen, President Kennedy declared that the privately owned Federal Reserve Bank would soon be out of business.

Snip...


President Kennedy was assassinated on November 22, 1963 and the United States Notes he had issued were immediately taken out of circulation. Federal Reserve Notes continued to serve as the legal currency of the nation.


The link;

http://www.john-f-kennedy.net/thefederalreserve.htm

yes thats exactly what I meant, that and pulling out of vietnam

[Carson]

I remembered something else that happened back around the Kennedy days when I was in grade school.

Sometimes the air was weird and if you breathed real deep you would start coughing and it was hard to stop. It only effected us little people. If the grown ups did it they were fine.

I remember telling them about it. They sort of seemed concerned and checked with of other neighbors. They all said their kids said the same thing.

I think they traced it to a power plant burning something with to much sulfer. Anyway it stopped.

Like I mentioned how we were scared about dying and nuclear war during the Cuban Crisis and talking to our parents about that.

That to stopped.

[Dreamofunity]

"Youtube - John F Kennedy speech on secret Mason Jew 666 NWO meetings"

lol

[emazur]

His policy of cutting taxes to spur growth is something I think we can all agree on - from the book "Gold: The Once and Future Money", pg. 245:
In May 1962, Kennedy made a visit to Germany, where he spoke with the great German finance minister Ludwig Erhard. Erhard had ignited the German postwar miracle economy with big tax rate deductions.
From Erhard, Kennedy learned what had been fueling the roaring economies of Germany and Japan. As Kennedy explained later in 1962:
"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high today and tax revenues too low, and the soundest way to raise the revenue in the long run is to cut the rates now. The experience of a number of European countries and Japan had borne this out. This country's own experience with tax deduction in 1954 has borne this out. And the reason is that only full employment can balance the budget, and tax reduction can pave the way to that employment. The purpose of cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring about budget surplus"
It wasn't until mid-1963 that Kennedy managed to put together to put together a package that would pass Congress, and the measure was still up in the air when Kennedy was assassinated in November of that year. His successor, Lyndon Johnson, pushed the tax bill through in Kennedy's name and signed it into law in February 1964. The plan called for an immediate 30 percent across-the-board reduction in income tax rates.
The recession ended, and the outflow of gold on the London market eased as the tax cuts led to increased demand for dollars, which supported the dollar's value. In 1965, revenues were flooding into the Treasury, as Kennedy had predicted. That year, the government was on track to run a $3 billion surplus, unitl it was hit with Vietnam-related expenses. The Republicans, which had opposed the Kennedy tax cuts, even though it was exactly the 30 percent reduction in tax rates that the Republicans had asked for in 1953, lent no support to further tax cuts. The Republicans lost political support, and Johnson took advantage of the political opportunity and bounteous tax revenues to implement his Great Society programs, including the introduction of Medicare.

[Kludge]

His policy of cutting taxes to spur growth is something I think we can all agree on

Nope.

[LibertyEagle]

False left / right paradigm fail.

You mean socialist. They reside on the right aswell.
Nope. On the far left is total government control; on the far right is anarchy.


And no, your JBS model is flawed. I've addressed this at length to you numerous times and you always ignore the post.
You've posted about it, but you were wrong. Socialism, Communism and Nazism are all big government. They are on the left hand side of the political paradigm. That stupid circle that the powers that be have tried to sell us for so long was solely to confuse the hell out of people. To make them scared. ie. If you go too far right, you'll get fascism. That's a lie. As you go right, you have less and less government. The extreme far right is anarchy.


In terms of op question.. meh, neither here nor there. Still up in the air.
You agree with his desire to disarm America and turn control over to the United Nations?


Plan to consider what AJ thinks on the matter... it's connection with the NWO etc. He pissed off powerful well connected people is evident.
:rolleyes:

YouTube - Just Wild: The American Form of Government (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGk6LG0GA4A&feature=PlayList&p=97CF479D7EBFD3D5&playnext=1&playnext_from=PL&index=42)

[LibertyEagle]

Kennedy was loved by most of us to a certain degree.

Speak for yourself. His name was below dirt in my family's house.

[Conza88]

Nope. On the far left is total government control; on the far right is anarchy.

OHHH so the anarchists (who are traditional socialists) are RIGHT WING? Yeaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh..... :rolleyes:

Why isn't it total government control on the far right wing, and on the far left is anarchy? :rolleyes:


You've posted about it, but you were wrong. Socialism, Communism and Nazism are all big government. They are on the left hand side of the political paradigm. That stupid circle that the powers that be have tried to sell us for so long was solely to confuse the hell out of people. To make them scared. ie. If you go too far right, you'll get fascism. That's a lie. As you go right, you have less and less government. The extreme far right is anarchy.

Nope, you are wrong. And that is why you left the discussion (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showthread.php?t=185189&page=11), like you always do. You couldn't put forward a sane rebuttal.

YouTube - How The Elite Control Politics (Alex Jones) (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fTahZE4q90U)




BTW, if you have a state: new insight by Hans-Herman Hoppe. Monarchy > Republic.

Democracy: The God That Failed (http://www.lewrockwell.com/hoppe/hoppe4.html)
Interview with Lew Rockwell (http://www.lewrockwell.com/podcast/?p=episode&name=2008-08-07_015_democracy_the_god_that_failed.mp3)
Democracy: The God that Failed Lecture. (http://mises.org/MultiMedia/mp3/20thCentury/12_20th_Hoppe.mp3)


You agree with his desire to disarm America and turn control over to the United Nations?
"What do you guys think about John F. Kennedy?" was the OP question. Hence; you is full of it.

You know the answer to this anyway. As would basically anyone with a brain on this forum who has read more than a few of my posts.


