Guns, Guns Guns

hero worship of Kennedy

The problem is that Kennedy was assassinated and as a result there was a strong national counter reaction to elevate him to sainthood. Unfortunately we are still paying the price. Johnson probably would not have been able to push his "great society" nearly as far as he did, Ted wouldn't have had the status he did to push his ultra-liberal agenda etc. However, sainting assassinated leaders does seem to be a human trait and other countries have done the same.

As with Obama Kennedy was also a token, the first Catholic President. As such his assassination was more sorely felt as a large portion of the country's hopes were dashed. Johnson his successor was a protestant there was an anti-Catholic bias as bad as the racial bias at the time. President Kennedy was flawed, like Clinton he couldn't keep it in his pants, but at the time the media did not report personal matters as they had not reported FDR's paralysis due to polio. It was a kinder gentler time in a way.

Poker

biochem wrote:

hero worship of Kennedy

The problem is that Kennedy was assassinated and as a result there was a strong national counter reaction to elevate him to sainthood. Unfortunately we are still paying the price. Johnson probably would not have been able to push his "great society" nearly as far as he did, Ted wouldn't have had the status he did to push his ultra-liberal agenda etc. However, sainting assassinated leaders does seem to be a human trait and other countries have done the same.

I don't believe the near deification of Kennedy is what harmed us most. Kennedy's death helped give the "Hate America First" crowd a focal point. Afterall, our society was so lost to its currupted beginnings that it could kill such a beacon of hope that they turned Kennedy into upon his death. If America could destroy such hope, then it MUST be fundementally changed in order to save us all from despair. Change it regardless of the cost. Those key ideals that fostered America's decline into moral corruption must be destroyed and replaced with ideals more compatible with moral decency.

Individualism must be stamped out. Hello PC police. They will ensure that propper thought will be promted.

Private sector capitalism must be stamped out. How can the enlighted shepherds of society (government) manage society if the engine of wealth and vitality is free to go its merry way?

Shall I go on? The rest of the world might not give this type of ideological change all that much importance. It likely wouldn't be elsewhere. Here ideology defines America. That is more true in America than it is anywhere else in the world. We are not defined by our race or "nationality". We are defined by the ideals and founding documents that describe our rights and responsibilities as Amercians. Anyone can be as true blue an American as those that trace their ancestry to the Mayflower. If we accept those rights and responsibilities we ARE Americans. This is a threat and a boon for as ideas change so do we.

By destroying or denegrating those key ideals, the HAF crowd have done more damage to America than the Soviet Union ever did. Well, there are those documents from KGB files that came out after the USSR colapsed. They suggested that many of the current left and those lefties in Hollywood were indeed Soviet agents or associated with soviet agents. Yet, the Kennedy assassination provied that focus to discredit ideals that have helped make the world a better place for 200 years. Yes, we have had our moral failures. Slavery, Native Americans and Japanese internment are but a few failures. Despite those failures America has helped the rest of the world move into our brighter tomorrow for more than 200 years.

I know America will change with time. That's a good thing. Our nation is better at change and adaptation than any other nation on Earth. I simply refuse to accept changes blindly. Those that have tried to change this country lately have been motivated more by a bitter hatred of our shared past than a joyous love of a brighter future. I find it ironic that those that try to use such a beacon of hope that they turned Kennedy into to snuff out the brightest beacon leading us into a better future.

pokermind wrote:As with Obama Kennedy was also a token, the first Catholic President. As such his assassination was more sorely felt as a large portion of the country's hopes were dashed. Johnson his successor was a protestant there was an anti-Catholic bias as bad as the racial bias at the time. President Kennedy was flawed, like Clinton he couldn't keep it in his pants, but at the time the media did not report personal matters as they had not reported FDR's paralysis due to polio. It was a kinder gentler time in a way.

Poker

biochem wrote:
The problem is that Kennedy was assassinated and as a result there was a strong national counter reaction to elevate him to sainthood. Unfortunately we are still paying the price. Johnson probably would not have been able to push his "great society" nearly as far as he did, Ted wouldn't have had the status he did to push his ultra-liberal agenda etc. However, sainting assassinated leaders does seem to be a human trait and other countries have done the same.

