It was 43 years ago that he was killed by a lone gunman in Dallas. So where were you when it happened? I heard about it in my high school Spanish class.

Too young to remember. And that fact (the majority of Americans are in the same boat) hopefully will open up the facts of what really happened on this pivotal day in US history. However, I personally think it will still take a couple more generations before everything comes out. Until EVERYONE who was involved is dead, we won't know the real truth.

Also, Wayne, while you are quoting historical fact, (lone gunman), the evidence is less than factual and is still widely open for interpretation. This case will be discussed and argued for decades to come.

Paul-

Now with today's digital imaging there already is compelling evidence that I saw in a past few years ago. I always felt there was more than one gunman but I am now convinced that Oswald was one lucky shooter that day in Dallas and was the lone gunman that killed Kennedy.

Guys, too many people wanted JFK dead.

The mob, Castro, the commies, even the dept. of defense, supposedly.

Remember...Mr. Kennedy was apparently having a dalliance with Sam Giancana's girlfriend. This is before Marilyn Monroe. Before that, JFK was having a dalliance with a female spy.

Oswald is killed by Jack Ruby-a guy with known mob ties-before Oswald can even testify?

This is the rare conspiracy theory that I buy into.

You guys ever watched the various footage, not all by Abraham Zapruder? Umbrella Man comes to mind. There's a guy, in clear daylight, pumping an umbrella.

Badge Man is another. There's more than one guy involved in the assassination. Perhaps the CIA had something to do with it. I don't know. But it still reeks.

Herb

Chris, the technology is ever-changing, and yes, I saw the same scenerio as you. But there is SO much more to this story....the shadowy figures, the killing of Oswald, the witnesses who heard shots from every direction, the direction of the bullet wounds to the injured. I'm not trying to claim anything here, just saying there is more to be discovered.

With all the criticism of Wayne's posts, I would like to credit him for noting this 43rd anniversary, somthing the media has largely ignored.

Perhaps by the 50th mark there will be more information. In my lifetime, this event had probably more impact than any other, including Watergate, Viet Nam, the fall of Communism, and even 9/11.

Think about how our society changed from 1963 to 1967, unmatched in our recent history. Civil rights, female rights, but even more interestingly, the cultural changes that occured with The Beatles, and televison, movies, it goes on and on. Whether the JFK assasination was the actual catyalist in all this is debatable, the historical timeline is not.

Thanks but I wonder why there hasn't been much media coverage of it this year?

Probably a combination of it not being a "marquee" year (43), and the fact that more and more of the audience doesn't care. Sad, because it ranks as one of the top 2 or 3 events of the 20th century.

I too believe Oswald was the lone shooter in JFK's murder. I think we've debated this topic on the board before. The book that convinced me was Gerald Posner's "Case Closed," published more than 10 years ago, which put to bed pretty much every conspiracy theory out there. In 2003, a couple of TV specials not only debunked a number of the theories but also showed that some of the basic elements of the case disputed by conspiracy theorists were quite plausible (for example, Oswald's ability to fire off so many shots so quickly; the trajectory of the bullets that hit JFK and Connally, etc.)

You have to approach the JFK conspiracy theories (any conspiracy theories) with an "innocent until proven guilty" attitude. Most of the JFK conspiracy theories are based on wishful thinking and exclusion of common sense and obvious conclusions. Sure, a lot of people might have disliked JFK but that doesn't mean they had one thing to do with his murder. You need evidence of that. There is overwhelming evidence on the other hand that Oswald did it alone.

Andrew

paul, I'm not sure why society has to note anniversaries of deaths, including ultra-morbid ones like 9/11 too.

Lets remember JFK instead on his birthday, or President's day, or Marilyn Monroe's birthday. But the day he died?

I wasn't alive when this happened. I find it to be a compelling mystery, and although I lean towards believing the lone gunman theory, I find myself not 100% convinced. I guess it's my skeptical nature to question all theories.

I am only 30. But common folks Lone gunman my arse.

If I were a betting man I would say that it was a collabrotive effort between the Castro regime and the US mafia.

But what do I know I am only a young punk kid.

I've seen enough to put the lone gunman into serious question. It is a compelling mystery that I enjoy hearing new things about.

Great Guy too. Wonder how different things would have been today had he made it through that event?

Nixon lost to JFK by the thinnest of margins and I wonder how things might have been different if Nixon won in 1960 instead of JFK. Maybe Watergate might not have happened and JFK might have lived a few more years.

Missing, what specifically makes you question the "lone gunman" theory?

Andrew

Forgive me for not being able to articulate this better right now. Been a while since I've thought about this.

IMHO, there were a lot of interests that stood to be harmed by what JFK brought to the White House.