:rolleyes:

He's been spot on more times than you have. He's done more for Liberty than you have... Rolling your eyes because I have an open mind and haven't made my mind up yet? Again, your intellectual dishonesty is profound.

[BuddyRey]

In my opinion, Kennedy was a sheep who finally woke up, and was sheared because of it.

[LibertyEagle]

OHHH so the anarchists (who are traditional socialists) are RIGHT WING? Yeaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhh..... :rolleyes:
Oh, so you think Murray Rothbard is a socialist, do you? Interesting.


Why isn't it total government control on the far right wing, and on the far left is anarchy? :rolleyes:
:confused: Because it isn't. Far left is total government control; far right is 0 government.


Nope, you are wrong. And that is why you left the discussion (http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2037364&postcount=108), like you always do. You couldn't put forward a sane rebuttal.
No, you started your insult, bodyslamming fest, like you so frequently do these days and I refused to partake. ;)


"What do you guys think about John F. Kennedy?" was the OP question. Hence; you is full of it.
I is, is I?

Regardless, I addressed the OP's question.


You know the answer to this anyway. As would basically anyone with a brain on this forum who has read more than a few of my posts.

lol


He's been spot on more times than you have. He's done more for Liberty than you have... Rolling your eyes because I have an open mind and haven't made my mind up yet?
Doesn't AJ have his own forum somewhere?


Again, your intellectual dishonesty is profound.
This has become your standard fare when someone does not agree with you on everything. It's getting rather old, Conza.

[Conza88]

Oh, so you think Murray Rothbard is a socialist, do you? Interesting.

No, I reject both the left and right wings. For they are both socialist.

Left wing / Marxism = international socialism
Right wing / Nazism = national socialism

That's what they currently represent in the mainstream. The whole system is set up by the elites to KEEP EVERYONE IN A BOX. CAN YOU NOT SEE THAT?


Libertarianism is not left wing or right wing (collectivism).

You have two options: FORWARDS TOWARDS FREEDOM (INDIVIDUALISM) or BACKWARDS TOWARDS TYRANNY (COLLECTIVISM).

The more individualism you have, the more for freedom you are. The less, the more for tyranny and backwards you are.



:confused: Because it isn't. Far left is total government control; far right is 0 government.

Haha... exactly so arbitrary, and such bullshit. LEFT WING (where these wings originated - in the French revolution) / parliament, it would be where the CLASSICAL LIBERALS sat. They used to be against the Conservatives, those for the status quo.


No, you started your insult, bodyslamming fest, like you so frequently do these days and I refused to partake. ;)

You have failed to address every single argument that destroys yours. Intellectual coward.



I is, is I? Regardless, I addressed the OP's question.

As did I. And you tried to strawman me. ;) I addressed it by saying I haven't made my mind up.


This has become your standard fare when someone does not agree with you on everything. It's getting rather old, Conza.

NO. This is when they fail to even attempt to rebut it. What the fck am I meant to think when I am courteous and then you just ignore it, that's when I get pissed. Because you stopped me from walking you to the truth. And helping others see the same.

[LibertyEagle]

Conza, you are too hung up on the current definitions. Yes, those calling themselves right wing these days are nothing but big government socialists. Just like those who refer to themselves as left wing. There is little difference between the two. They are ALL big government socialists.

That is what the JBS video about the forms of government that has your knickers in such a knot, is trying to address. They are talking about the reality of the situation. That if you define the political spectrum as total government on the far left side of the spectrum and 0 government on the far fight, that socialism, fascism and communism are all big government and thus are on the left side. What we were given, a limited constitutional republic is closer to the right hand side. In other words, they're telling people that there is little to no difference between the Repubs and the Dems, when it comes to ideology. Get it? They're telling us that we don't want what either is dishing out, because they are the same thing. Neither one of them represents what our Founders intended for us.

If you'd take a step back, I think you'd realize we are talking about pretty much the same thing here. But, you are using the lingo that the powers that be have tried to sell to us. ie. national socialism = far right. International socialism = far left. It's BS, Conza. It's all big government socialism. The JBS' spectrum is intended to show just that. I think you're misunderstanding.

And Conza, I'm getting rather pissed at you continually calling me names. :mad:

[Objectivist]

He was shot the day I was born, that's my first thought.

Second, he is a Patriot for his time in the United States Navy.
He cut taxes.
He was about to reduce the amount of troops that were in Vietnam back in October, 1963 and never got the chance.
He is responsible for the formation of the Navy SEALS and they do great work around the world.
I think he took Nixon to task in the first televised debates.
He pissed me off over the flack with Frank Sinatra, you don't turn your back on your friends.
The increase in money going to NASA was a good thing all the way around, it helped develop technology that helped us win the Cold War.

I think he much different than portrayed by the liberals of today.

And my thoughts and feelings on his family are another topic.

[Conza88]

Conza, you are too hung up on the current definitions. Yes, those calling themselves right wing these days are nothing but big government socialists. Just like those who refer to themselves as left wing. There is little difference between the two. They are ALL big government socialists.

I fully recognise this and that is why it is more effective for us to REFUTE THE FALSE PARADIGM. THERE IS NO LEFT / RIGHT WING. THEY ARE BOTH WRONG.

What YOU do instead is go, "THERE IS A LEFT / RIGHT WING - except you republican, you're actually on the left wing.. and hey democrat, you're also on the left wing. Hey traditional socialist (anarchist) you're actually a right winger, you're more right wing than Constitutionalists..."

That strategy is fcken retarded. Go try it, you'll get laughed at and called a loon. And rightfully so.

The far more effective solution, is to go - no, Libertarians are not "left wing" and we are not "right wing". For we are not socialists. I take the current paradigm are call it for what it is.. you sit there are try to re-shuffle the cards, FULL OF FAIL. IT WON'T WORK. IT IS INEFFICIENT AND INEFFECTIVE.


