RoadBikeReview.com's Forum Archives - Non-Cycling Discussions
Forty Years Later, JFK(17 posts)
|Forty Years Later, JFK||jose_Tex_mex|
Nov 21, 2003 6:36 PM
|For the life of me, I cannot believe how anyone could buy the lone gunman theory. I am not really interested in pursuing that. Anyone who does not have a problem with a single government having two official (mutually exclusive) explanations for a single event cannot be reasoned with.
However, humor me. Suppose the gov't/military did take away the people's President. Didn't the USA cease to exist on some level? If you can take away the people's President (without problems from the people) what else could you take from them? Their money, their jobs, their rights...?
We all know Kennedy ended Vietnam, correct (National Security Action Memorandum No. 263)? If the people's President had not been taken away there would not have been a Vietnam. What a different world.
I literally believe we have been paying the price for Kennedy's murder since Johnson ordered us back in to Vietnam.
Once Rome started to kill its own senators, the empire's fall was not far off.
Does history repeat itself?
|Try this on for size||filtersweep|
Nov 22, 2003 7:20 AM
|On NPR this morning, "they" were talking about how difficult it is for Americans to fathom that one lonely individual who barely cast a shadow could bring down someone as charismatic as JFK- that the people want to (if not NEED to) believe in a conspiracy theory. It almost makes life seem to fragile if a "nobody" acting alone can have the potential to alter the course of history.
re: Rome- the empire was spread too thin, and no one was minding the store back at home...
|Similar to many of Jung's philosophies...||namaSSte|
Nov 24, 2003 10:53 AM
|in order to avoid civil chaos, the masses need to believe in something regardless of its validity. Im not saying I believe Jung was right at all but the theory applies to your argument.
In the end, the govt may or may not have been involved but even if it were, we'd ne naive to think we had full disclosure on anything important. Not paranoia, just a feeling I have that there is much we don't, and will never, know. Apathy su@ks but sometimes, fighting a battle you'll never win su@ks even more. What really is the lesser of the evils here? I have no clue.
I think we should try to learn from the past, look to the future, but live in the moment. Idealistic? Sure, but it beats the alternative imo.
Peace and light.
|Try this on for size||jose_Tex_mex|
Nov 24, 2003 7:15 PM
Actually, I think western mythology often puts forth the power of the individual, even in front of the most menacing odds.
However, that's not the point. Anyone could have had a shot at JFK and heck, even gotten off a lucky shot. However, that's not where the trouble is. The conspiracy comes after the fact - who has the power to cover it up?
As for conspiracy, do you believe in the magic bullet theory? If you don't then you are a conspiracy nut as well.
FWIW - our gov't believes there was only one shooter (Warren) and at least two (House Senate). If it was not one shooter then it was a conspiracy.
|Who are these "We" ?||HouseMoney|
Nov 22, 2003 9:39 AM
|"We all know Kennedy ended Vietnam, ..."
I take it you're including Oliver Stone among them?
|Do you believe the same about RFK, MLK, Elvis, Ron Brown,||MR_GRUMPY|
Nov 22, 2003 10:22 AM
|....? ? ? ? Can you explain why Ford and Ronnie aren't dead ? ? ?|
|Of course||Live Steam|
Nov 22, 2003 9:11 PM
|Yes to the first part and you left out Vince Foster, Jim McDougal and Jim Morrison.
As for part 2, because their stalkers/assassins were truly amateurs. There was no conspiracy involved in those assassination attempts therefore they did not have the true ability to succeed and didn't. They were just nuts trying to kill the president. The JFK assassination was obviously a well planned event. More than one person had to be involved if even to just help plan it.
I learned this evening that Kennedy's limo usually had a bulletproof bubble, but he had it removed for the Dallas campaign trip so as not to appear detached from the people. He was having a tough time garnering support in the South and he thought he needed to carry Texas during the next election. The report just mentioned the fact that the roof was removed in in passing. Does anyone know if this information was advertised prior to the event? If not, how would Oswald have thought he would be able to shoot JFK if his limo usually had a protective enclosure? Only an insider would have know that fact.
|Do you believe that Jack Ruby was in on it, and that..........||MR_GRUMPY|
Nov 23, 2003 12:09 PM
|... he was bumped off afterward to shut him up.
Do you know that everybody on the Warren commision is dead except Gerry Ford ??? I think that Elvis and the Queen of England were involved, and that the Queen was the one who bumped off Elvis.
(excuse me, while I take my medication)
|You really believe that JFKs death and ....||Live Steam|
Nov 23, 2003 4:09 PM
|everything else that surrounded it including Oswalds murder, were random acts? Now that I is certainly naive. All of the events that lead up to JFKs death were too suspicious for that to be the case. Talk about the perfect storm. I don't care what the Warren Commission says. There were a lot of people involved in the entire affair.