One thing that stands out is the whole Magic Bullet thing. It's highly unlikely one bullet could have done the damage it did.

The video footage shown in the Oliver Stone movie does not jive with that very well at all.

Honestly, I think the events that day were a combination of forces all working together, but not in sync with one another.

It's a lot like the 9/11 bit. Enough elements don't jive to make the official line resonate. That does not mean it was an inside job, or anything else the nuts say it was, but it does mean there are things we don't know.

JFK is the same way.

The lone gunman is not a slam dunk. It might actually be true, but there is not enough to be known true.

I'll have to do some digging to say it with more precision. Again, it's been a while since I last thought about JFK.

Do you think it's the real story? Point me to some stuff and I know it will jog my memory. This is as good of a topic as any these days, why not?

Doug writes:

IMHO, there were a lot of interests that stood to be harmed by what JFK brought to the White House.


True, but that doesn't mean there's any evidence any of them participated in his murder, does it?

One thing that stands out is the whole Magic Bullet thing. It's highly unlikely one bullet could have done the damage it did.

Did you see the documentaries done by ABC and others at the 40th anniversary (Nov 2003)? The ABC documentary was particularly good, and it showed fairly convincingly how the bullets could quite plausibly have done the damage they did. Some of the dispute about the "magic bullet" is based on false assumptions on where Oswald was and when the bullets were fired, by the way.

The video footage shown in the Oliver Stone movie does not jive with that very well at all.

Stone's movie was full of inaccuracies, disproved assumptions, and just plain fiction dreamed up for the movie. I wouldn't base any conclusion on having seen "JFK" except for the fact that JFK himself was actually killed on November 22, 1963. Beyond that - hmm...

Not to say it's not a great movie - it's skillfully edited and put together, no doubt. I was very affected by it when I first saw it; only after I read about some of the glaring inaccuracies and fictions in it did I being to question all the "conspiracy theories," and as I said, Posner's book "Case Closed" nailed it for me.

The lone gunman is not a slam dunk. It might actually be true, but there is not enough to be known true.

We could say that about pretty much any crime ever committed, couldn't we? All you need to do is raise doubt, bring up any sort of possible motives and discrepancies and suddenly everything can be questioned. With something as complex as the JFK assassination - with all the investigative bodies involved, etc. - the possibilities for doubt are infinite. The fact that his death caused enormous trauma to so many people only magnifies the possibility of "group doubt."

That's why I go with the "innocent until proven guilty" rule. If there's no evidence to support an alternate theory, or if it can be fairly easily debunked, I discard it. Every alternate theory that has had even a hint of evidence in the JFK killing has been debunked; others without any evidence (just hunches) can be dismissed simply because there is no evidence. You could dream up endless theories and scenarios about the JFK killing and many other crimes, but without evidence, they are just theories.

By contrast, there is overwhelming evidence of Oswald's lone guilt, and combined with the fact that all other serious theories have been debunked to my satisfaction, I have not the slightest doubt that JFK was killed by Oswald alone.

If you are still in doubt, I suggest reading the "Case Closed" book and digging up a copy of the ABC documentary from 2003; I think the Discovery Channel and/or the History channel produced another very conclusive "Oswald did it alone" documentary at that same time. There must be plenty of stuff on the net but I have not looked at most of it.

Andrew

Seventh grade class. Mr. C. got called on the class phone and then told us, then the principal made a school wide on the p.a.

The media has enough other things on its plate this fall, and as has been noted, the last few years have given us updated analysis on the event and the theories.

Don't ever let your judgement be clouded by a lack of facts.

Happy Thanksgiving, folks.

Andrew-

I don't remember what I saw, could have been something on PBS, but with new technology, and an understanding of physics the TV show I saw and the expert explaining the video I was watching convinced me that Oswald was the lone killer.

I never saw the Oliver Stone movie. But as I posted earlier, I also believe that Oswald was simply very lucky in hitting the president as many times as he did. Other marksmen have attempted in recreations of the same scenario and couldn't hit the moving target like Oswald.

I saw Penn and Teller's "Bullshit" expisode debunking of the jfk myth. They demonstrated that a marksman (or an overweight TV personality) could easily get off the number of shots in that limited time frame with the type of rifle used. Like Chris said, Oswald had luck on his side that day.

CASE CLOSED.

Oswald had motive to kill JFK did he not?

If the case is closed, then why did Jack Ruby kill Oswald before he could talk?

Herb

(thump thump thump) there's far too (thump thump thump) much religious thumping going on (thump thump thump) to hear any (thump thump thump) ruby kill (thump thump thump) could talk (thump thump thump) why the case (thump, thump thump) . . . (thump thump thump) . . . (thump thump thump) . . .

sperm in my daddys sac when he was shot...