That is what the JBS video about the forms of government that has your knickers in such a knot, is trying to address. They are talking about the reality of the situation. That if you define the political spectrum as total government on the far left side of the spectrum and 0 government on the far fight, that socialism, fascism and communism are all big government and thus are on the left side. What we were given, a limited constitutional republic is closer to the right hand side. In other words, they're telling people that there is little to no difference between the Repubs and the Dems, when it comes to ideology. Get it? They're telling us that we don't want what either is dishing out, because they are the same thing. Neither one of them represents what our Founders intended for us.

"My knickers are in a not" because it's wrong and all it does is re-shuffle the deck of the false paradigm. You're trying to re-take the "left / right wing" paradigm, you're trying to get the MSM to change it's fundamental premises of basically everything within the American social conscious, on every channel in every daily political conversation, so you're left wing? right wing? It is not, going, to happen. You are WASTING your time with a wrong and foolish replacement of the 'system'.

I fcken get it, what is more important is I understand it more than you - and have critically evaluated it. You and JBS are basically trying to re-take the word "liberal", good luck with that. That's an analogy and it fits perfectly.


If you'd take a step back, I think you'd realize we are talking about pretty much the same thing here. But, you are using the lingo that the powers that be have tried to sell to us. ie. national socialism = far right. International socialism = far left. It's BS, Conza. It's all big government socialism. The JBS' spectrum is intended to show just that. I think you're misunderstanding.

Umm, I've realized this from the very get go. I'm pointing to the lingo the powers that be gave us, I'm pointing to the system that is currently in use and every, single, fcken person - sum 350 million in the United States of America associates the words and labels with.

Whereas I say; look - it's all an illusion. You go, there is a left / right paradigm! It just looks different!

I'm not misunderstanding anything. And the further point is; JBS gets Monarchy wrong...

As I have consistently pointed out to you. And as you have consistently done you best to avoid.

It's literally like the 5th post I have referred it to you, and you have ignored it EVERY FCKEN TIME.


And Conza, I'm getting rather pissed at you continually calling me names. :mad:

And I am sick to death of you walking away from discussion when the Socratic Method starts to make you post answers you aren't comfortable with.

WHAT NAMES LE? WHAT NAMES? "Intellectual coward"? Prove me wrong, in all those questions you've avoided. Answer them. If you've lost the threads, I'll happy link to them.

[akihabro]

I think he woke up. I haven't done too much research on him but he probably was better than the presidents that followed. His Executive Order 11110 was pretty bold and unfortunately he paid dearly!

[Zippyjuan]

Kennedy would not be nearly as popular as he is if he was not shot.

[LATruth]

After reading Griffin's article I amnow in doubt as to the "why" he was shot. I was "convinced" it was due to the executive order myself. In light of new evidence I see this assumption was incorrect. So, what was he shot for? To me there are really only 2 reasons left:

1. Want/desire to disband the CIA. TPTB in said organization were and currently ARE powerful enough to carry out such an event. They had motive, abilty, were at the scene, etc.

2. As stated previously, he just "woke up" and that scared the bejesus out of everyone surrounding him. His speech is indicative of this. The controversy on whether or not he gave this speech where it was said to have been given is irrelevant. The speech was recorded somewhere, and it got out, either prior or during its performance. It's damning contents marked his death warrant.

[LATruth]

Kennedy would not be nearly as popular as he is if he was not shot.

Especially given the fact that he wasn't "just shot". This was no "Reagan style" attempt on a mans life. This was an obvious conspiracy.

[sailor]

So Kennedy... well what was the deal with him and US Steel? I tried searching for it the other month but couldn`t really find anything. You know the stuff Phil Ochs sung about, anybody knows anything more?

[s35wf]

someone told me once it was becuz of his handling of the cuban missile crisis. i dont know for sure. i was only a baby when he was shot.

I also think he was a sheep that awoke and was sheered.

[Carson]

One thing we should mention is that it could have been none of the above and just been one lone mans actions that did in President Kennedy.


There are plenty of clear cut conspiracy's nowadays we could be concentrating on.

Take the one of the police and the governments of the world allowing the illegal invasions of their citizens countries.

It is a travesty of justice to allow the criminals in business and the criminals in the government to get away with it.

It took the act of conspiracy, without a doubt. The odds that it could be occurring accidentally, everywhere, at the same time is just to great.

Look what happened the last time when many of the businesses of the world flooded countries with slaves and slavery. We still suffer from it.

[Carson]

Kennedy would not be nearly as popular as he is if he was not shot.

He was pretty popular at the time. My views are sort of skewed though I suppose. I was in grade school and living in a time when the government earned our respect.

Still I get your drift.

[Conza88]

Some people never learn...

[Matt Collins]

I think he was a Constitutional violator and almost got us killed (CMC)

[Tarzan]

He pissed me off! He was shot on a Friday... it took three days to get him buried... and it interrupted the cartoons on Saturday.

Too bad Teddy wasn't sitting in Connally's seat a few inches to the right.

[james1906]

Ted Kennedy was the equivalent of Billy Carter or Roger Clinton or Obama's pot smoking brother getting elected. Riding on a legacy while doing nothing.

[Ian A.]

He signed a bill that would end Vietnam (NSAM 263)

He signed bills that would end the CIA (NSAM 55, 56, 57)

He printed interest-free money, and tried to end the FED (Executive Order 11110)


So was he a good president? Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm??? :rolleyes:

[PaulaGem]

YouTube has been removed, what was it about or is there another link?

