Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

When I voted for Barack Obama in 2008, in a way, I thought I was voting for JFK.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-20-11 10:58 PM
Original message
When I voted for Barack Obama in 2008, in a way, I thought I was voting for JFK.
I envisioned the the United States of America would return to a path of peace.
And I anticipated an end to secret government for the rich and by the rich.
And I hoped Justice would return to this nation.



Buth it looks like I was mistaken. And some in power think there are things and people We the People should not discuss, like election theft and corrupt public officials:

Government Nanny Censoring "Conspiracy Theories" is Also Responsible for Letting Bush Era Torture and Spying Conspiracies Go Unpunished.

This is to remind everyone on the fiftieth anniversary of President John F. Kennedy's inaugural, and on the tenth anniversary of Democratic Underground, if anything is to preserve our Democratic Party and our democracy, the Right to KNOW the Truth is We the People's business.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
Waiting For Everyman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-20-11 11:10 PM
Response to Original message
1. K&R That's a really amazing and scary article too.
Wow, just wow.

Nothing good comes from the U. of Chicago, does it?

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TheWraith Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 12:35 AM
Response to Reply #1
13. It's not an "article," it's shit someone posted on their blog.
To conflate that with a news article is as bad an assault on journalism as Fox News carries out.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 10:38 AM
Response to Reply #13
50. I disagree
It is better sourced than Judith Miller's "articles" leading to the Iraq invasion.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
subject Donating Member (23 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 04:58 PM
Response to Reply #13
92. yup
exactly
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sam sarrha Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 08:49 PM
Response to Reply #13
114. i'm reading the book the Family, they own everyone..
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
pam4water Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 11:31 PM
Response to Reply #13
122. No it's not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Waiting For Everyman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 02:49 AM
Response to Reply #13
124. Did I say "news"? Or was that your word? Are there no other kinds of articles?
Yes, by golly, seems to me in my time I've read lots of articles that were not "news". Now what was the rest of your point, I forget?



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 07:55 AM
Response to Reply #1
21. Every point made is sourced...
From the article:



As constitutional expert professor Jonathan Turley wrote in 2008:

Close Obama adviser (and University of Chicago Law Professor) Cass Sunstein recently rejected the notion of prosecuting Bush officials for crimes such as torture and unlawful surveillance.



Thanks, Waiting For Everyman, for giving a damn whether traitors like Bush and Cheney (and Rumsfeld and Gonzalez and Yoo and ALL the rest) run free to betray the nation again another day.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-20-11 11:14 PM
Response to Original message
2. This is kind of an aside, but the other night I heard a show about the 'real'
powers that be. The speaker was the author of Family of Secrets, Russ Baker. I believe he's considered a credible, reliable investigative journalist. Anyway, I just caught the end of an exchange where he was talking about how the CIA, for example, would just do things without even notifying their "bosses" -- just completely rogue. And that Kennedys were the last administration to try to do anything about it. Gulp. He has a point.

That being said, I agree that I'd hoped for a new renaissance, and have been disappointed, but on the whole I'm grateful he's our President, and that Biden is our VP.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Old and In the Way Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 12:13 AM
Response to Reply #2
12. I'm kinda where you are on this.
I'm disappointed, too. My wife got a chance to meet with him for an hour with three other people up here in Maine. Just regular folk who could let Obama know their concerns. No question that he was sincere and motivated to bring the change.

But I've come to the conclusion that there are institutional forces aligned against the interests of the middle class and for the status quo....financial, media, religion, and that nebulous shadow government....that do not want to see Obama (or any Democrat, really) succeed. They are privately short selling this country while publicly professing their love of flag, Constitution, and whatever props they can come up with to convince the easily impressionable that they are the party of American values. But even with these formidable forces opposing progress, I thought Obama could overcome these obstacles and unite the bottom 98% to enact an agenda that would correct the abuses of republican rule.

Apparently, not. I now realize that these institutional forces have succeeded in exploiting the fear, bigotry, paranoia, and racism of almost half the middle-class into voting, yet again, against their best interests. That's a democracy killer right there. These institutional forces have demonized the Democratic Party by a relentless campaign of misinformation and outright lying about the intentions of progressives. It amazes me that, given the actions of Republicans for the past 40 years (particularly, the last 10) that any sentient person would identify with this Party. Yet, here we are, with a more virulent, unstable group of new Republicans elected. More corrupt, more stupid, and less inclined to do anything to fix the problems this country faces.

So, I really can't blame Obama. I blame 1/2 of the American voters who bought the lies and bullshit of Republicanism. They are complicit in their screwing. In fact, maybe Obama and all Democrats should just announce a hiatus, "fuck it...you want Republicanism? Have at it." Get out of the way and let the Republican vision unfold in all of it's full potential. Give the rubes what they think they want. Maybe in 10 years, when 90% of the country finally figure out who is really fucking over and fucking up this country over....maybe then we can start to elect people who are serious in rebuilding it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
gateley Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 12:45 AM
Response to Reply #12
14. Rebuilding is the key word - I think we're beyond patching it up.
That's why I voted for Perot - even though he was kind of scary, I felt the rug needed to be pulled out, maybe everything would come crashing down, but so be it. (And as I look back I do believe the wacky stories he told were true, and the powers that be succeeded it making him out to be a looney tune.)

I wonder if the Republicans realize they're being played as much as we are. They're cheap, just toss 'em a million or two and you've got them playing your song.

I'm not sure anybody can stand up against whatever/whoever is manipulating us all -- and believing that, I'm surprised at how much Obama HAS accomplished!

I've no doubt your wife's impression of Obama was accurate - I believe he is sincere and wants to do what's 'right'. Then he gets back to the real world of DC, and :shrug:

Russ Baker also was talking about how Gerald Ford went from being a moderate, reasonable Republican to suddenly falling in line and leaning more to the right.

Scary, isn't it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Oilwellian Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 10:29 AM
Response to Reply #12
48. Poor Obama
I guess he didn't have any power over his appointments as well, eh?

As Barack Obama's opus, Team of Rivals, continues its rolling debut, the early reviews are in and the "critics" are full of praise for the cast:

"The new administration is off to a good start."
-- Senate Republican leader, Mitch McConnell.

"Superb ... the best of the Washington insiders ... this will be a valedictocracy -- rule by those who graduate first in their high school classes."
-- David Brooks, conservative New York Times columnist

"Virtually perfect ... "
-- Senator Joe Lieberman, former Democrat and John McCain's top surrogate in the 2008 campaign.

"Reassuring."
-- Karl Rove, "Bush's brain."

"I am gobsmacked by these appointments, most of which could just as easily have come from a President McCain ... this all but puts an end to the 16-month timetable for withdrawal from Iraq, the unconditional summits with dictators, and other foolishness that once emanated from the Obama campaign ... Clinton and Steinberg at State should be powerful voices for 'neo-liberalism' which is not so different in many respects from 'neo-conservativism.'"
-- Max Boot, neoconservative activist, former McCain staffer.

"I see them as being sort of center-right of the Democratic party."
-- James Baker, former Secretary of State and the man who led the theft of the 2000 election.

"Surprising continuity on foreign policy between President Bush's second term and the incoming administration ... certainly nothing that represents a drastic change in how Washington does business. The expectation is that Obama is set to continue the course set by Bush ... "
-- Michael Goldfarb of the neoconservative Weekly Standard.

"I certainly applaud many of the appointments ... "
-- Senator John McCain

"So far, so good."
-- Senator Lamar Alexander, senior Republican Congressional leader.

Hillary Clinton will be "outstanding" as Secretary of State
-- Henry Kissinger, war criminal

Rahm Emanuel is "a wise choice" in the role of Chief of Staff
-- Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, John McCain's best friend.