Chris wrote:
I never saw the Oliver Stone movie. But as I posted earlier, I also believe that Oswald was simply very lucky in hitting the president as many times as he did. Other marksmen have attempted in recreations of the same scenario and couldn't hit the moving target like Oswald.

I have no doubt that luck was Oswald's side on that day, but I seem to recall one of the documentaries where a marksman was indeed able to recreate to some degree Oswald's shooting that day.

Herb wrote:
If the case is closed, then why did Jack Ruby kill Oswald before he could talk?

Ruby has been dead a long time, so I guess we will never know his true motive. But let's recall how JFK's murder had such an emotional impact on the nation. Surely some people were angry, right? Isn't it possible that Ruby basically flipped out, due to his emotional state at that point? Maybe he had some need to be a hero? Who knows?

I'm not saying I know for sure (only Ruby did)...but just because we don't know Ruby's motive doesn't mean Ruby didn't have a perfectly plausible reason, in his mind, right? Why must you assume Ruby's motive must have been sinister? We don't know, but in real life, strange things do happen that may make no sense to observers.

(As I typed the paragraph above, I had "Sex and the City" on in the background, and one of the characters said, "They still don't know who killed Kennedy." LOL!)

Andrew

I think this is A LOT more simple than it has been made out to be.
JFK & RFK double crossed the mob. it's not just some coincidence that they were both assinated. the mob farmed the job(s) out, so not to have a direct link & Oswald was to be killed no matter what.
( I have a feeling that had he never been caught, he was a dead man). Ruby acted on orders, possibly knowing that he was gonna die anyways( cancer).

I also believe that most people miscatigorize and underestimate Oswald. He had a perfect cover- basically appearing to be a failed man, failed marine, failed husband- unemployed & a loser. A true loser would never be hired to assinate the most powerful man in the word. Think about it..

Why must you assume Ruby's motive must have been sinister?

Please.

Give me a hard question for once.

Because Ruby had mob ties.

Therefore, by killing Oswald with this major motivation, Ruby furthers the likelihood of a conspiracy.

Herb

Herb, here's my stance: there's too many pieces of evidence to NOT support this.. One thing about the mob, as you may know, is that those who are " in", are fiercly loyal - and when told do something, will do it. Maybe Ruby volunteered, feeling it to be an honor, or maybe he volunteered because had a death wish. Either way, I believe Ruby to be the equivlent of a suicide bomber. He knew it was a one way ticket- no matter what.

Nahh, no conspiracy: just a well orchestrated assination: THE ULTIMATE mob it..

Herb, having "mob ties" does not automatically make one a murderer. There are all kinds of "mob ties" - not everyone who dealt with the mob was involved in wacking guys. Some "mob ties" were low-level gambling and prostitution, not quite on the same level as assassinating a president.

Naturally, having some connection to criminals (what business operator DIDN'T in Dallas in 1963?), Ruby's connection was investigated but nothing was found connecting him to a mob hit conspiracy. Conspiracy theorists of course consider the lack of evidence itself as evidence (the mob is "so good" that they would never have left fingerprints - therefore, Ruby must have been involved with a mob conspiracy).

But here's a simple one for you: if the mob had truly orchestrated the whole thing, wouldn't you think that killing Oswald would have been perhaps the most important job (aside from killing Kennedy) the conspiracy could have? The mob is usually not sloppy - when they want to wack someone important, wouldn't they send an experienced professional, not a middle-aged two-bit night club owner who had never killed anyone before? What if he had screwed it up?

Andrew

Being a Teamster, even I have mob ties, so where do I fit in on the JFK thing?

Jack Ruby was a deep cover CIA agent working on the inside. He was ordered to kill Oswald so that the American people would be satisfied that justice was served in that JFK's killer was slain and that was that. Also to prevent the scandal of a trial that was sure to take place and possibly cause a mob war to erupt.

Oswald was just the patsy to take the fall and give everyone a shooter and then take him out and seal the verdict, no questions asked or answered that way.

Who knows what really happened. No one probably knows who setup the hit and how do we know our own government did not find a patsy and then take him out to end it. People were so enraged and wanted justice...well they got it right??? Or did we???

The Grassy Knoll did it!!!

Well, take any crime ever committed, every catastrophe, and ask, "Who knows what really happened???" Then we can be doubting everything bad that has ever happened, because how do we know there isn't a government conspiracy behind it?

Andrew

"...wouldn't they send an experienced professional, not a middle-aged two-bit night club owner who had never killed anyone before."

I think you under-estimate both the mob and Jack Ruby.