[PaulaGem]

YouTube - President John F Kennedy Secret Society Speech version 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces)

[torchbearer]

YouTube - President John F Kennedy Secret Society Speech version 2 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xhZk8ronces)

The President and the Press: Address before the American Newspaper Publishers Association
http://www.jfklibrary.org/Historical+Resources/Archives/Reference+Desk/Speeches/JFK/003POF03NewspaperPublishers04271961.htm

listen to full speech at the above link.
transcript: (bolding mine) (underlines are my 'wtf?' moments)

Mr. Chairman, ladies and gentlemen:

I appreciate very much your generous invitation to be here tonight.

You bear heavy responsibilities these days and an article I read some time ago reminded me of how particularly heavily the burdens of present day events bear upon your profession.

You may remember that in 1851 the New York Herald Tribune under the sponsorship and publishing of Horace Greeley, employed as its London correspondent an obscure journalist by the name of Karl Marx.

We are told that foreign correspondent Marx, stone broke, and with a family ill and undernourished, constantly appealed to Greeley and managing editor Charles Dana for an increase in his munificent salary of $5 per installment, a salary which he and Engels ungratefully labeled as the "lousiest petty bourgeois cheating."

But when all his financial appeals were refused, Marx looked around for other means of livelihood and fame, eventually terminating his relationship with the Tribune and devoting his talents full time to the cause that would bequeath the world the seeds of Leninism, Stalinism, revolution and the cold war.

If only this capitalistic New York newspaper had treated him more kindly; if only Marx had remained a foreign correspondent, history might have been different. And I hope all publishers will bear this lesson in mind the next time they receive a poverty-stricken appeal for a small increase in the expense account from an obscure newspaper man.

I have selected as the title of my remarks tonight "The President and the Press." Some may suggest that this would be more naturally worded "The President Versus the Press." But those are not my sentiments tonight.

It is true, however, that when a well-known diplomat from another country demanded recently that our State Department repudiate certain newspaper attacks on his colleague it was unnecessary for us to reply that this Administration was not responsible for the press, for the press had already made it clear that it was not responsible for this Administration.

Nevertheless, my purpose here tonight is not to deliver the usual assault on the so-called one party press. On the contrary, in recent months I have rarely heard any complaints about political bias in the press except from a few Republicans. Nor is it my purpose tonight to discuss or defend the televising of Presidential press conferences. I think it is highly beneficial to have some 20,000,000 Americans regularly sit in on these conferences to observe, if I may say so, the incisive, the intelligent and the courteous qualities displayed by your Washington correspondents.

Nor, finally, are these remarks intended to examine the proper degree of privacy which the press should allow to any President and his family.

If in the last few months your White House reporters and photographers have been attending church services with regularity, that has surely done them no harm.

On the other hand, I realize that your staff and wire service photographers may be complaining that they do not enjoy the same green privileges at the local golf courses that they once did.

It is true that my predecessor did not object as I do to pictures of one's golfing skill in action. But neither on the other hand did he ever bean a Secret Service man.

My topic tonight is a more sober one of concern to publishers as well as editors.

I want to talk about our common responsibilities in the face of a common danger. The events of recent weeks may have helped to illuminate that challenge for some; but the dimensions of its threat have loomed large on the horizon for many years. Whatever our hopes may be for the future--for reducing this threat or living with it--there is no escaping either the gravity or the totality of its challenge to our survival and to our security--a challenge that confronts us in unaccustomed ways in every sphere of human activity.

This deadly challenge imposes upon our society two requirements of direct concern both to the press and to the President--two requirements that may seem almost contradictory in tone, but which must be reconciled and fulfilled if we are to meet this national peril. I refer, first, to the need for a far greater public information; and, second, to the need for far greater official secrecy.
I

The very word "secrecy" is repugnant in a free and open society; and we are as a people inherently and historically opposed to secret societies, to secret oaths and to secret proceedings. We decided long ago that the dangers of excessive and unwarranted concealment of pertinent facts far outweighed the dangers which are cited to justify it. Even today, there is little value in opposing the threat of a closed society by imitating its arbitrary restrictions. Even today, there is little value in insuring the survival of our nation if our traditions do not survive with it. And there is very grave danger that an announced need for increased security will be seized upon by those anxious to expand its meaning to the very limits of official censorship and concealment. That I do not intend to permit to the extent that it is in my control. And no official of my Administration, whether his rank is high or low, civilian or military, should interpret my words here tonight as an excuse to censor the news, to stifle dissent, to cover up our mistakes or to withhold from the press and the public the facts they deserve to know.

But I do ask every publisher, every editor, and every newsman in the nation to reexamine his own standards, and to recognize the nature of our country's peril. In time of war, the government and the press have customarily joined in an effort based largely on self-discipline, to prevent unauthorized disclosures to the enemy. In time of "clear and present danger," the courts have held that even the privileged rights of the First Amendment must yield to the public's need for national security.

Today no war has been declared--and however fierce the struggle may be, it may never be declared in the traditional fashion. Our way of life is under attack. Those who make themselves our enemy are advancing around the globe. The survival of our friends is in danger. And yet no war has been declared, no borders have been crossed by marching troops, no missiles have been fired.

If the press is awaiting a declaration of war before it imposes the self-discipline of combat conditions, then I can only say that no war ever posed a greater threat to our security. If you are awaiting a finding of "clear and present danger," then I can only say that the danger has never been more clear and its presence has never been more imminent.

It requires a change in outlook, a change in tactics, a change in missions--by the government, by the people, by every businessman or labor leader, and by every newspaper. For we are opposed around the world by a monolithic and ruthless conspiracy that relies primarily on covert means for expanding its sphere of influence--on infiltration instead of invasion, on subversion instead of elections, on intimidation instead of free choice, on guerrillas by night instead of armies by day. It is a system which has conscripted vast human and material resources into the building of a tightly knit, highly efficient machine that combines military, diplomatic, intelligence, economic, scientific and political operations.