Regarding inflation, have a squiz at this...

https://fbcdn-sphotos-a-a.akamaihd.net/ ... 0328_n.jpg

And regarding the deification of assassinated presidents, take a good hard look at Abraham Lincoln. If you think Bush was bad, understand that at the time, Lincolns approval ratings were far worse! As an example, as the American Civil War was starting, 4 states that had previously voted to remain in the union saw what he was doing and changed their minds!

Back to gun control here's what the statistics show, murder rate over time with actions shown. Now try to explain how gun control lowers the murder rate?



Poker

pokermind wrote:As with Obama Kennedy was also a token, the first Catholic President. As such his assassination was more sorely felt as a large portion of the country's hopes were dashed. Johnson his successor was a protestant there was an anti-Catholic bias as bad as the racial bias at the time. President Kennedy was flawed, like Clinton he couldn't keep it in his pants, but at the time the media did not report personal matters as they had not reported FDR's paralysis due to polio. It was a kinder gentler time in a way.

Poker

Goodness, comparing Kennedy with Clinton like that is like saying that a 500000t supertanker is like a canoe.

Or would you like to try and tell me just how many orgies with 2 or more women Clinton had?
Kennedy several times managed that more than once per day, more than one day in a single week.


However, i dont really care about that. It´s utterly irrelevant if someone can "keep it in his pants" as long as it doesn´t affect their job.
As far as anyone has ever managed to find out, Clintons job wasn´t affected by any "playing around".
(it was only later affected by the witch hunt against him because of it)


What is BAD, is how much Kennedy lied or played around with half truths and the like.

Aaand was almost constantly doped up on drugs that would make anyone more or less psychotic or delusional. And drugs that caused "aggressive behaviour".

The moron almost started WWIII while so high on drugs that ANY real employer would have kicked him out instantly.
What a great idea, trying to force blatantly different rules for yourself and the big bad archenemy, and then they´re surprised that a reaction happens?


*****

The problem is that Kennedy was assassinated and as a result there was a strong national counter reaction to elevate him to sainthood. Unfortunately we are still paying the price. Johnson probably would not have been able to push his "great society" nearly as far as he did

Well, OTOH, one of things Johnson pushed through thanks to Kennedy´s death was the official end of discrimination against blacks.

Without that, that piece of legislation could STILL be in the pile of "blocked by reactionary senators and congressmen". Remember that it wasn´t really a popular policy to push at the time, and without the legal part, the changes to society is unlikely to have happened more than at marginal speed.




*****

Well, there are those documents from KGB files that came out after the USSR colapsed. They suggested that many of the current left and those lefties in Hollywood were indeed Soviet agents or associated with soviet agents.

You know i can get you a great deal on the Brooklyn bridge?

Please! Do a reality check and come back when you stopped reading spy novels as if they were documentaries.

Do you have any idea how few ACTUAL Soviet politicial agents existed during the cold war?

You could find more agents lurking around Silicon Valley than you could in Hollywood, because industrial espionage at least provided something.

Not nearly as much as openly buying it through intermediaries in the south and central America or Asia though.

Have you actually checked what they call "associating with"? Wanna bet they met a couple of times at dinners or parties?

Despite those failures America has helped the rest of the world move into our brighter tomorrow for more than 200 years.

*snicker*

Whatever you´re smoking, i want some.

That´s like me claiming that Sweden was the main force behind science because several of the basic elements were "discovered" by Swedish chemists, with some, like Scheele doing it at important times.

Essentially yes you can find a tiny hint of "almost truth" in it, but it would be extreme hyperbole and egocentrism and overall mostly just utter rubbish to make such a claim.

Our nation is better at change and adaptation than any other nation on Earth.

Excuse me, you were talking about USA right?
One of the most uber-conservative nations on earth?

USA is the nation that handles change by NOT handling it. Or by arguing about it endlessly until those trying to push through the change in question dies of old age.

There´s plenty of good and bad you can say about USA, but talking about how it does change and adaptation well, that´s like calling Sweden a religiously fanatical country. Basically the opposite of reality.
Face the facts, USA is one of the most hardline conservative nations on earth. End of story.