Please explain to me why Ruby shot Oswald. What did he have to gain? He was a two bit bar owner with connections to the mob. Why would he give up his life to shoot Oswald?
|Because of Hate..||MR_GRUMPY|
Nov 23, 2003 8:29 PM
|People do stupid things because hate overwhelms them. Many people believe that Ruby couldn't have got to Oswald unless someone let him in. I believe that Oswald's luck ran out because he was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Just like JFK.
Random acts happen all the time. People die, people live. It's like the sucide bombers. Their hate is so great that they don't think twice about killing innocent people.
Oswald hated JFK. Oswald heard the JFK was going to be in town. Oswald read about the route the cars were going to take. Oswald picked a building on the route. JFK's luck ran out when he OK'd riding in the car without the bullet proof top.
Life is made up of random acts. If it wasn't, I'd probably stay inside all the time wearing an Aluminum foil hat.
Nov 24, 2003 10:01 AM
|That is a bigger stretch than believing in a conspiracy. Some of your understanding is also incorrect. JFK did not OK the removal of the top. He wasn't aware of that fact until it was too late.
So you are saying that Ruby loved JFK that much that he was willing to give up his freedom for him? That doesn't make sense. There were millions of people that day who hurt because he was shot. I doub't any of them felt like killing Oswald because he shot JFK. I think that is bad reasoning.
|I think that there were millions of Americans that wanted to||MR_GRUMPY|
Nov 24, 2003 11:19 AM
|kill Oswald with their bare hands, that weekend. People do strange things when they are filled with hate. Who wouldn't try to kill the person who killed their child, and got away with it because of a fluke mistake?
Ruby was so filled with rage, that he was willing to give up everything to get revenge.
Nov 24, 2003 9:23 AM
|I was really surprised to hear that Kennedy ended Vietnam. That will be fascinating news to everyone who fought there. It shows a serious lack of depth for historical issues on your part that makes discussion futile. I'd love to know who started it.
The fact is, Kennedy, for all his charm and energy, was a very ineffective President. He was having a hard time getting anything done, and he was losing support everywhere. He stood a very real chance of losing the 1964 elections, only a year into the future. So does it really make sense that government or military forces would form a conspiracy to assassinate the President to get him out of the way??? Of what? The incredible risk could not have been worth the reward.
After his death, Johnson marched up to Congress and basically said, to honor Kennedy, pass his programs. And Congress did. It's hard to call it a coup when the new guy does exactly what the old guy was doing. What's the point?
|do your homework...||jose_Tex_mex|
Nov 24, 2003 1:59 PM
|FWIW, don't take my word, trust in Google, search on NSAM 263.
As for who started Nam - that was Eisenhower. Any other questions?
NSAM 263. Kennedy evaluated our presence in Nam and decided it was best to leave. He signed NSAM 263 which basically said as much, bring home the green berets, and everyone is out by Christmas - NO VIETNAM. The day Kennedy was murdered the first plane load of green berets landed.
However, the day after his assassination, Johnson re-evaluated Kennedy's re-evaluation and "found it to be optimistic." Johnson said forget NSAM 263 and the rest is history.
By the way, the lady who was Oswald's landlord was a family member to Bell Helicopters... But that's just a coincidence...
|do your homework...||mohair_chair|
Nov 24, 2003 2:28 PM
|So Kennedy was murdered so the green berets would stay, and Oswald killed him because his landlady was a family member to Bell Helicopters?
Hard to find a flaw in that reasoning. You must be right.
|stop embarrassing yourself||jose_Tex_mex|
Nov 24, 2003 4:29 PM
|Once you leave your teenage years behind you will be able to think more clear and at the very least, admit when you are wrong and learn to stop embarrasing yourself.
Anyhow, I did not say who killed JFK. FWIW - I do believe he was killed by more than one shooter and that the gov't military was an integral part.
Let's see here's a few good reasons:
Kennedy hated the CIA and wanted to disband them after they disinformed him on the Bay of Pigs.
Tony and the boys lost their casinos when Castro took over. Probably way before your time. However, there was no Las Vegas or Atlantic City. It was all down in Havanna. Do you think Tony Soprano enjoyed losing his casinos?
Military and Contractors
What was the cost of Vietnam? How many billions (trillions?) did this war cost? Can one man stand in the face of billions?
You totally miss the point. Anyone can have a shot at the President. However, who can cover it up?
Do you homework.
|stop embarrassing yourself||mohair_chair|
Nov 24, 2003 8:42 PM
|You know, you've proven time and time again here that you really have nothing much to say. Even your childish ad hominem attacks are without creativity and skill. So, since nothing you say can possibly warrant a response, I'll leave you to your baby games and ignore your posts from now on.|| |