Its preparations are concealed, not published. Its mistakes are buried, not headlined. Its dissenters are silenced, not praised. No expenditure is questioned, no rumor is printed, no secret is revealed. It conducts the Cold War, in short, with a war-time discipline no democracy would ever hope or wish to match.

Nevertheless, every democracy recognizes the necessary restraints of national security--and the question remains whether those restraints need to be more strictly observed if we are to oppose this kind of attack as well as outright invasion. For the facts of the matter are that this nation's foes have openly boasted of acquiring through our newspapers information they would otherwise hire agents to acquire through theft, bribery or espionage; that details of this nation's covert preparations to counter the enemy's covert operations have been available to every newspaper reader, friend and foe alike; that the size, the strength, the location and the nature of our forces and weapons, and our plans and strategy for their use, have all been pinpointed in the press and other news media to a degree sufficient to satisfy any foreign power; and that, in at least in one case, the publication of details concerning a secret mechanism whereby satellites were followed required its alteration at the expense of considerable time and money.

The newspapers which printed these stories were loyal, patriotic, responsible and well-meaning. Had we been engaged in open warfare, they undoubtedly would not have published such items. But in the absence of open warfare, they recognized only the tests of journalism and not the tests of national security. And my question tonight is whether additional tests should not now be adopted.

The question is for you alone to answer. No public official should answer it for you. No governmental plan should impose its restraints against your will. But I would be failing in my duty to the nation, in considering all of the responsibilities that we now bear and all of the means at hand to meet those responsibilities, if I did not commend this problem to your attention, and urge its thoughtful consideration.

On many earlier occasions, I have said--and your newspapers have constantly said--that these are times that appeal to every citizen's sense of sacrifice and self-discipline. They call out to every citizen to weigh his rights and comforts against his obligations to the common good. I cannot now believe that those citizens who serve in the newspaper business consider themselves exempt from that appeal.

I have no intention of establishing a new Office of War Information to govern the flow of news. I am not suggesting any new forms of censorship or any new types of security classifications. I have no easy answer to the dilemma that I have posed, and would not seek to impose it if I had one. But I am asking the members of the newspaper profession and the industry in this country to reexamine their own responsibilities, to consider the degree and the nature of the present danger, and to heed the duty of self-restraint which that danger imposes upon us all.

Every newspaper now asks itself, with respect to every story: "Is it news?" All I suggest is that you add the question: "Is it in the interest of the national security?" And I hope that every group in America--unions and businessmen and public officials at every level-- will ask the same question of their endeavors, and subject their actions to the same exacting tests.

And should the press of America consider and recommend the voluntary assumption of specific new steps or machinery, I can assure you that we will cooperate whole-heartedly with those recommendations.

Perhaps there will be no recommendations. Perhaps there is no answer to the dilemma faced by a free and open society in a cold and secret war. In times of peace, any discussion of this subject, and any action that results, are both painful and without precedent. But this is a time of peace and peril which knows no precedent in history.

II

It is the unprecedented nature of this challenge that also gives rise to your second obligation--an obligation which I share. And that is our obligation to inform and alert the American people--to make certain that they possess all the facts that they need, and understand them as well--the perils, the prospects, the purposes of our program and the choices that we face.

No President should fear public scrutiny of his program. For from that scrutiny comes understanding; and from that understanding comes support or opposition. And both are necessary. I am not asking your newspapers to support the Administration, but I am asking your help in the tremendous task of informing and alerting the American people. For I have complete confidence in the response and dedication of our citizens whenever they are fully informed.

I not only could not stifle controversy among your readers--I welcome it. This Administration intends to be candid about its errors; for as a wise man once said: "An error does not become a mistake until you refuse to correct it." We intend to accept full responsibility for our errors; and we expect you to point them out when we miss them.

Without debate, without criticism, no Administration and no country can succeed--and no republic can survive. That is why the Athenian lawmaker Solon decreed it a crime for any citizen to shrink from controversy. And that is why our press was protected by the First Amendment-- the only business in America specifically protected by the Constitution- -not primarily to amuse and entertain, not to emphasize the trivial and the sentimental, not to simply "give the public what it wants"--but to inform, to arouse, to reflect, to state our dangers and our opportunities, to indicate our crises and our choices, to lead, mold, educate and sometimes even anger public opinion.

This means greater coverage and analysis of international news--for it is no longer far away and foreign but close at hand and local. It means greater attention to improved understanding of the news as well as improved transmission. And it means, finally, that government at all levels, must meet its obligation to provide you with the fullest possible information outside the narrowest limits of national security--and we intend to do it.

III

It was early in the Seventeenth Century that Francis Bacon remarked on three recent inventions already transforming the world: the compass, gunpowder and the printing press. Now the links between the nations first forged by the compass have made us all citizens of the world, the hopes and threats of one becoming the hopes and threats of us all. In that one world's efforts to live together, the evolution of gunpowder to its ultimate limit has warned mankind of the terrible consequences of failure.

And so it is to the printing press--to the recorder of man's deeds, the keeper of his conscience, the courier of his news--that we look for strength and assistance, confident that with your help man will be what he was born to be: free and independent.

[ClayTrainor]

Kennedy is one of my most respected presidents.

[Mitt Romneys sideburns]

Something fishy about this guy. I think he is fishing for objectionable quotes to post somewhere.

[PaulaGem]

Something fishy about this guy. I think he is fishing for objectionable quotes to post somewhere.

Do you mean the guy who was banned ages ago after starting the thread or CONZA who revived it?

[free.alive]

Second, he is a Patriot for his time in the United States Navy.
The increase in money going to NASA was a good thing all the way around, it helped develop technology that helped us win the Cold War.


It's an interesting hodge-podge of messages that comes across by you posting this, Objectivist.

1) Your pseudonym suggests you adhere to some sort of anti-state Randian philosphy.