Obama's team shows "Our foreign policy is non-partisan."
-- Ed Rollins, top Republican strategist and Mike Huckabee's 2008 campaign manager

"The country will be in good hands."
-- Condoleezza Rice, George W. Bush's Secretary of State

http://www.alternet.org/blogs/peek/109160/right-wingers...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Doctor_J Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 01:18 PM
Response to Reply #48
62. You're missing the point of the thread
The institutional corruption and procession makes it pretty much irrelevant who the president is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rtassi Donating Member (486 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 02:50 PM
Response to Reply #62
73. TAHNK YOU! Truth be told!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
lark Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 04:51 PM
Response to Reply #62
91. In a way, I'm not buying it
Clinton did some good, increased taxes on richest, fmla, raised min. wage, immproved economy and lowered deficit. Obama kept the artificially low taxes on the rich, and even decreased social security taxes just so he can say the program is REALLY bankrupt now, has done way to little to increase jobs and let all the taxes for outsourcing jobs stand. Obama is doing his best to cut social security. He could be trying much harder for us but absolutely has sold us down the river with his recent moves. He's a sell out - OR - has been threatened so successfully that he ended up selling out. Either way, he's a huge disappointment.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 01:30 PM
Response to Reply #48
64. I think Obama had no choice. No one would be able to fully supplant BushInc's global control
Edited on Fri Jan-21-11 01:31 PM by blm
Clinton made certain of that in the 90s when he sided with the secrecy and privilege of the Bushes and their cronies at every crucial point. The LAST time this nation had a chance at open government was the release of the Dec1992 BCCI report. Which was also the major reason why the PowersThatBe would never allow a President Kerry.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cyberpj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 12:04 PM
Response to Reply #12
59. What if he didn't care about being reelected?
Edited on Fri Jan-21-11 12:04 PM by cyberpj
I admit, I have yet to finish reading all of this thread but what if reelection wasn't part of the thought process?

I used to think that would make a difference but then I remember that those people are simply killed off.

I have no idea what it's going to take to get get people educated again about what real issues are but I know it's going to be horrible. And may be too late anyway. Meanwhile the rich white bastards who just keep taking and taking and taking will simply escape with all their wealth.

I'm so spent I can hardly pay attention anymore.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
blm Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 01:32 PM
Response to Reply #59
66. I'm right where you are.
.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 08:03 AM
Response to Reply #2
23. I'm a Democrat and I'm voting for Obama if he's on the ballot in 2012.
Regarding Russ Baker: The guy is the real deal. For instance:



Bush Senior Early CIA Ties Revealed

By Russ Baker and Jonathan Z. Larsen
The Real News Project January 8, 2007

NEW YORK--Newly released internal CIA documents assert that former president George Herbert Walker Bush's oil company emerged from a 1950's collaboration with a covert CIA officer.

Bush has long denied allegations that he had connections to the intelligence community prior to 1976, when he became Central Intelligence Agency director under President Gerald Ford. At the time, he described his appointment as a 'real shocker.'

But the freshly uncovered memos contend that Bush maintained a close personal and business relationship for decades with a CIA staff employee who, according to those CIA documents, was instrumental in the establishment of Bush's oil venture, Zapata, in the early 1950s, and who would later accompany Bush to Vietnam as a cleared and witting commercial asset of the agency.

According to a CIA internal memo dated November 29, 1975, Bush's original oil company, Zapata Petroleum, began in 1953 through joint efforts with Thomas J. Devine, a CIA staffer who had resigned his agency position that same year to go into private business. The '75 memo describes Devine as an oil wild-catting associate of Mr. Bush. The memo is attached to an earlier memo written in 1968, which lays out how Devine resumed work for the secret agency under commercial cover beginning in 1963.

Their joint activities culminated in the establishment of Zapata Oil, the memo reads. In fact, early Zapata corporate filings do not seem to reflect Devine's role in the company, suggesting that it may have been covert. Yet other documents do show Thomas Devine on the board of an affiliated Bush company, Zapata Offshore, in January, 1965, more than a year after he had resumed work for the spy agency.

CONTINUED...

http://whowhatwhy.com/2007/01/07/cia-bush-senior-oil-ve... /



Russ Baker's very brave, as well. He's paid a heavy price because he puts his real name on what he writes.

Thanks, gately, for giving a damn.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frazzled Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-20-11 11:18 PM
Response to Original message
3. I think perhaps
if you had voted for JFK, you would have thought you were mistaken as well. I was still a kid, but I do remember the CIA-led Bay of Pigs invasion he ordered, which turned into a fiasco of massive proportions, and his escalation of US military involvement in Vietnam. His administration also backed a coup against the government of Iraq ... as well as things on the home front.

Don't get me wrong. I still look back to JFK as an inspiration and a hero. But I've seen presidents come and go, and it's a difficult game. None of them is perfect, and they have damned hard decisions to make.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 12:10 AM
Response to Reply #3
11. +1. n/t.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 08:11 AM
Response to Reply #3
24. The Bay of Pigs was organized by Dulles and Lemnitzer for Eisenhower and Nixon.
Although the particulars of the invasion had been leaked to the Soviets and Cubans, Dulles told JFK it would work and that the invaders would not need official military help from the United States to succeed.

From the Federation of American Scientists archive on the subject:



ACCORDING TO THE REPORT, SENIOR C-I-A OFFICIALS KNEW WELL BEFORE
THE INVASION TOOK PLACE THAT THE MISSION'S SECRECY HAD BEEN
COMPROMISED AND THAT IT WAS LIKELY TO FAIL. THE REPORT WAS SO
SENSITIVE THAT THEN-C-I-A DIRECTOR JOHN MCCONE HAD ALL BUT ONE
COPY OF IT BURNED.

SOURCE: http://www.fas.org/irp/news/1998/04/980417-pigs.htm



Dulles and Lemnitzer lied to Kennedy, in order to force his hand militarily. Kennedy refused, stating that if we invaded Cuba, the Soviets might invade Berlin.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frazzled Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 10:00 AM
Response to Reply #24
41. Kennedy did not have to go through with the plan
Invading a country to take down a dictator is not something the US should be involved in (see: Iraq), unless an immediate human crisis is at hand (as with genocide in Bosnia or, as we perhaps should have done, Rwanda). Whether it was going to work or not is immaterial. The issue, in my mind at least, concerns legitimate reasons for military action.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 10:37 AM
Response to Reply #41
49. True. But Dulles and Lemnitzer said the Cuban people would greet the liberators with flowers, etc.
Sounds familiar. The invaders were only doing what the Cuban people wanted. Not.

For those interested in learning more:

Bay of Pigs Chronology
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
jwirr Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 06:51 PM
Response to Reply #24
105. The big problem with President Kennedy was that he did not learn
to mistrust the CIA, FBI etc. He thought they were on his side. They thought they were teabaggers.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Agony Donating Member (865 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-20-11 11:20 PM
Response to Original message
4.  "cognitive infiltration of extremist groups,"
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 08:16 AM
Response to Reply #4
27. Why would a constitutional scholar do that?
Huffington Post puts it, thusly:

Obama More Aggressive Than Bush In Targeting Whistleblowers

From The New York Times:

WASHINGTON -- Hired in 2001 by the National Security Agency to help it catch up with the e-mail and cellphone revolution, Thomas A. Drake became convinced that the government's eavesdroppers were squandering hundreds of millions of dollars on failed programs while ignoring a promising alternative.

...

The indictment of Mr. Drake was the latest evidence that the Obama administration is proving more aggressive than the Bush administration in seeking to punish unauthorized leaks to the press.

Original article: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/06/12/us/politics/12leak.ht...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
fadedrose Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-20-11 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
5. Quite often I thought he came from another planet
to help the poor and the sick. Sometimes I think to help them stay that way. ;)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 08:22 AM
Response to Reply #5
28. When the Treasury can fork up trillions for Wall Street and zip for Main Street, we got a problem.
Interesting storyboard, fadedrose. I know the guy's been given an almost impossible, thankless job. That's why he should do stuff for the majority of the people -- not just the Have-Mores. They've got all the anti-kryptonite they need.