If indeed the mob did it, La Cosa Nostra was extremely effective...partially because their combination of loyalty and code of 'omerta' [silence] STILL has us wondering if the syndicate put out the contract on the President.

I don't get you liberals. I'm a conservative and die-hard Nixon man...and EVEN I think it's an extreme likelihood that there was a conspiracy here...perhaps exactly as Joamon4sure notes.

Herb

Right - you are buying into the circular logic I suggested above: because no one has talked (mob loyalty), that is evidence right there that the mob put out a hit on Kennedy. But that circular logic is not evidence. Their code of silence leaves YOU "wondering if the syndicate put out the contract on the President." It doesn't leave me wondering.

Andrew

If indeed as Oliver Stone posits in his film, JFK, there was more than one sniper, thus creating a 'crossfire' effect.

This backup mechanism is yet another signature suggestive of a mob hit.

Herb

If the message comes from Hollywood, it MUST be true.

And everytime you here a Jock and the radio he is really there local in the station!!!

Oliver Stone's film "Nixon" portrays the embattled president as a pill-popping, brooding alcoholic. Maybe you should watch it - because if Stone suggests something in one of his movies, it's probably true, right Herb?

Andrew

WHIFF! WHIFF! WHIFF!

Three strikes and your out!

Hey hoser......Towel off wet head!

Beauty Ay.

Um...like when you find a mouse in your beer....you like get free beer AY.

"...if Stone suggests something in one of his movies, it's probably true, right Herb?"

Even a broken clock is right twice a day.

Herbert Milhous

So that's " yes."

Wayner...
Nixon had a chemical imbalance and it wouldn't have made any difference if he would have won in 60'. The stress of the job was enough to push him over the edge.
Stress does bad things to a man....... Ask DUHbya in 15 years.....

Bush is a good man, Trix. Nixon did a lot of good as president. I think the only good conservative is a dead one to you.

Nixon did far more good than bad. (in fact, the bad, Watergate, did more good than bad.) It woke up America to such inherent problems with our democracy, and unless history repeats itself, (which is likely), atleast preserved our style of government for the time being as the public and media called him on it(rightly), and we moved on. And hopefully learned.

Nixon was probably the last extremely intelligent President we have had. Others have been good campaigners and politicians, but Nixon had a unique and clear understanding of world politics.
We need more like him (in the sense of being able to understand the world situation and make the correct moves).

Nixon was an intelligent guy, but so was Clinton. The fact that Clinton had a different approach to world politics than Nixon did doesn't make Clinton less intelligent. Clinton is an extremely bright guy who dazzled most everyone he met while president, even opponents and rivals.

Nixon did some awful things besides Watergate. Supporting/engineering the coup in Chile (something Kissenger was more deeply involved in) led to the brutal dictatorship of Pinochet, and to Chileans, "September 11" still means September 11, 1973, not 2001. For a country that supposedly supported democracy to aid in overthrowing a democratically-elected government in Chile was inexcusable.

Of course, while Nixon "got us out of Vietnam" he also committed what some would consider war crimes there such as secretly bombing Cambodia in 1969 (this act was considered as one act of impeachment at the same time Watergate was coming to a head in 1974), and he continued the war for years beyond what it might have gone, considering that the peace terms secured in early 1973 weren't much different than those possible in 1968.

Nixon also brought us the "war on drugs" which continues as a losing battle to this day.

Andrew

Andrew, don't forget Nixon brought us that ridiculous 55 MPH speed limit.

Yes, it was tough to drive 55, (I agree with Sammy Hager on this one!)...but it did save the country a lot of oil and sent a strong message to the middle east. Also don't forget year-round daylight savings time during the Nixon years...

Nixon out of Viet Nam. Yes, this happened under his Presidency.

Nobody has brought up detente with Russia, and his China visits. No firm consensus, but the China trips most likely defined the US-China relationship for the next 50 years.

"Nixon was probably the last extremely intelligent President we have had. Others have been good campaigners and politicians, but Nixon had a unique and clear understanding of world politics."

Agreed. Nixon's the one.

Mr. Reagan had foresight regarding communist europe, but Mr. Nixon knew world politics.

Herbert Milhous

Deane wrote,
Andrew, don't forget Nixon brought us that ridiculous 55 MPH speed limit.

Didn't Nixon's damn dog Checkers think that one up? I'm glad he's dead. (Checkers, not Nixon - I wish Nixon were still alive.)

Andrew

Author: Deane_johnson
Saturday, November 25, 2006 - 6:10 pm


Andrew, don't forget Nixon brought us that ridiculous 55 MPH speed limit.

----

I understand Hillary wants to bring it back. I hope that doesn't happen.