And no, conservative doesn´t have to exactly equate ability or willingness to change, but it´s close enough for this.

To me, USA sometimes feels like it´s somewhere between the 1950s and the early 1800s. Please do catch up with the rest of the world some bright sunny day?

For example, i could, and did, predict that Sarah Palin and Hilary Clinton had zero chances of actually becoming president, because USA fears the change of having a female president and isn´t likely to have one anytime soon.

And having a pseudoblack president, uh yeah right, the anti-Obama campaigning have been utterly ridiculous with all the crap like "he´s not really an american" and similar inane crap.

Wanna bet that wouldn´t have happened if he had looked "white" enough?

Sorry, but the notion that USA is a change-friendly nation, it´s just silly.

What is BAD, is how much Kennedy lied or played around with half truths and the like.

Aaand was almost constantly doped up on drugs that would make anyone more or less psychotic or delusional. And drugs that caused "aggressive behaviour".

The moron almost started WWIII while so high on drugs that ANY real employer would have kicked him out instantly.

I'm NOT a big Kennedy fan but actually the drugs Kennedy was on were prescribed for severe back pain and some endocrine disorders. They did increase aggression but how much varies depending on ones individual biochemistry. He was under pretty close medical supervision during the time so if they were too mood altering it would have been noticed and corrected. The most likely effect is that they made an already aggressive personality slightly more aggressive. You might argue that he was leaning toward an aggressive approach toward Cuba and the drugs changed his position from leaning to actuality. It's really hard to say after all this time. Different biographers say different things, different witnesses remember differently etc.

Well, OTOH, one of things Johnson pushed through thanks to Kennedy´s death was the official end of discrimination against blacks.

Without that, that piece of legislation could STILL be in the pile of "blocked by reactionary senators and congressmen". Remember that it wasn´t really a popular policy to push at the time, and without the legal part, the changes to society is unlikely to have happened more than at marginal speed.

OK you found the one good thing about the Great Society. Although it could be argued that a slower process of change would have resulted in less conflict and more racial acceptance in the long run. It's hard to say. Sometimes the fast approach to social change works better, sometimes the slow approach works better. Perhaps someday we'll discover an alternative universe where the slow approach was tried instead and we can see whether that approach or the fast approach we used worked best.

Have you actually checked what they call "associating with"? Wanna bet they met a couple of times at dinners or parties?

Actually most of them were what the Soviets called "useful idiots".

Our nation is better at change and adaptation than any other nation on Earth.


Excuse me, you were talking about USA right?
One of the most uber-conservative nations on earth?

It depends on what is changing and how you define change. The USA does change very rapidly in some areas, very slowly in others. Not all change is good.

In the case of Barack Obama. It is just an accident of history that he is the first black president. Colin Powell was actually the most likely one but he dropped out at the last minute because of his concerns regarding his wife's health.

Hilary Clinton is the most likely candidate for first woman at the moment. I don't really think it is likely though. She has too many negatives. The biggest one is her age, she would be as old as Reagan and he wound up with Alzheimers. She is also tainted by Bengazai. It's debatable how much involvement she actually had during the crisis, but it was her department and she was the one who set the tone. So at the minimum the staffers who did make decisions, did so believing that those decisions were what she wanted. Furthermore, she also is limited by "Clinton fatigue"... I.e. we're tired of the same old same old we want new blood. etc etc. My personal guess, and I could be wrong, is that the first woman presidential candidate will be someone who isn't even on the radar now.

biochem wrote:I'm NOT a big Kennedy fan but actually the drugs Kennedy was on were prescribed for severe back pain and some endocrine disorders.

Yes. And if he had actually stuck to ONE set of those drugs, at the proscribed dose, it would merely have been unsuitable or a bit questionable rather than complete madness.

Instead he got several sets of prescriptions overlapping each other, from different doctors who very specifically were NOT told of any other drugs given, including drugs that were really NOT supposed to be mixed with each other.

If a friend of yours starts taking 10 times their prescription per day, of a drug that can cause hallucinations, i bet you would get seriously worried very quickly.