Trillions for Wall Street

Zilch for You Know Who


By MIKE WHITNEY
CounterPunch
July 29, 2010

On Tuesday, the 30-year fixed rate for mortgages plunged to an all-time low of 4.56 per cent. Rates are falling because investors are still moving into risk-free liquid assets, like Treasuries. It's a sign of panic and the Fed's lame policy response has done nothing to sooth the public's fears. The flight-to-safety continues a full two years after Lehman Bros blew up.

Housing demand has fallen off a cliff in spite of the historic low rates. Purchases of new and existing homes are roughly 25 per cent of what they were at peak in 2006. Case/Schiller reported on Monday that June new homes sales were the "worst on record", but the media twisted the story to create the impression that sales were actually improving! Here are a few of Monday's misleading headlines: "New Home Sales Bounce Back in June"--Los Angeles Times. "Builders Lifted by June New-home Sales", Marketwatch. "New Home Sales Rebound 24 per cent", CNN. "June Sales of New Homes Climb more than Forecast", Bloomberg.

SNIP...

There's no need for the economy to slip back into recession. It is completely unnecessary. Fed chairman Ben Bernanke knows exactly what needs to be done; how to counter deflationary pressures via bond purchasing programs etc. He has many options even though interest rates are "zero bound". But Bernanke has chosen to do nothing. Intransigence is a political decision. By the November midterms, the economy will be contracting again, unemployment will be edging higher, and the slowdown will be visible everywhere in terms of excess capacity. The Obama economic plan will be repudiated as a bust and the Dems will be swept from office. The bankers will get the political gridlock they desire. Bernanke knows this.

SNIP...

Presently, big business is awash in savings ($1.8 trillion) because consumers are on the ropes and demand is weak. The government's task is simple; make up for worker retrenchment by providing more fiscal and monetary stimulus. If private sector and public sector spending shrink at the same time, the economy will contract very fast and recession will become unavoidable. So, Go Big; create government work programs, help the states, rebuild infrastructure and support green technologies. The economy is not a sentient being; it makes no distinction between "productive" labor and "unproductive" labor. The point is to keep the apparatus operating as close to capacity as possible--which means low unemployment and big deficits.

SNIP...

The cutbacks will ravage local governments, state revenues and public services. Emergency facilities by the Fed provided $11.4 trillion for underwater banks and non banks, but nothing for the states. The GOP is helping the Fed strangle the states by opposing additional aid for Medicare payments and unemployment benefits. Many cities and counties will be forced into bankruptcy while Goldman Sachs rakes in record profits on liquidity provided by Bernanke. It's a disaster.

CONTINUED...

http://www.counterpunch.org/whitney07292010.html



Something else that bears repeating, the crooks those responsible for this mess should pay for it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-20-11 11:29 PM
Response to Original message
6. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
OhioChick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-20-11 11:35 PM
Response to Original message
7. 'Senator, You're No Jack Kennedy' n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 08:27 AM
Response to Reply #7
30. That was this guy...
According to John Kerry, Dan Quayle was impeachment insurance.



Paraphrasing the AP cutline from memory:
"Dan Quayle, left, holds a pumpkin next to his head at a country fair..."

His son is stupid, too.



Scary stupid.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 06:13 PM
Response to Reply #30
102. Necessity IS the mother of invention. No Necessity, no invention. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Motown_Johnny Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Jan-20-11 11:37 PM
Response to Original message
8. JFK took over after Eisenhower, not Bush
Don't you think there is a much bigger mess behind the scenes to clean up after now then there was then?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Capitalocracy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 12:53 AM
Response to Reply #8
15. Perhaps it's about time he got started, then.
Edited on Fri Jan-21-11 12:53 AM by Capitalocracy
I'm a bit tired of hearing that argument. Obama's committing all the same criminal acts as the Bush administration. When does he start being responsible for it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 12:54 AM
Response to Reply #8
16. Mess to clean up? He's forgiven the whole mess!
No prosecutions, no accountability. Only "moving forward", ignoring and sweeping under the rug.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissDeeds Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #16
31. +1 n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cyberpj Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 12:07 PM
Response to Reply #16
60. +2 nt.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PufPuf23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 12:00 AM
Response to Original message
9. My POTUS Obama support and vote was for the best of FDR and JFK in a more serious and
at risk time for national and world security/stability/empathy.

I don't recognize the positions of the Democratic Party I joined nearly 40 years ago. I am anti-war and anti-violence. A lesson in age, is the problem of a corrupted legal system based upon politics, local to national to global. Religion for those that include dogma or reference in rhetoric is a lie against humanity and Nature's God.

I am anti-war, pro-Nature, and pro-humane dignity for all born.

Nature's assets are there to have a soft reduction in population for what would be in time a Democratic freedom and opportunity for all in good heart.

Question is how to get there and entrenched interests and pols and not encouraging in trajectory.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 08:38 AM
Response to Reply #9
32. ''I am anti-war, pro-Nature, and pro-humane dignity for all born.''
Sums it up for me, as well.

JFK had mentioned "de-pollution" as a way of cleaning up air, water and land pollution.



Learning about Presidents and the Environment

President Kennedy during a five-day conservation tour of the U.S. in 1963.

When JFK was President, Rachel Carsons book, Silent Spring became a best-seller. It documented the harmful effects of chemical pesticides and helped to launch the environmental movement in the United States.President Kennedy was familiar with Ms. Carsons book. He established a committee to investigate the impact of pesticides, and its report was critical of many governmental practices and policies. Eventually, the Environmental Protection Agency was created during the Nixon administration. To learn about the history of this agency, go to www.epa.gov/history/index.htm



That was in 1963. Imagine what kind of planet this would be had we embarked on a plan to protect it, rather than exploit it, back then?

If we could go to the moon, we could do whatever we needed to on earth. Rachel Carson was instrumental in getting people to understand how small amounts of chemicals could result in enormous damage to life. Anyone today reading anything about "endocrine disruption" in their favorite daily?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
PufPuf23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 01:18 AM
Response to Reply #32
123. Octafish. Your posts always inform and expand thought as in this response.
The "e" in humane is deliberate, expansive to other life forms, and, for perspective, wildlife and vegetation management and the environment by humans is critical as we face many tipping points on scales from geologic extinction event to global economic collapse to world war to the USA as a scapegoat. This is hyperbole but not discordant with history and probability.

Discourse occasionallly mentions "lies" and the "Big Lie".

I had been watching Ancient Aliens and NBA with Direct TV remote shifting reality and now there is a commercial in a History Channel program on Area 51 so I am posting to responses to my posts (seldom noticed at DU).

Most humans are really being mind-fucked by government and media controlled by a few is my only conclusion.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 12:09 AM
Response to Original message
10. There was never a more ferocious Cold Warrior & devoted friend of the "MIC"* than JFK.
Indeed, here are the remarks he made in his last delivered speech, the vast majority of which he basically spent bragging about how much money his administration had shoveled into the Department of Defense, and procurement programs for that agency billions of dollars of which went straight into the pockets of the so-called "Military Industrial Complex":

"Three years ago last September I came here, with the Vice President, and spoke at Burke Burnett Park, and I called, in that speech, for a national security policy and a national security system which was second to none a position which said not first, but, if, when and how, but first. That city responded to that call as it has through its history. And we have been putting that pledge into practice ever since....

....The Iroquois helicopter from Fort Worth is a mainstay in our fight against the guerrillas in South Viet-Nam. The transportation of crews between our missile sites is done in planes produced here in Fort Worth. So wherever the confrontation may occur, and in the last 3 years it has occurred on at least three occasions, in Laos, Berlin, and Cuba, and it will again wherever it occurs, the products of Fort Worth and the men of Fort Worth provide us with a sense of security....

....In all these ways, the success of our national defense depends upon this city in the western United States, 10,000 miles from Viet-Nam, 5,000 or 6,000 miles from Berlin, thousands of miles from trouble spots in Latin America and Africa or the Middle East. And yet Fort Worth and what it does and what it produces participates in all these great historic events. Texas, as a whole, and Fort Worth bear particular responsibility for this national defense effort, for military procurement in this State totals nearly $1 billion, fifth highest among all the States of the Union....