2) Your avatar is a photo of Ludwig von Mises, who likely never found a government program he wouldn't eliminate and was opposed to military statism.

3) Yet in your comments on JFK, you assert that he was a "patriot" for merely "serving" in the Navy. Are you suggesting that that is either 1) a requirement for being a "patriot", or 2) that alone can make one a patriot?

4) You applaud the wasteful and statist NASA. How would Mises or Objectivism square with that view.


Your opinions are your own, and we are all individuals, not cookie cutter cut-outs who adhere perfectly to any system. My "libertarian failings" are trains and dense urban areas, both of which I prefer over their competitors, but neither of which occur today without massive state-intervention. This requires me to opposed the process by which they come about, and enjoy them as a guilty pleasure. That said, I recognize how my tastes are inconsistent with my philosophy, even if I don't advocate the creation of more of the things I like.

My point in all this is that your post painted a very inconsistent, confusing picture of where you were coming from.

[Vessol]

Only reason he is so famous as a president is because he got shot, /shrug,

[Objectivist]

What do you guys think about John F. Kennedy?
Any opinions about him..?

-thanks.

I was going to respond but seeing you are banned now it doesn't make any sense to do so.

[Objectivist]

Lousy PT boat driver.

Great swimmer and how do you navigate in the pitch black of night when you can't see the destroyer coming at you?

He cut taxes and was about to pull out of Vietnam when he fell to an assassins bullets.
Started the Navy SEALs and the Peace Corps, got us headed to the Moon even though the space program was well on its way during Eisenhower's Administration. Folded on missile defense with the Soviets by pulling back from Turkey.

I just would have liked that his death didn't fall on November 22nd, 1963.

[LibForestPaul]

He was the only Catholic president. And was shot because of it. His assassination was not by a lone gunman. And the known story behind his killing makes the movie look tame.
Oswald, charged with murder...
Jacob Rubenstein....
Orthodox Jewish decedent...
murders Oswald...
in a police precinct... ok!
But wait theres mores...
Bobby Kennedy then runs for Office of The President...
and he too is shot...
by....???
Sirhan Bishara Sirhan... WTF!
A Palestinian...
Christian...
Yeah, no conspiracy here, just move along folks...nothing to see here...

[Conza88]

Do you mean the guy who was banned ages ago after starting the thread or CONZA who revived it?

It was revived because I was hoping LE would give me an answer.

Alas she never does and continues on with her head down against storm of logic and truth. :(

[Working Poor]

He wrote legislation to end the Fed which is still in place today just not enforced it was the last law he wrote

[John F Kennedy III]

I won't believe it! I won't submit!

Kill your TV.

Package that fluoridated shit the gov't is trying to force you to consume, take it to a private shipping institute, and send it to Mexico where they wouldn't think twice about shitting on our vegetables!

Kludge, I never knew thee, but I love you just the same.

I feel like writing a poem...

[John F Kennedy III]

Amazing how in 7 pages of discussion there wasn't much detail about JFK's presidency given...

[oyarde]

He was killed because of what transpired at the Bay of Pigs , it was on , after that , you hang that many professional killers out to dry and they all do not die , then , it is over for you. If you did it to me , I would not forget, but, I would not have been there :) , probably would have just took a hunting/ fishing trip to Canada instead .Last Dem president to understand taxes , spending , maybe . I know exactly who & why.Matters not now , when I am gone ,it will not matter as well...

[libertarian4321]

I heard Kennedy was born in Kenya or Indonesia and wasn't a legitimate President.

[Vessol]

Let me lay it on the line
He had two on the vine
I mean two sets of testicles
So divine
On a horse made of crystal
He patrolled the land
With the mason ring and schnauzer
And his perfect hands

...oh wait that's Washington, not Kennedy. Ah well, close enough.

[PierzStyx]

The best thing for his legacy was getting shot. Otherwise he would be blamed for Vietnam since it was his plan to go there from the beginning.

[PierzStyx]

Let me lay it on the line
He had two on the vine
I mean two sets of testicles
So divine
On a horse made of crystal
He patrolled the land
With the mason ring and schnauzer
And his perfect hands

...oh wait that's Washington, not Kennedy. Ah well, close enough.

He'll save the children
Just not the British children

As for JFK....



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K7y2xPucnAo

[LibertyEagle]

Kennedy wanted to disarm the United States and hand control over to the United Nations.

He was not a very popular president when he was murdered. Then, came the martyrdom...

http://dosfan.lib.uic.edu/ERC/arms/freedom_war.html

[Paul Or Nothing II]

JFK was a typical liberal socialist of his ilk, sure, he supported a couple of good things but that doesn't mean anything in the larger scheme of things

As has been pointed out, he was anti-gun rights, he was very much into supra-national governance & despite the fact that "he cut taxes", well, he did to RAISE REVENUES so that he could engage in more of his big government policies, not to mention he was a typical socialist Democrat with a taste for redistribution of income & welfare

It's like just because Kucinich supported Audit The Fed bill or that he opposes wars doesn't mean he's a supporter of liberty, just because Barney Frank had a bill with Ron Paul to decriminalize marijuana doesn't mean he's a liberty-lover; NO, there aren't just two kinds of people - "us" & "them" - NO, people are people & there's a whole wide range of them out there & it would be more obvious if people tried to look at people as individuals rather than buying into conspiracy theories telling them that so & so are acting in complete unison, no, just like supporting Ron Paul doesn't mean that everyone here supports freedom in its entirety, there are people here from radical anarcho-capitalists to various kinds of socialists & obviously it's hard to see them working in unison on all issues & this holds true for any group of individuals working together
So this emphasis on segregating people as "us" vs "them" is largely fallacious, just because people believe in something that is antithetical to you doesn't mean they're evil & that holds true for whether someone supports/opposes Fed or global governance or whatever, it only distorts the real picture of reality & we isolates ourselves from reason & objectivity

Anyways so to me, JFK was ok on some issues but not really worth it, just a little bit like Kucinich; here's the link again to JFK MYTH - http://www.freedomforceinternational.org/freedomcontent.cfm?fuseaction=jfkmyth&refpage=issues

[NoOneButPaul]

After reading Griffin's article I amnow in doubt as to the "why" he was shot. I was "convinced" it was due to the executive order myself. In light of new evidence I see this assumption was incorrect. So, what was he shot for? To me there are really only 2 reasons left:

1. Want/desire to disband the CIA. TPTB in said organization were and currently ARE powerful enough to carry out such an event. They had motive, abilty, were at the scene, etc.