And JFK sometimes did that with several drugs in the same day.

biochem wrote:He was under pretty close medical supervision during the time so if they were too mood altering it would have been noticed and corrected.

Ehm... It´s actually in even official records that he repeatedly became obviously strange, and nothing was ever "corrected".

The so called medical supervision? That´s a big fat joke.

And the unofficial, more complete story is just scary.

biochem wrote: Different biographers say different things, different witnesses remember differently etc.

They´re actually rather consistent about his extreme medical drug abuse.

As long as you don´t look at the ones only there to sing his praise of course, those dismiss it or ignore it more or less.

biochem wrote:OK you found the one good thing about the Great Society. Although it could be argued that a slower process of change would have resulted in less conflict and more racial acceptance in the long run.

Oh please! It´s sooo hard to simply say "people are not worth more or less due to how they look"?

And you think NOT getting rid of allowances for racism in any way makes for less problems with racism? Pampering the racists are supposed to reform them? Again, PLEASE!

Get real, that´s like telling people that their prejudices are justified.

biochem wrote:Actually most of them were what the Soviets called "useful idiots"

And was about as "associated" with USSR as Reagan was.

biochem wrote:It depends on what is changing and how you define change. The USA does change very rapidly in some areas, very slowly in others. Not all change is good.

Wether change is good is irrelevant for wether you can handle it or not and wether you push for it or not.

And to make it simple, state 5 areas where USA is "better at change and adaptation than any other nation on Earth".

Realise that the stated claim was "than ANY other nation on earth", which essentially means you will have a hard time finding any area where the claim is true.


The almost trade war between EU and USA during GWBs regime is a perfect showing off of the opposite.
It was caused because USA tried to subsidize it´s steel industry, because the majority of steel mills in USA were still using technology from the 40s and 50s, and hence were getting smacked down completely in international competition, where just about NOONE else, not even North Korea (!!!) were using such antiquated technology.

And of course, the few US steel mills that had been prudent and adapted over the years, they made a crapload of profit thanks to the subsidies.

Military? USAs primary doctrines are still using translations from the 19th century French doctrines as their basis.

Socially? Aristocracy may not exist in USA, but aristocratic style corruption is so rampant in USA that it should be embarassing.
Social stratification is more like Europe in the early 20th century.

And so on...

 
 
A VERY REVEALING CHART!
 
 
Chicago, IL
Houston, TX
Population
2.7 million
2.15 million
Median HH Income
$38,600
$37,000
% African-American
38.9%
24%
% Hispanic
29.9%
44%
% Asian
5.5%
6%
% Non-Hispanic White
28.7%
26%
Pretty similar until you compare the following:
 
Chicago, IL
Houston, TX
Concealed Carry gun law
no
yes
# of Gun Stores
0
184 - Dedicated gun stores plus 1500 - legal places to buy guns- Walmart, K-mart, sporting goods, etc.
Homicides, 2012
1,806
207
Homicides per 100K
38.4
9.6
Avg. January high temperature  (F)
31
63
 
Liberal conclusion: Cold weather causes murder…….
 

The chart formatting got scrambled.

Bottom line is that Chicago and Houston have very similar economics and demographics yet Houston has a small fraction of Chicago's homicides.

Houston has "lax" gun laws while Chicago has "civilized" gun laws.

Liberal conclusion?

Cold weather causes murder.

namelessfly wrote: 
 
A VERY REVEALING CHART!
 
 
Chicago, IL
Houston, TX
Population
2.7 million
2.15 million
Median HH Income
$38,600
$37,000
% African-American
38.9%
24%
% Hispanic
29.9%
44%
% Asian
5.5%
6%
% Non-Hispanic White
28.7%
26%
Pretty similar until you compare the following:
 
Chicago, IL
Houston, TX
Concealed Carry gun law
no
yes
# of Gun Stores
0
184 - Dedicated gun stores plus 1500 - legal places to buy guns- Walmart, K-mart, sporting goods, etc.
Homicides, 2012
1,806
207
Homicides per 100K
38.4
9.6
Avg. January high temperature  (F)
31
63
 
Liberal conclusion: Cold weather causes murder…….