....In the past 3 years we have increased the defense budget of the United States by over 20 percent; increased the program of acquisition for Polaris submarines from 24 to 41; increased our Minuteman missile purchase program by more than 75 percent; doubled the number of strategic bombers and missiles on alert; doubled the number of nuclear weapons available in the strategic alert forces; increased the tactical nuclear forces deployed in Western Europe by over 60 percent; added five combat ready divisions to the Army of the United States, and five tactical fighter wings to the Air Force of the United States; increased our strategic airlift capability by 75 percent; and increased our special counterinsurgency forces which are engaged now in South Viet-Nam by 600 percent. I hope those who want a stronger America and place it on some signs will also place those figures next to it...."
**

History, not hagiography

Further, President Kennedy oversaw the greatest reduction in income taxes for "the rich" until Ronald Reagan came onto the scene in 1981 - and it was JFK who pushed for that legislation. Here, go watch him talk about it in 1962:

JFK demands tax cuts 'across the board'

Contrary to the opinion of your OP, President Kennedy would have found himself quite comfortable with both the foreign policy actions of this president - including the use of the military in Afghanistan and other 'hot-spots' around the globe - and the vast majority of domestic policies he has enacted.

Please try again. :thumbsup:


*"Military Industrial Complex"

**All emphases added
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 10:51 AM
Response to Reply #10
53. JFK opposed Dulles and Lemnitzer when they counseled all-out nuclear sneak attack on the USSR.
Some history you may not have read:



Did the U.S. Military Plan a Nuclear First Strike for 1963?

by James K. Galbraith and Heather A. Purcell
The American Prospect
Number 19, Fall 1994

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

TOP SECRET EYES ONLY

Notes on National Security Council Meeting July 20, 1961

General Hickey, Chairman of the Net Evaluation Subcommittee, presented the annual report of his group. General Lemnitzer stated that the assumption of this year's study was a surprise attack in late 1963, preceded by a period of heightened tensions.

After the presentation by General Hickey and by the various members of the Subcommittee, the President asked if there had ever been made an assessment of damage results to the U.S.S.R which would be incurred by a preemptive attack. General Lemnitzer stated that such studies had been made and that he would bring them over and discuss them personally with the President. In recalling General Hickey's opening statement that these studies have been made since 1957, the President asked for an appraisal of the trend in the effectiveness of the attack. General Lemnitzer replied that he would also discuss this with the President.

Since the basic assumption of this year's presentation was an attack in late 1963, the President asked about probable effects in the winter of 1962. Mr. Dulles observed that the attack would be much less effective since there would be considerably fewer missiles involved. General Lemnitzer added a word of caution about accepting the precise findings of the Committee since these findings were based upon certain assumptions which themselves might not be valid.

The President posed the question as to the period of time necessary for citizens to remain in shelters following an attack. A member of the Subcommittee replied that no specific period of time could be cited due to the variables involved, but generally speaking, a period of two weeks should be expected.

The President directed that no member in attendance at the meeting disclose even the subject of the meeting.

Declassified: June, 1993


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

THIS ARTICLE FIRST APPEARED IN THE AMERICAN PROSPECT, NUMBER 19, FALL 1994, PP. 88-96. COPYRIGHT (c) 1994 BY NEW PROSPECT, INC. PERMISSION IS GRANTED TO COPY AND CIRCULATE FOR NON-COMMERCIAL PURPOSES ONLY, PROVIDED THAT THIS NOTICE ACCOMPANIES ALL COPIES MADE.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Introduction

During the early 1960s the intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) introduced the world to the possibility of instant total war. Thirty years later, no nation has yet fired any nuclear missile at a real target. Orthodox history holds that a succession of defensive nuclear doctrines and strategies from "massive retaliation" to "mutual assured destruction" worked, almost seamlessly, to deter Soviet aggression against the United States and to prevent the use of nuclear weapons.

The possibility of U.S. aggression in nuclear conflict is seldom considered. And why should it be? Virtually nothing in the public record suggests that high U.S. authorities ever contemplated a first strike against the Soviet Union, except in response to a Soviet invasion of Western Europe, or that they doubted the deterrent effect of Soviet nuclear forces. The main documented exception was the Air Force Chief of Staff in the early 1960s, Curtis LeMay, a seemingly idiosyncratic case.

But beginning in 1957 the U.S. military did prepare plans for a preemptive nuclear strike against the U.S.S.R, based on our growing lead in land-based missiles, And top military and intelligence leaders presented an assessment of those plans to President John F. Kennedy in July of 1961. At that time, some high Air Force and CIA leaders apparently believed that a window of outright ballistic missile superiority, perhaps sufficient for a successful first strike, would be open in late 1963.

The document reproduced above is published here for the first time. It describes a meeting of the National Security Council on July 20, 1961. At that meeting, the document shows, the chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, the director of the CIA, and others, presented plans for a surprise attack. They answered some questions from Kennedy about timing and effects, and promised further information. The meeting recessed under a Presidential injunction of secrecy that has not been broken until now.

CONTINUED...

http://www.maryferrell.org/wiki/index.php/Essay_-_Did_t...



Kennedy was a Cold Warrior. As President, he became something more.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 12:27 PM
Response to Reply #53
61. Non-responsive, and *distorted* non-responsiveness at that. JFK did no such thing, because neither
Edited on Fri Jan-21-11 12:42 PM by apocalypsehow
Dulles nor Lemnitzer "counseled" any such course of action, as your own link shows.

Indeed, it was President Kennedy himself who asked to be briefed on the possibility of such a preemptive attack, and he received the dutiful answers he had requested. Nothing more, nothing less. The fact that he may have found the notion of a preemptive attack distasteful does not change the fact that it was Kennedy, not Dulles or Lemnitzer, who requested a plan for such a scenario, and asked to be briefed regarding it. You really should thoroughly read through the links you supply before you post them, especially when you are attempting to employ them to "prove" some point of view that then turns out to be historically inaccurate.

"Kennedy was a Cold Warrior. As President, he became something more."

False. He was a committed Cold Warrior right up until the day Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone and with malice aforethought, brought his life to an end in Dallas, Texas, on November 22, 1963. Did you read the comments from his last freaking delivered speech, or not? It is the very embodiment of bellicose, Cold Warrior rhetoric. The historical record shows that, if anything, he had become more committed to waging the Cold War, not less, as time had gone by, particularly in the area of "containment" and a dedication to holding onto South Vietnam by armed force - the day JFK died there were 20,000 American combat troops in South Vietnam, all but 600 of them sent there on his explicit orders.

Talking about everything else other than the inconvenient facts posted above, of course, is diversionary, non-responsive, and an attempt to "change the subject." It is a tactic with which I am familiar, having seen it employed so often. But instead of posting some other jazz that has little or nothing to do with the topic at hand, why don't you address yourself to the matter of the comments JFK made in his last delivered speech? The topic of my post above? Why can't you do that? :shrug:

I'll tell you why: you cannot do so and consistently maintain the narrative that President Kennedy was an enemy of the so-called "military industrial complex"; you cannot do so and maintain the narrative that JFK was some kind of apostle of peace, seeking everywhere and at all times to negotiate with the Soviet Union, instead of opposing them in places as varied as Laos, Berlin, and South Vietnam (which is what the actual record shows); you cannot do so and cling to the narrative that vast, dark, militaristic forces working behind the scenes conspired to have him assassinated, because he was such a foe of the use of force to assert American interests (he was not).

Please try again.