2. As stated previously, he just "woke up" and that scared the bejesus out of everyone surrounding him. His speech is indicative of this. The controversy on whether or not he gave this speech where it was said to have been given is irrelevant. The speech was recorded somewhere, and it got out, either prior or during its performance. It's damning contents marked his death warrant.

What speech? The one about secret societies? Pretty sure he was talking about communism...

[PaulConventionWV]

I have wondered what the board's opinion of JFK is....

Big plus to him for issuing silver certificates and for (seemingly) speaking out against the status quo.

However, many of his speeches seemed to go in the direction of Obama's compulsory youth brigade.

I'm interested to hear the consensus, but I'm pretty sure it will be negative overall, as I've picked out the only positive things I can think of for his presidency.

He had some weird language in his speeches that I don't quite understand. I tend to think he wasn't fully on board with the establishment, hence why he was eliminated when he tried to eliminate the Fed. Nonetheless, it seems like some things contradict any libertarian ideology may have had, but some of his speeches suggested he may have been trying to communicate what was really going on, although it probably went over most people's heads.

[Tudo]

What do you guys think about John F. Kennedy?
Any opinions about him..?

-thanks.

2 million dead Vietnamese
58,000+ dead Americans

Howz that for starters? And yeah yeah "what he would have done". Right, woulda coulda shoulda .

There's a pamphlet produced by FEE ( The oldest Libertarian think tank in the USA )( http://www.fee.org ) written by Dr Hans Sennholz which showed what every president did for the last century and it'll open eyes. EVERY one of them did something to involve us in a war, a debasement of the currency, raise ( or invent ) new taxes etc. Every single one of them.

[PaulConventionWV]

Think so?




THE UNITED STATES PROGRAM
FOR GENERAL AND COMPLETE
DISARMAMENT IN A PEACEFUL
WORLD


DEPARTMENT OF STATE


DEPARTMENT OF STATE PUBLICATION 7277
Disarmament Series 5
Released September 1961

Office of Public Services
BUREAU OF PUBLIC AFFAIRS

http://www.mikenew.com/pub7277.html

I think you misunderstood. The Obama Deception is a movie by Alex Jones.

[LibertyEagle]

I think you misunderstood. The Obama Deception is a movie by Alex Jones.

What the hell are you talking about? I realize that, but this is a thread about JFK. Take a look at the thread title.

[thoughtomator]

If JFK were alive today, he would be considered too extreme for mainstream politics, and a potential terrorist.

[PaulConventionWV]

Here is a John F. Kennedy speech to check out if you have time.

YouTube - John F Kennedy speech on secret Mason Jew 666 NWO meetings (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g-jHmhNJJys)

I've heard some say it was never made.

Some say this is the speech that got him killed.



I think what ever it is, it is current to our times.

The idea that the NWO is a Jewish conspiracy is completely unfounded, and quite frankly, a distraction to lure the dumb people away from the real conspiracy. Makes sense, since anything Jew-related has so much stigma attached to it, it's ridiculous.

[Todd]

Kludge, I never knew thee, but I love you just the same.

I feel like writing a poem... ...

He's still here...in one form or another.

[PaulConventionWV]

One thing we should mention is that it could have been none of the above and just been one lone mans actions that did in President Kennedy.


There are plenty of clear cut conspiracy's nowadays we could be concentrating on.

Take the one of the police and the governments of the world allowing the illegal invasions of their citizens countries.

It is a travesty of justice to allow the criminals in business and the criminals in the government to get away with it.

It took the act of conspiracy, without a doubt. The odds that it could be occurring accidentally, everywhere, at the same time is just to great.

Look what happened the last time when many of the businesses of the world flooded countries with slaves and slavery. We still suffer from it.

The Kennedy conspiracy exhibits the same amount of odds, if not better ones, that it was a conspiracy. There's just no way one man could have carried out something like that, and it is far too obvious that something is/was being covered up. The autopsy records and the photos were very telling.

[PaulConventionWV]

What the hell are you talking about? I realize that, but this is a thread about JFK. Take a look at the thread title.

The poster you were replying to said, "The Obama Deception would have you believe..."

and you replied with "Think so?" which suggests to me that you thought he was talking from his own point of view rather than pointing out what The Obama Deception said about it. Sorry if it got you confused.

[libertyjam]

The best thing for his legacy was getting shot. Otherwise he would be blamed for Vietnam since it was his plan to go there from the beginning.

www.dtic.mil/cgi-bin/GetTRDoc?AD=ADA328884

Study questions:
What was the Eisenhower Doctrine?

What was the Korean conflict all about?

How did the Korean conflict directly influence the policy in Vietnam?

What was the majority view of the US public wrt the Policy of Containment applied to SE Asia in 1958-60?

[libertyjam]

dup

[Lishy]

My impressions of JFK are that he's overrated because of the whole assassination though. Conspiracy theorists say the CIA killed him, so they assume he was an innocent guy "fighting against the machine..." when the reality is he is responsible for the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and he also continued MKUltra under his administration.