"Nobody has brought up detente with Russia, and his China visits. No firm consensus, but the China trips most likely defined the US-China relationship for the next 50 years."

I have in the past. Nixon and Brezhnev worked very well together and it represented a deep thaw in the Cold War. Nixon CREATED US-China relations, him and Chou en-Lai in China.

Domestically, yes, the country was not in real good times during his Presidency. The country didn't see good times domestically basically from when Kennedy was shot until Reagan ... but Nixon's foreign policy was top-notch. He was a victim of his own paranoia and need to have absolute control.

"Nixon was probably the last extremely intelligent President we have had. Others have been good campaigners and politicians, but Nixon had a unique and clear understanding of world politics."

WORLD POLITICS YES!
And being paranoid!!!
If Prozac was around back then Nixon would have been just fine. But he was a paranoid bigot and he resigned in disgrace.

Nixon had some crooks that he surrounded himself with but what does that have to do with the topic at hand?

"If Prozac was around back then Nixon would have been just fine. But he was a paranoid bigot and he resigned in disgrace."

Resigned in disgrace, absolutely. Paranoid, hell yes. Bigot? Nah, he was actually well ahead of the GOP curve on civil rights at the time. In that area he was actually rather progressive.

The question is, how can you tell the difference between Nixon's shrewd political calculations about race in the US and his private feelings?

I tend to believe Nixon was a bit of a racist because of the way he talked in private conversations, captured on his tapes. He seemed especially bigoted toward Jews. I don't think he ever uttered the "N" word about blacks on his tapes, but I also think he had a condescending attitude toward them based on his private comments.

My belief is that Nixon really cared little about domestic politics and simply used them to gain political advantage for his foreign policy initiatives and of course for staying in power. Nixon's reality was that he was looking at sizable Democratic majorities in both houses of Congress. Rather than being passionate about things like the Environmental Protection Agency or race relations, Nixon simply gave his opponents what they wanted domestically in exchange for more freedom in foreign affairs, getting certain judicial nominees approved, and - above all else - getting re-elected in 1972, by a landslide.

One area where Nixon showed political expediency was more important than any cherished beliefs about race was in his employment of the so-called "southern strategy" in 1968 and 1972. Basically, Nixon appealed to southerners' racism by endorsing "states rights" to win those formerly solid democratic states. Somehow, it's hard to imagine a Bobby Kennedy or a Hubert Humphrey doing that.

Andrew

Nixon honestly didn't need much help in his re-election bid in 1972, George McGovern might have been one of the more inept Presidential candidates of all-time. He changed his views on key things like you and I change socks, and made it easy for Nixon, who was undeniably a very shrewd politician who had a mastery of exposing the weakness of an enemy, to dress him down.

My guess is that Bobby Kennedy would have probably won in 1968 had he not been assassinated ... and Bobby was very much pro-Civil Rights, something his brother gave lip service only to while in the White House. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 might be about the only good to come out of the Johnson Presidency.

Nixon's re-election was not so secure early in 1972. He was lucky to have McGovern to run against, and in fact his campaign tried to maneuver to eliminate other stronger candidates like Muskie with dirty tricks. The Nixon White House was obsessed with Teddy Kennedy in part because of a fear that he would run in 1972. It's not an accident that both the China initiative and Detente happened in an election year.

A good read if you are interested in the Nixon presidency is Bob Haldeman's diaries of that time, published around the time of his death in the 1990s. They give you excellent insight into Nixon's day to day thinking during his first term and early 2nd term, perhaps even more than tape transcripts would because of Haldeman's knowledge of his boss's personality and desires. No one worked more closely with Nixon than Haldeman during that first term.

Actually, JFK was working on a civil rights bill before he was killed, and Johnson made it one of his early goals to get JFK's bill passed. I think both Kennedys were kind of transformed by their years in the White House; it's pretty clear that when JFK took office neither he nor RFK had much interest in civil rights. But as events progressed, their views evolved. Obviously RFK's views evolved much further, but of course he was alive longer for that to happen.

Andrew

"The Civil Rights Act of 1964 might be about the only good to come out of the Johnson Presidency."

I'd say its more than that, but its another topic. Other than Vietnam, Johnson had a great presidency, but that VN is a biggie equal to Nixon's Watergate (and Bush's Iraq).

I think that Johnson MEANT well, he was truly crushed that he wasn't able to enact some of his Great Society ideas because of Vietnam. Johnson had a stubborn streak the size of his beloved Texas, yet at the same time he was very much someone who acted in accordance with his popularity polls .. he wanted very much to be liked. (The polar opposite of Dubya, who would "stay the course" even if every single American there was marched the Capital Mall in protest).