Edit: stray grammar corrected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 02:04 PM
Response to Reply #61
70. Connect some dots, will ya? ''Kennedy favored negotiations over conflict.''
Here's the next point: Kennedy was surrounded by hawks.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 02:29 PM
Response to Reply #70
71. More non-responsiveness. The "dots" of fact-based history have all been "connected" by legitimate
scholars, and they confirm precisely what I stated above:

1. President Kennedy was an unrepentant, proud Cold Warrior and strong supporter of the so-called "military industrial complex" (into which he pumped billions of dollars through America's national defense apparatus) to the day he died, and...

2. In his last set of delivered remarks in Fort Worth he spent most of it pointing to his record as not only an aggressive Cold Warrior, but also bragging to high heaven about how much his administration has increased defense spending, and the deployment of troops to South Vietnam ("600 percent!" he proudly points out at one point), and...

3. Lee Harvey Oswald, acting alone and with malice aforethought, did assassinate President Kennedy in Dallas, Texas on November 22, 1963, immediately following this speech.

These facts are undisputed, and remain so, despite your continued attempt to obfuscate and change the subject.

I say again: why won't you address the specific remarks he gave in his last freakin' speech on earth wherein he openly and effusively brags about having pumped billions of dollars into the so-called "military industrial complex"? Where he talks about holding the line against the communists in South Vietnam, among other places?

To ask the question is to answer it, and is why you continue to evade & duck answering those specific questions about that specific speech.

Which is in and of itself a roundabout way of conceding that I am right, and you are wrong. Very well: concession accepted. Again.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 02:38 PM
Response to Reply #70
72. "Kennedy was surrounded by hawks" - And quite by choice. It was JFK who appointed Curtis LeMay to
the position of Air Force Chief of Staff - not just once but twice, the latter time months after the Cuban Missile Crises occurred.

And, of course, JFK could have "un-surrounded" himself with "hawks" anytime he wanted by simply saying two words to any and/or all of them: "you're relieved."

He did not avail himself of his prerogative as commander-in-chief to do just that because (*drumroll*)...President Kennedy was a hawk himself, and wanted to be "surrounded" by like-minded military chiefs.

He chose accordingly - which further undermines the case in your original OP, and the follow-ups to date.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 12:38 AM
Response to Reply #70
143. And *still* waiting for a substantive, factual reply. I won't be holding my breath...
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 02:41 AM
Response to Reply #143
147. Thank you for reminding me: Whatever happened to that "bibliography" you promised me?
It's yet to arrive. Surely, you must remember, right?

In the meantime, while we wait, those who would like to know what we're talking about can visit this post from the DU archives, "JFK was a crazy, drugged-out professional leftist":

42. Not one of the sources I've cited in this post are in the "Conspiracy-Theory racket."

I stand by what I wrote then. And you're welcome to go through this and thread and the above thread -- and any thread I've started or posted on, as well as my DU Journal -- and show me where I post something that's not true. If I made a mistake, I'm sorry, it would not be intentional. And if you find a mistake, I'll be happy to correct it.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
apocalypsehow Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 01:34 PM
Response to Reply #147
148. More non-responsiveness, and further desperate attempts to change the subject. See #62 & #72 above,
and please try again.

"show me where I post something that's not true. If I made a mistake, I'm sorry, it would not be intentional. And if you find a mistake, I'll be happy to correct it"

See this entire sub-thread, including my first post that replied to your OP. It is chock-full of facts that you have yet to refute (let alone even address), and that definitively show where you have posted opinions - not facts, but opinions - that are historically inaccurate and factually incorrect.

Since you have refused to provide counter-data to refute these facts I have posted, and instead continue to attempt to change the subject to deflect attention from your inability to do so, one must only conclude that such dodges are deliberate because you have no substantive facts with which to counter historical truth.

Now, you can continue to squirm and dodge and deflect all you wish: I'm not playing that game. Go back to replies #62 & #72, read the queries posted to you there, and answer those questions. I will deal with you on no other terms regarding this discussion, period.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 01:56 PM
Response to Reply #10
67. Kennedy ran for president on a militaristic, "missile gap" message
And vice president Nixon couldn't call him on his lie, because that would reveal confidential, military "secrets".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
FrenchieCat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 02:04 AM
Response to Original message
17. ME.....
I thought I was voting for the Magic Negro.....A sorta Bill Withers with a swagger that would preach Black Liberation groovy ideology ("chicken coming home to roost" type shit)and liberate us all from the evil corporate stronghold of the past century in one fell swoop after making himself dictator and then, shortly after that everyone would love him!
Boy was I wrong! :shrug:
Guess next time, when I vote, I'll be more realistic about what to expect,
and understand that in history, Black folks have been oppressed, discriminated against,
and judged unfairly as not being good enough unless perfect, and no...not made magical.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 02:08 AM
Response to Reply #17
18. There's nothing in the OP about race. But thanks for bringing it up
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 02:16 AM
Response to Reply #18
20. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 10:15 AM
Response to Reply #20
45. Deleted sub-thread
Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 06:22 PM
Response to Reply #18
103. ??? Odd. OP is about an individual's expectations, so is FC's post. What gives? nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cherokeeprogressive Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 02:14 AM
Response to Reply #17
19. Yeah, you never walked with him anyway.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 08:14 AM
Response to Reply #17
26. undignified
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MissDeeds Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 08:39 AM
Response to Reply #26
33. And offensive
I can't believe anyone on DU would use that term.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frylock Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 02:56 PM
Response to Reply #26
75. you're being kind
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 05:29 PM
Response to Reply #26
98. But consistent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ichingcarpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 08:29 AM
Response to Reply #98
126. You got that
and I used to like some of her threads a while back

Octafish's thread was not about anger but on disappointment.
And I'm in his camp.... we know too much.

But both of us said we would vote for him over ANY REPUBLICAN.


I still like Frenchie but ....... we need to wake up.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
elias49 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 09:14 AM
Response to Reply #17
39. I hear what you're saying.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 11:45 AM
Response to Reply #39
141. A President Like My Father
For those who don't know what we're talking about:



A President Like My Father

January 27, 2008
Op-Ed Contributor
A President Like My Father
By CAROLINE KENNEDY

OVER the years, Ive been deeply moved by the people whove told me they wished they could feel inspired and hopeful about America the way people did when my father was president. This sense is even more profound today. That is why I am supporting a presidential candidate in the Democratic primaries, Barack Obama.

My reasons are patriotic, political and personal, and the three are intertwined. All my life, people have told me that my father changed their lives, that they got involved in public service or politics because he asked them to. And the generation he inspired has passed that spirit on to its children. I meet young people who were born long after John F. Kennedy was president, yet who ask me how to live out his ideals.

Sometimes it takes a while to recognize that someone has a special ability to get us to believe in ourselves, to tie that belief to our highest ideals and imagine that together we can do great things. In those rare moments, when such a person comes along, we need to put aside our plans and reach for what we know is possible.

SNIP...

Senator Obama has demonstrated these qualities throughout his more than two decades of public service, not just in the United States Senate but in Illinois, where he helped turn around struggling communities, taught constitutional law and was an elected state official for eight years. And Senator Obama is showing the same qualities today. He has built a movement that is changing the face of politics in this country, and he has demonstrated a special gift for inspiring young people known for a willingness to volunteer, but an aversion to politics to become engaged in the political process.

I have spent the past five years working in the New York City public schools and have three teenage children of my own. There is a generation coming of age that is hopeful, hard-working, innovative and imaginative. But too many of them are also hopeless, defeated and disengaged. As parents, we have a responsibility to help our children to believe in themselves and in their power to shape their future. Senator Obama is inspiring my children, my parents grandchildren, with that sense of possibility.

CONTINUED...

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27kennedy.htm...



Thank you elias49. Then-Sen. Obama got my support when Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg endorsed him. And I respect her cousin, Robert, and his endorsement of Hillary. And I put advancing my own favorite -- Kucinich -- on hiatus.

Most of all: I wish Caroline would run for office. Even more, I wish her brother were still with us. I'd vote for him, too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Tatiana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 09:19 AM
Response to Reply #17
40. C'mon Frenchie. I am a woman of color who thinks this is really tacky.
Edited on Fri Jan-21-11 09:22 AM by Tatiana
And beneath you. You have more class than this.