But I'm just an uneducated Canadian, so disregard my opinion.

[pcosmar]

The idea that the NWO is a Jewish conspiracy is completely unfounded, and quite frankly, a distraction to lure the dumb people away from the real conspiracy.
True,, it would be more accurate to call it a Luciferian conspiracy.


Makes sense, since anything Jew-related has so much stigma attached to it, it's ridiculous.

Well that is deliberate. Those that side with Lucifer tend to hate the true God and any that seek him. They oppose or corrupt all other religions. Very often even pretending to be that which they despise to destroy it from within.

[LibertyEagle]

The poster you were replying to said, "The Obama Deception would have you believe..."

and you replied with "Think so?" which suggests to me that you thought he was talking from his own point of view rather than pointing out what The Obama Deception said about it. Sorry if it got you confused.

I wasn't confused at all. How about you worry about your own posts. :rolleyes:

[pcosmar]

What do you guys think about John F. Kennedy?

He's dead. nuff said.

[libertyjam]

My impressions of JFK are that he's overrated because of the whole assassination though. Conspiracy theorists say the CIA killed him, so they assume he was an innocent guy "fighting against the machine..." when the reality is he is responsible for the Bay of Pigs invasion, the Cuban Missile Crisis, and he also continued MKUltra under his administration.

But I'm just an uneducated Canadian, so disregard my opinion.

I actually doubt that JFK ever even knew about project MK ULTRA or was ever briefed on it. If anyone can dig up actual proof of that it would be interesting. The animosity between Allen Dulles and JFK is now well known and resulted in Dulles' firing for being too autonomous. I doubt Dulles let the executive in on all its operations including that one. Bay of Pigs was planned under the Eisenhower administration and championed by VP Nixon. JFK's lack of support for the operation is directly led to the operations failure. It was also what was ostensibly cited for Dulles removal after an investigation instituted by the Executive. The Cuban Missile Crisis was instigated firstly by Khrushchev, and is now a matter of record he planned for the Cuban bases as a pawn for supporting Cuban autonomy and removing US bases in Turkey. US Turkish installations that again, were largely planned and executed during the Eisenhower era.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGM-19_Jupiter
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/moment.htm

[PaulConventionWV]

I wasn't confused at all. How about you worry about your own posts. :rolleyes:

Ok, just trying to help.

[Lishy]

I actually doubt that JFK ever even knew about project MK ULTRA or was ever briefed on it. If anyone can dig up actual proof of that it would be interesting. The animosity between Allen Dulles and JFK is now well known and resulted in Dulles' firing for being too autonomous. I doubt Dulles let the executive in on all its operations including that one. Bay of Pigs was planned under the Eisenhower administration and championed by VP Nixon. JFK's lack of support for the operation is directly led to the operations failure. It was also what was ostensibly cited for Dulles removal after an investigation instituted by the Executive. The Cuban Missile Crisis was instigated firstly by Khrushchev, and is now a matter of record he planned for the Cuban bases as a pawn for supporting Cuban autonomy and removing US bases in Turkey. US Turkish installations that again, were largely planned and executed during the Eisenhower era.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PGM-19_Jupiter
http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/nsa/cuba_mis_cri/moment.htm

Hmmm.... John F. Kennedy is really an interesting figure.

I really wish to find out the truth of all this stuff someday of whether JFK was good or bad in the end... But those points do make me think...

[John F Kennedy III]

Lol page 10.

Somebody make a list of the good and bad things JFK did during his presidency. PLEASE. I have a hard time finding any sources on the internet that aren't slanted.

[Pauling]

In my opinion, Kennedy was a sheep who finally woke up, and was sheared because of it.

This.

Was he good or bad? The answer is that he was bad, then he was good, then he was dead.

[GeorgiaAvenger]

I love JFK's tax cut. He was more conservative than Nixon and Ford.

I think this idea that bankers killed him was wrong. Johnson may have done it so that he could advance Vietnam and usher in the "Great Society". Or, it could have been someone upset with his support for civil rights. Or an anti-Catholic.

[DerailingDaTrain]

He wasn't great. He did some ok things. He may have been on drugs, a womanizer, and the rest of family is pretty sketchy.

The quote about peaceful revolution is great though. I'm pretty sure AJ has been calling him the last true American president for years.

[libertyjam]

Lol page 10.

Somebody make a list of the good and bad things JFK did during his presidency. PLEASE. I have a hard time finding any sources on the internet that aren't slanted.

The problem is such a list is not very relevant because his presidency was so short. You also cannot view his achievement or lacks or faults outside of the legacy policies and the prevailing attitudes of the electorate at the time. You can only possibly list his tendencies and the potentials that he had of achieving before extreme fascist factions in the power elite eliminated him as a threat, since his popularity was growing so much that a second term was pretty much guaranteed.

[Galileo Galilei]

What do you guys think about John F. Kennedy?
Any opinions about him..?

-thanks.

He was the greatest president of the 20th century. He is one of the few presidents to rank in quality with the Founding Fathers.

[Republicanguy]

John Kennedy did speak about world peace, the speech he gave to the graduates at the American University. I think he turned this way partly because of the foreign policy the Administration had gone down the year before. You can listen to the 26 minute audio file there too. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy#American_University_speech

Kennedy said that no nation should intefere in the affairs of any nation.

The way he spoke about it, reminded me of Joseph Blowick, an Irish T.D who said something similar in 1960. Talking about the UN being a force for good, and achieving peace.

Peace can only be achieved by us as a species and as a collection of nations around the planet by only looking inward. The most important topic on Earth yet filled with lovely views and ideas that tend to bounce around a fantasist's mind.

I remember three years back reading a 1793 document, on how to achieve world peace, every government needs to be republican, the abolishment of the military, I think was another rule.