Andrew - I have read some of Haldeman's diaries of the Nixon Presidency ... it shows how truly paranoid he was. He worked his damndest to close out his Cabinet and closest advisors ... his fear of anything leaking to the press was insane.

Why did the Democrats vote against the Civil Rights act of 1964? If you remember LBJ thanked the Republicans for passing it.

poop poop poop . . .

Skep, did you know it's possible to be MORE annoying than a troll by responding to every one of his posts with gibberish?

Andrew

I was in High School, considering his administration never actually achieved anything
its amazing hes so fondly remembered.

He did give us a disaster in Cuba, twice.
He started the increase in Vietnam, without giving the commanders on the ground a mission.

"Skep, did you know it's possible to be MORE annoying"

yeah, I did think of that. I figure I'd do it a few days to make sure everyone associates poop with the troll to the point of annoyance. I guess I'm there.

I think you have made others more annoyed than me.

Skep, it doesn't annoy me at all, it reminds me not to respond.

(I hate myself when I do, but someone's flat-out lying regarding federal employee/civil service retirement benefits or else they just have very very low IQ, and I just couldn't let that one slide.)

mrs m, thanks. I can't think of a better way to describe what the troll is doing to the forum. randy's point about not partipicating and contributing $$$ to the forum is quite valid if trolls are freely pooping everywhere.

Ooops! Sorry, this was a double post!

When you have no argument you insult. Thats the way liberals are.

When you have no argument you troll and muck rake. Thats the way Nazis are.

At least I don't insult and swear like you.

Nobody ever answered my question: Why did the Democrats vote against the civil rights act of 1964? Wasn't that started by JFK?

Don't expect a straight answer from these lefties, Wayne.

That way they can spin it however they want. Funny thing is, they use one standard for themselves and another for conservatives.

Herbert Milhous II

They can't answer without smearing and swearing Herb. They need to realize that every time they do that they prove our point!

"Nobody ever answered my question: Why did the Democrats vote against the civil rights act of 1964? Wasn't that started by JFK?"

Probably because a majority of Democrats at the time were Dixiecrats, pro-segregation Southerners who ran as Democrats only so they could win. A Republican didn't carry the South in the Presidential election between Abraham Lincoln and Richard Nixon in 1972. That's over 110 years, sir.

Those Dixiecrats would now be considered Neo-Cons. Y'know, YOUR brethren.

Oh Poo.

I was so hoping nobody would answer that for him.

Quit trying to help him out, Brian, he'll just come back to poop on you and your response.

It's futile, really.

Just shooting holes into his poo-poo'd attempt at logic and reasoning. He is the one who chooses to associate himself with those kind ... I know, we should just start calling what he TRULY is, a Democrat! 40 years ago he fell right in line with the Dixiecrats way of thinking.

Yer right though ... I'll BRB, I just finished pooping and now have to ... you know.

Wayne, notice how democrats distance themselves from their own brethren.

Liberals use terms like dixiecrats, rather than admit what they were: democrats who voted AGAINST civil rights legislation.

Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and he signed the Emancipation Proclamation, while even going to war to end slavery.

I think these leftists actually revel in their steaming piles of bologna.

Herbarino

"Wayne, notice how democrats distance themselves from their own brethren.

Liberals use terms like dixiecrats, rather than admit what they were: democrats who voted AGAINST civil rights legislation.

Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and he signed the Emancipation Proclamation, while even going to war to end slavery.

I think these leftists actually revel in their steaming piles of bologna.

Herbarino"

1. I am not a Democrat. I am a registered Republican, and proud of that. I am not proud of the current administration or the direction that it has taken our party however.

2. The Southern Separatist Democrats CALLED THEMSELVES Dixiecrats. Sturm Thurmond himself ran for President on a Dixiecrat platform, he called it that himself. George Wallace ran for President a couple of times on the Dixiecrat mantra, in fact it helped Nixon win in 1968. This isn't a "liberal using the term dixiecrats", it is a moderate Republican pointing out that they called themselves Dixiecrats.

3. Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, and ended slavery, yes. Teddy Roosevelt was our greatest champion of conservation of natural resources. Nixon founded the EPA and started the ball rolling on energy conservation. All are Republicans, and all of those acts I think ALL sides can be proud of. Now we have a President who sides solely with big oil and the energy conglomerates at the expense of the environment and global warming. We have a President who wishes to write bigotry into the Constitution. We have a President who pre-empted an unjust war in a country that had nothing to do with 9-11 to clear his father's name, and has the deaths of over 600,000 Iraqis and 3,000 US troops on his hands.

See the difference between these great Republicans and the one we have now? We have always been a party of wanting things how they WERE ... the good ol' days. Now more than any other time, I think we should focus on that, whatever means it takes, because the status quo is simply not acceptable.

"Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation, and ended slavery, yes. Teddy Roosevelt was our greatest champion of conservation of natural resources. Nixon founded the EPA and started the ball rolling on energy conservation. All are Republicans, and all of those acts I think ALL sides can be proud of."

At least we have some common ground.

It is VERY easy to have 20-20 hindsight. Remember, we used the best intel available and that includes from our european allies.

If one is going to ham-fistedly blame Mr. Bush, then don't leave out Mr. Kerry and all the other democrats who voted for our war in Iraq. Congress signed off on it. The UN signed off on it. Saddaam was shooting missiles at our jets. he was gassing Kurds. There were rape rooms.

Ahhh yes. The rosy days of yesterday when innocents were being slaughtered. All war is horrible. Having come this far, the goal is for Iraq to continue with free elections and safety for her citizens.

Herb

I'm not going to sit here and defend Kerry and the rest of the Democrats who voted for it. The intelligence was flawed, yes. Bush also did a masterful job of playing his cards here, and shoving this crappy intelligence down the throats of Congress.

Let me ask you this: What purpose do we have "staying the course" right now when that obviously isn't working? Because of us, Iraq is in civil war, leading to thousands more innocent people killed. Because of the mess there, we are more reviled than ever in the region. Because of our continued involvement, our good men and women of the armed services are in harms way, and for what? If our goal was to capture Saddam, well hell we got him two years ago. Americans have spoke, and they have said that enough is enough.

As far as our European allies, only one NATO brother was very pro-invasion and that was Britain. Sure others helped in a small way, namely Spain, but they also quickly withdrew their troops. Poland did the same thing. Even Britain has scaled back significantly. France and Germany made it perfectly clear that they would not help us whatsoever. We have not at any point had anything close to unilateral support from our European allies on Iraq, and relations are severly strained with most of our NATO brethren because of it.

You have to remember that we are not very popular in Europe, except for England. The fact is France had close ties with Saddam and got a lot of its oil from him. Joining with us would have been bad for France. I think the same was true with Germany. Spain withdrew because they had elections that were influenced by the terrorists.

Maybe we need a different strategy in Iraq but withdrawing our troops home cold turkey would be disastorous. It sounds like there are plans for a "phased" withdrawal, but we will have to see.

Author: Herb
Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 7:40 am


Wayne, notice how democrats distance themselves from their own brethren.

Liberals use terms like dixiecrats, rather than admit what they were: democrats who voted AGAINST civil rights legislation.

Abraham Lincoln was a Republican and he signed the Emancipation Proclamation, while even going to war to end slavery.

I think these leftists actually revel in their steaming piles of bologna.

Herbarino

---------
You are so right Herb. Those leftists forget that one of their own, Robert Byrd, was a former member of the KKK. And Clintons mentor was segregationist William Fullbright.

Whatever popularity the US had in England has well worn off as now more people in England think Bush is more dangerous than Kim Jong-il.

"What purpose do we have "staying the course" right now when that obviously isn't working?"

What's YOUR answer?

democrats will get to weigh in on that and we'll see if they cut and run after all the hard work we've done.

Herb

One answser in Iraq is to acknowledge the partition that already exists, de facto, in Iraq of Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd and stop trying to force Iraq to be a single nation. Iraq was artifically created in the 1920s by the British; given how old civilization is in that region, a nation of 86 years is a blink of an eye, so we shouldn't feel a great obligation to keep it together. Most Iraqis do not identify primarily as "Iraqi" anyway - nationalism is not a strong motivator for them. They first identify themselves by tribe or sect, then by religion. Somewhere low on the list is "Iraqi" maybe in the way you and I might identify ourselves as "North American." The Kurds don't even allow the Iraqi flag to be FLOWN on official buildings Kurdistan! We've got to end our official denial here.

Partition itself is not a great solution (and does not solve the problems in Baghdad itself) but as has been pointed out, there really are no good solutions at this point. Most likely these people will be fighting over there for years, just like they are in Palestine-Israel, no matter what we do. The question is, why do we want to be stuck in the middle of it all, putting our own soldiers at risk and pissing away billions of taxpayer dollars?

Andrew

Author: Bookemdono
Tuesday, November 28, 2006 - 10:44 am


Whatever popularity the US had in England has well worn off as now more people in England think Bush is more dangerous than Kim Jong-il.

------
I doubt that.Liberals will say anything to bad mouth our President

Speaking of bad mouths, you need to go floss. You have some brown stuff stuck in your teeth.