There are MANY African-Americans and multiracial people who are rightfully disappointed with this President.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RainDog Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 11:13 PM
Response to Reply #40
121. LOL
apparently not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 11:50 PM
Response to Reply #121
149. You know it.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Catherina Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 10:11 AM
Response to Reply #17
43. Thanks for explaining how you vote. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
tkmorris Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 01:26 PM
Response to Reply #17
63. You seem to be the only one here who cares what color he is
That's kind of interesting, don't you think?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 02:58 PM
Response to Reply #17
77. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 05:25 PM
Response to Reply #17
96. That took you 9 words to be irrelevant.
Edited on Fri Jan-21-11 05:26 PM by Forkboy
That's some kind of land speed record for playing the race card. Most people work their way into it, try to couch it other language...not you. BOOM! Go right for it, don't even bother to think or anything, that can be painful.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ima_sinnic Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 07:09 PM
Response to Reply #17
106. is that ALL you think about?
did you even read the OP?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Scruffy1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 07:11 PM
Response to Reply #17
107. Jack was scared of the race problem IMHO
I remember the Freedom Riders and how the feds stood by and just let violence happen. How he or his brother made a deal with Eastland to stop them in Jackson. I'm sure this time he felt he needed the Southern Bloc in the democratic Party to win a national election and keep control of both houses, but the President already had the power to stop discrimination in interstate commerce (since 1887 if I remember correctly). It wasn't until after he was dead that any federal effort was made to end discrimination in the South.

His handling of the Cuban missile crises might have saved us from a nuclear war when he went against all of his adviser's, called Kruschev and made a deal to take the missile base out of Turkey, although most of the public probably still thinks he stared them down.

His only major legislative accomplishment was a major tax cut with the top bracket going down to about 70%. Of course the Republicans unanimously voted against it.

The great thing about Jack is that the young people loved him and he inspired people to do better-which is the real power of the presidency. The senate of the US has always been a piece of dog shit and always will be. Not even FDR could do much with it and never got a bill through after 1936.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 08:25 PM
Response to Reply #107
113. JFK federalized the Alabama National Guard and opened up the University to African Americans.
Governor George C. ("Segregation now, segregation forever") Wallace's School House Door Speech

JFK also ordered the integration of the Secret Service -- personally.

There are more examples of how JFK felt regarding equal rights, a field to which he himself admitted to arriving late, including planned civil rights legislation. JFK also favored universal health care. The guy started the Peace Corps. And he began to reorganize the way the way the nation creates money. As for his other legislative accomplishments, did you ever hear of the Apollo Program?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ichingcarpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 08:37 AM
Response to Reply #113
127. Man... you do a good battle... JFK also
Was gonna get out of Nam.

Seems you got the same old crew after you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TK421 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 10:20 AM
Response to Reply #17
135. what a telling post that was! n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ichingcarpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 08:00 AM
Response to Original message
22. If he was a JFK
Edited on Fri Jan-21-11 08:07 AM by Ichingcarpenter
he wouldn't be here ,Oh no, I've said too much
I set it up, which shows you who is really in charge.

I cried for Joy when he was elected, hoped the same as you and I still would take him over any Rethuglican any day any time.

But..Neoliberalism still rules the roost.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 11:00 AM
Response to Reply #22
55. I cried too. I also cried happy tears when he nominated Associate Justice Sotomayor.
As I was born in Puerto Rico, she means the world to me.

Now, her politics are too pro-corporate -- too neo-liberal -- for my sensibilities, as well.

The thing is: She, like President Obama, is a good person. And that sets them apart from so many of their predecessors, men and women sorely missing INTEGRITY, cough 5-to-4.

FTAHOT: President Obama and Associate Justice Sotomayor are INFINITELY BETTER than any puke on the scene today.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mmonk Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 08:13 AM
Response to Original message
25. Yes, it is.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #25
57. Obamas Deregulation Dance with Wall Street
Did you see this, my Friend?



Obamas Deregulation Dance with Wall Street

by Laura Flanders

With a new Republican Congress falling all over itself to hand corporations whatever they want, it was only a matter of time before some politician turned up in the pages of the Wall Street Journal, breathlessly describing the dazzling and path-breaking nature of the free market, and vowing to get rid of regulations that have placed unreasonable burdens on businesses.

We just didnt think it would be Barack Obama.

But the man who couldnt give an executive order to halt dismissals of gay and lesbian members of the military has apparently issued an order to review regulations that stifle job creation, or place unreasonable restrictions on business, orand these are his own wordsare just plain dumb.

Obamas words at times echoed U.S. Chamber of Commerce president Tom Donohue, who called for regulations to be swept awayand who cheered the hiring of Wall Streeter Bill Daley as White House Chief of Staff. For more on Donohue and the Chamber, check out our series The Loaded Chamber at our website.

Reality check: Deregulation or lax regulation, lets not forget, led to the BP oil spill that Naomi Klein notes is still wreaking havoc on the ocean floor. It permitted ultimately deadly practices to continue at profit-mad Massey Energy. A Mine Safety and Health Administration official called those 29* miners deaths preventable this week.

CONTINUED...

http://blogs.alternet.org/speakeasy/2011/01/19/obamas-d... /



Amazing times, ours. Thank you for giving a damn. Thanks also, mmonk, for helping out a pal with a star, way back when.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
affrayer Donating Member (261 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 08:24 AM
Response to Original message
29. Not me...
When I voted for Obama it was a vote against electing another republican moron, John McCain.

In listening to his speeches and studying his record it was impossible to tell what he would actually do.

The only thing I could discern with any predictability was that he was a lot smarter than McCain.

Whether he's smarter than Hillary Clinton I could not tell. He certainly had more curb appeal.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 08:41 AM
Response to Original message
34. You are incorrectly projecting your idealism onto JFK
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 08:51 AM
Response to Reply #34
36. Respectfully disagree.
I can say with full confidence that Octafish knows -- at very least -- as many facts about John F. Kennedy's presidency as you. I suspect that he probably knows a heck of a lot more, but for sake of discussion, we can say that you both have about the same level of knowledge in this area.

You may interpret those facts one way, and have your opinion, which you are entitled to. Octafish likewise has his opinion, which he is equally entitled to.

Now, I've known Octafish quite well for many years. And he does not have an unrealistic opion of JFK. His opinion is not based upon "projection," but founded on fact. You might disagree with him, but it would be more beneficial to a meaningful discussion if you based that disagree upon facts, rather than a petty insult -- which is, in fact, literally a projection.

Peace,
H2O Man
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Freddie Stubbs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 09:05 AM
Response to Reply #36
38. The same JFK who sent Marines to the Dominican Republic?
The same JFK who increased the number of helicopters, military advisers and undeclared U.S. Special Forces in SE Asia?

The same JFK who began Operation Ranch Hand, a a broad scale aerial defoliation effort began on the roadsides in South Vietnam which may be a violation of the Geneva Conventions?

The same JFK whose CIA helped the Ba'ath party gain control in Iraq?

The same JFK who cut taxes for the rich?

The same JFK who voted against the 1957 Civil Rights Act?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 10:01 AM
Response to Reply #38
42. Yes, that's him!
I wasn't aware that there were others.

Did JKF have flaws? Yes. Some big ones? Absolutely.

I suspect that if one wants to speak of JFK's responsibility for the CIA, it would be fair to take one thing in isolation. There is a much fuller picture worthy of examination. Would you agree?

JFK's record on Civil Rights before his presidency could accurately be described, to borrow one of Moynihan's more unfortunate phrases, as "benign neglect." Even early in his presidency, he did not have the feel for civil rights that one had hoped for, based upon his call to Mrs. King towards the end of the campaign. However, much like the business about the CIA, one can only be fair when one takes his entire presidency into account -- including that which he had stated as his aim from June, 1963 on.