You can read for yourself if you choose...but I know you won't.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20061103/wl_uk_afp/britainuscanadaisraelmexicopoliticsattacks

Full text:

LONDON (AFP) - US President George W. Bush presents more of a threat to world peace than the leaders of North Korea and Iran, and only Osama bin Laden is more feared, according to a poll of British voters published in The Guardian.

A majority of voters in Britain, Canada and Mexico, all key American allies, also think that the United States' foreign policy has made the world less safe since 2001, the survey showed.

Three-quarters of Britons said that George W. Bush presented a great or moderate threat to peace in the world, bested only by the Al-Qaeda leader at 87 percent.

By contrast, North Korean dictator Kim Jong-Il, who recently tested a nuclear bomb, was considered a threat to peace by 69 percent of voters, compared to 65 percent for Hassan Nasrallah, the leader of the Shiite militia Hezbollah, and 62 percent for firebrand Iranian President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad.

In addition, 69 percent of British voters said that US policy had made the world less safe, along with 62 percent of Canadians and 52 percent of Mexicans. About 36 percent of Israelis gave the same response, a plurality.

Only Israeli voters continue to believe that the US-led invasion of Iraq in 2003 was justified, by a margin of 59 percent to 34 percent. At the same time, 89 percent of Mexicans, 73 percent of Canadians and 71 percent of Britons now think the war was unjustified.

The poll was conducted by ICM, which interviewed 1,010 people in Britain. Other local polling firms surveyed 1,007 people in Canada, 1,078 in Israel and 1,010 in Mexico.

If you are going to make a statement like that the least you could do is make a URL that works!

Wayne, Statement? What Statement? It was a NEWS ARTICLE that Dono copied for you!

Did you not read these 2 words (above):
FULL TEXT

Here's another link if you must see it in print (again):

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/03112006/323/bush-dangerous-world-peace-kim-jong-il-ahm adinejad-poll.html

Skim on, Mr. Crayon Poop!

I wasn't even going to bother responding. If anyone's really curious about reading the evidence, all you have to do is google "Bush more dangerous" and dozens of links pop up.

Sometimes it's just so easy to back up a statment with proof, I don't know why more people don't do it.

It's hard work educating poop, isn't it?

Look closely at the poster in this picture and you can see exactly what the Brits think of George Bush:

http://www.portlandbridges.com/00,DREB0IMG11862,187,1,0,0-london-travel.html

Andrew

The media in Britan is very liberal. I wouldn't trust them with a 10 foot pole.

Andrew-You make a lot of sense with your post:

"One answser [sic] in Iraq is to acknowledge the partition that already exists, de facto, in Iraq of Sunni, Shiite, and Kurd and stop trying to force Iraq to be a single nation. Iraq was artifically created in the 1920s by the British; given how old civilization is in that region, a nation of 86 years is a blink of an eye, so we shouldn't feel a great obligation to keep it together. Most Iraqis do not identify primarily as "Iraqi" anyway - nationalism is not a strong motivator for them. They first identify themselves by tribe or sect, then by religion. Somewhere low on the list is "Iraqi" maybe in the way you and I might identify ourselves as "North American." The Kurds don't even allow the Iraqi flag to be FLOWN on official buildings Kurdistan! We've got to end our official denial here."

I agree, particularly if partitioning the country of Iraq can be accomplished whilst preserving human life. It makes sense to have the Kurds monitor the Kurds, etc.

I like it.

Herb

OK, Herb, now that you basically agree with Joe Biden, all you have to do is convince the Bush administration that they ought to consider something like this, instead of blindly insisting that the civil war in Iraq is all part of the War on Terror, that every insurgent is really an al Qaeda terrorist, and that we can't leave until we've "completed the mission." I guess that means a united, safe, happy, democratic Iraq where the Shiites and the Sunnis aren't killing each other and are happy to have big American military bases in their country.

Andrew

I think the point is that the civil war that NBC is making a big deal out of has been going on for decades and its a bit unfair to blame Bush for it like the networks are all doing.

We agree on the issue of a possible division of the country of Iraq. However, as Mrs. Clinton would say, 'not so fast.'

the civil war in Iraq is all part of the War on Terror,

[it's an important component]

that every insurgent is really an al Qaeda terrorist,

[they're sympathizers and/or brothers in arms]

and that we can't leave until we've "completed the mission.

[cut and run has many major downsides]

Herb M. Nixon

Herb,good book for you to check out "the great zapruder film hoax:decit and deception in the death of jfk.....call #364.1524 great z @library a must for any conspiracy buff

Thanks TheDude. I've read about the shenanigans regarding the Zapruder film. Seems that the feds had the film for a while before it was released...apparently there is a suspicion that some of the frames were reversed, removed or otherwise messed with. I'll have to check that book out. Thanks again.

Herbert M. the IInd