His policy in SE Asia was flawed. It was based on a foundation that began with Truman, which was distinct from what FDR had aimed at. But, again, an accurate picture must include what he did to prevent the previous administration's plans in Laos -- which by all accounts was considered more significant in terms of US interests at that time.

I could easily add more serious concerns. JFK did, at times, act in a manner that promoted the concept of an imperial presidency. By no coincidence, one could find -- at least in part -- roots going back to Harry Truman.

The reason that many of us -- and I do not want to imply that I in any way speak for my Brother Octafish -- is because he clearly had the capacity to accurately access a given situation which included his past mistakes, and to change. He recognized that only by changing, could he change those circumstances that most concerned him.

His speech to the American University was more than mere words. It was an outline of the path he intended to take in his remaining five years as President of the United States. It's the path that many of us, based upon candidate Barack Obama's fine words, believed he entended to take. Like JFK, we recognize that it's not easy: the machine isn't geared to do that, and like all people, including JFK, President Obama is sad and weakly human. We expected mistakes. But we believed that he was going to do his best to lead this nation onto a different path. And we see that he isn't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
rhett o rick Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 10:29 PM
Response to Reply #38
117. Seems you dont like Democrats do you Freddie. nm
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Overseas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 08:42 AM
Response to Original message
35. K&R. So did I.
Practical and pragmatic didn't scare me-- 21st century Green FDR policies would have been both practical and pragmatic-- if our nation's long term health and continued Democratic popularity was our goal.

The Professional Right would have called us commies no matter what we did, so I thought we'd get on with exciting hopeful activities after the devastating Bush Crash.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 08:55 AM
Response to Original message
37. Definitely recommended.
One of the most chilling parts of the act of political terrorism in Tucson is hearing from her husband that Rep. Giffords was concerned that she might get shot at that type of setting. I heard him tell a reporter that she had mentioned this concern at least ten times to him. And, of course, we've all seen the clip replayed from last spring, when Rep. Giffords expressed her concerns about the "cross-hairs" map. Some folks might think that this was evidence that she was invested in conspiracy theories, I suppose.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newtothegame Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 10:11 AM
Response to Original message
44. I understand your post, I'm just confused as to your reasoning.
Why did you envision "the United States of America would return to a path of peace."
Why did you anticipate "an end to secret government for the rich and by the rich."
Why did you hope "Justice would return to this nation."

I still don't understand what all these big plans were based on; 700 days in the senate? Flowery prose?

I voted for Obama, and encouraged all my colleagues to, but I saw absolutely no evidence in his legislative history that he was anything more than "not a Republican."

Were you reading something I wasn't? :shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 10:43 AM
Response to Reply #44
51. Yeah. The label said ''Democrat.'' Those things mean ''Democrat.''
Thus, I reasoned an Obama Administration would govern from the Democratic perspective -- meaning doing what was best for ALL Americans -- not for the rich, not the powerful and certainly not the warmongers.

The policies, as revealed by the past two years, have been "conservative," to borrow a euphemism.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
newtothegame Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 10:52 AM
Response to Reply #51
54. Fair enough; but a JFK redo? That's even more of a stretch. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 10:24 AM
Response to Original message
46. I voted for
Barack Obama, and am quite pleased.

Presidents have flaws, but in the face of the worst economic disaster in more than 70 years, having inherited two wars, and despite an increasingly volatile political climate, President Obama is rising to the occasion to become one of the country's most effective leaders.

His missteps do not detract from his accomplishments or his character.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 10:33 PM
Response to Reply #46
118. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 11:57 AM
Response to Reply #46
142. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 10:29 AM
Response to Original message
47. There was no other viable choice, my friend.
Everyone who would have begun to set things aright was marginalized away. Yeah I voted for him in the Primary figuring maybe the devil I don't know will be better than the devil I do know.

I had hope, but that diminished quickly when there was no place for Dean and little space for other progressive voices in his cabinet.

I suppose I could run, got a few hundred mil to get me started?
:rofl:

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ProSense Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 10:46 AM
Response to Reply #47
52. Dean
had a good piece up yesterday.



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MadMaddie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 11:12 AM
Response to Original message
56. Yawn.....Sorry but this is bullshit
If you compare just 1 comparison (among many) technology alone from when JFK was elected to today is one of the differences that has changed the environment immensely.

JFK did not walk into a Depression like environment, record unemployment, 2 Wars, a Supreme Court that was out of control and a bunch of other shit.

You wanna know what's the same the threats to the President's life...that's what.

By the way I will keep saying if anyone expected the changes listed in this blog to happen in 2 years then maybe it's time to go back and analyze their expectations.

40 years of fucked up and broken shit and people want to set Expectations that one man and a broken Congress can fix it in 2 years.

I can agree there have been some bad decisions, I will criticize and harp on those. There are good things that have happened too in the last 2 years. (Some folks will never acknowledge the good things, I have accepted that "it is what it is")

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
MilesColtrane Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 11:28 AM
Response to Original message
58. I voted for him and I got pretty much what I expected.
I am mildly disappointed in the short term, but I think my evaluation will be generally positive after he's out of the office.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 01:31 PM
Response to Original message
65. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Kolesar Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 01:57 PM
Response to Reply #65
68. Capitalization would be a nice thing. eom
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Poboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 01:57 PM
Response to Original message
69. RECOMMEND!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 02:53 PM
Response to Original message
74. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
Swamp Rat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #74
80. LOL!!!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
hootinholler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 01:41 AM
Response to Reply #80
144. MEEP!
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

Jaysus! Swampie!

I think it would be funnier if I knew who those people are.

-Hoot
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 02:56 PM
Response to Original message
76. That just proves you were as naive as Caroline was.
Every liberal wanted to jump on the Obama bandwagon. They didn't want to miss being a part of such a historical election (of course electing the first woman president was somehow less historical). What I don't get is what made you people think that he was more progressive than the other candidates? You all got what you paid for.

:shrug:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
iamthebandfanman Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #76
94. oh please, she lost, get over it.
Edited on Fri Jan-21-11 05:10 PM by iamthebandfanman
as if one corporate shill is better than the other.

what a false premise that we were given the choice of a real non-bought&payed for liberal in the ending months of the primary... ha!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Beacool Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 08:24 PM
Response to Reply #94
112. That's the whole point.
What made people think that Obama was more progressive? That's the joke.

:7
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
eridani Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 09:09 PM
Response to Reply #112
115. He wasn't--he just had vastly superior campaign organizers
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 03:02 PM
Response to Original message
78. You obviously werent paying attention to what he was saying during the campaign..
There should have been no confusion. Also they dont even look alike. ;}
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 09:37 AM
Response to Reply #78
130. Quite possibly I was confused.


As I did pay close attention, I was very surprised to discover that the new administration's definitions of peace and justice weren't the same as advertised I understood them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
SidDithers Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 03:03 PM
Response to Original message
79. Maybe you should have just voted for Obama, and saved yourself the disillusionment...nt
Sid
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 03:10 PM
Response to Original message
81. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
madrchsod Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 03:14 PM
Response to Original message
82. i was hoping for a bobby kennedy....
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Name removed Donating Member (0 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 04:29 PM
Response to Reply #82
89. Deleted message
Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.
 
steve2470 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 03:17 PM
Response to Original message
83. My theory about President Obama
I think, deep down inside, he is more progressive than his policies prove to be, but I think he's under enormous pressure behind the scenes to get re-elected, so he can do *some* good.

From what I know, those anti-progressive pressures are far greater now than in FDR's time or even in JFK's time. If I'm wrong on this point, I wish to be corrected.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
leftstreet Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 05:26 PM
Response to Reply #83
97. Then why didn't he just do "some" good the first 2 yrs, with Dem majorities?
:shrug:

Why not guarantee your reelection?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
steve2470 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 06:00 PM
Response to Reply #97
101. Good point.
It will be fascinating to read more, one day, of the truth of what has actually occurred behind the scenes.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
davidwparker Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 03:29 PM
Response to Original message
84. A lot of people thought this. I remember shedding a tear
when he walked out on stage after he was president-elect.

Now, I don't see it so much as Obama being a bald-faced liar, but that he has no backbone or executive skills. In the future, I will not support someone who is as young as he is. Nor, will I support someone who does not have a proven track record of left of center accomplishments.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 09:11 AM
Response to Reply #84
128. Those were remarkable moments -- filled with promise for peace and justice.
What caused us to feel that way were his words:

"It's been a long time coming, but tonight, because of what we did on this day, in this election, at this defining moment, change has come to America."

Unfortunately, whether due to partisan differences with the other major party or within our own Democratic Party, change has not come where our nation needs it most.

What's especially maddening, for me, is the lost opportunity to bring fundamental change. Had we done those things -- peace in Afghanistan and Iraq, a New Deal for the 21st century, jobs creation, an environmental revolution, universal health coverage, affordable quality public education for all -- the Democrats would today enjoy a supermajority.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cbc5g Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 03:47 PM
Response to Original message
85. I truly thought it would be different too
And I know some of that was because of being under Chen err Bush for 8 years but I see startling things now with Obama.

DHS is setting up spy grids and groping people at airports, soon to be elsewhere as well.. inching us closer towards either a police state or a soft police state. They are infiltrating every part of our lives. "See something, say something" is incredibly Orwellian. They are getting us accustomed to living like this. They will be getting us accustomed to military on the streets with checkpoints as well.

I see America divided just as bad as under Bush. This is a good thing for the power brokers and bankers, with Americans who actually agree on a lot, being made to go against eachother on petty issues.

I see bankers and industry insiders taking up MORE of the Obama government than the Bush government, I didn't think it was possible.


Gitmo open, patriot act again passed, FISA, it goes on and on.

The tyranny coming to us won't be unwanted, it will be consented to by the majority. Because if we don't accept tyranny, the terrorists win.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ConservativeDemocrat Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 04:08 PM
Response to Original message
86. WHY do I get the feeling...
...that the people posting about how great the Kennedy administration was (through rose colored glasses so thick they can't see any historical face), just in order to bash our current President, will be waxing eloquent about how great Obama was in 20 years?

What is this, people? WhinyUnderground?

- C.D. Proud Member of the Reality Based Community
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Number23 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 09:40 PM
Response to Reply #86
116. +20
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kaleva Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 04:09 PM
Response to Original message
87. Which JFk are you refering to. The Cold War warrior or someone else?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Buenaventura Donating Member (269 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 04:28 PM
Response to Original message
88. when i voted for mckinney i knew exactly ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
devilgrrl Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 04:32 PM
Response to Original message
90. I didn't. I didn't think he'd be as right leaning but I knew he was a centrist.
He didn't run his campaign as a progressive.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
patrice Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 05:02 PM
Response to Original message
93. Too bad... Others didn't make that mistake. Some people's eyes were opened by what happend to Dean.
I was hopeful, but I started worrying about those "cross-overs" the minute I read about them.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Butch350 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 05:20 PM
Response to Original message
95. Well. You see what happened to JFK....
Edited on Fri Jan-21-11 05:23 PM by Butch350
...and this is not the 60's.

Stop dreaming - and come back to the real world.

Us americans now are all chicken feathers, minus one nut.

WTTNWO
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Forkboy Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 05:40 PM
Response to Original message
99. I never saw Obama as much more than a step up.
My choices were Mccain and Obama (or nothing, I guess). Obama was, and is, better than McCain would have been. That's as deep as it got for me. Obama never inspired me at all. His voting record didn't suck, by any means, but it wasn't the stuff that blew me away me either. The "Hope and Change" stuff bounced right off of me. He might as well quoted Monty Python and said "Now with 10% more Less!" And to be fair, I feel that way about almost all of them.

One thing I get from those who like JFK (not saying I don't, but I was born in '67, so it was past my time) is this sense that he would be different, that he would truly change things. I'm sure had I been alive back then that I would have bought right into that, but from where I sit now it all seems so naive (hindsight is 50/50, as my friend says). I don't mean any insult by that at all, though I'm sure some can take it that way. If anything, my attitude shows the amount of cynicism the politics of today can engender.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
defendandprotect Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 05:45 PM
Response to Original message
100. K/R -- back later to fully read ... we need candidates who don't want to be
Edited on Fri Jan-21-11 05:46 PM by defendandprotect
candidates -- people like Bernie Sanders, Tom Hayden -- Martin Sheen?

Basically we need candidates who aren't already owned by corporations!!

Anyone who can run on a Dem ticket --

And maybe we need to start having candidates signs PLEDGES -- ????

Remember what Pelosi said of Obama -- which I thought was quite courages of her! --

"Obama was for a lot of things when he was campaigning -- which he is no longer for!"



Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
sabrina 1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 06:32 PM
Response to Original message
104. Couldn't agree more, I thought we would be returning
to the rule of law and an end to forever war and torture and renditions and investigations of Wall St. criminals, a blocking of any effort to destroy the New Deal and a HC system that would at least include a PO, an end to the Bush Era tax cuts etc.

Mostly I expected to see prominent progressives in positions of power. I did not expect to see Republicans given a hand up out of the political gutter the people threw them into and installed in Democratic administration, or on Commissions that would give them the power to destroy social programs.

But I learned a big lesson since we got to see how things would be with Democrats in charge of Congress and the WH which is never to assume anything and never again to believe the words of a politician, especially when there is no record to check to see if s/he has acted on the words they speak.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
politicasista Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 07:18 PM
Response to Original message
108. He and the First Family rock!
Edited on Fri Jan-21-11 07:23 PM by politicasista
:hi:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Hotler Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 07:23 PM
Response to Original message
109. When did TPTB turn Obama?
Did O know the rules going into the campaign or did he find out when he and W took the walk in the garden after the election? Or was it at the time he started saying now is not the time to point fingers? I think he changed in Denver after he got the nod from the party. He had a big meet & greet with a bunch of CEO's at a hotel and the press wasn't allowed to take pics.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RoccoR5955 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 07:37 PM
Response to Original message
110. I knew he was no Kennedy... That's why I wanted Kucinich!
But he's damn side better than Panama John McCain, and Caribou Barbie.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Kurovski Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 07:49 PM
Response to Original message
111. K&R. (nt)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Rosa Luxemburg Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 10:36 PM
Response to Original message
119. JFK was killed
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pryderi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Jan-21-11 11:11 PM
Response to Original message
120. Oh Puh-leese. Look at Kennedy's handling of the Bay of Pigs and escalating our presence in
Vietnam. The past is always warmer and fuzzier in one's mind.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ichingcarpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 09:32 AM
Response to Reply #120
129. Actually we do know the history of JFK
you don't.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pryderi Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 09:41 AM
Response to Reply #129
132. /ignored
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DCBob Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 08:04 AM
Response to Original message
125. I was hoping for Abraham Lincoln.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RollWithIt Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 09:40 AM
Response to Original message
131. Because JFK was a beacon for peace & justice? Try a history book.....
What a joke.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Octafish Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 10:04 AM
Response to Reply #131
133. Thank you for the suggestion. I read about 20 books per year now...
... cover-to-cover, mostly history and biographies. The number is nowhere near as many as I did before starting my career, which requires me to spend a lot of my time reading. Still, even with weary eyes, I get to the books that matter to me. Here's one for you and all who have a limited understanding of President John F. Kennedy:

JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters

And, unlike many people in similar circumstances, President Kennedy was unafraid of what his actions meant for his own safety. He stuck to his principles -- not his guns.

How about you? How many books did you read in 2010, RollWithIt?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
H2O Man Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 10:16 AM
Response to Reply #133
134. I agree.
Note: I have the honor of knowing Octafish, as a result of a friendship that started on this forum.

I'm willing to bet a dollar to a doughnut that Octafish has read more than RollWithIt on JFK. He and I often compare notes on these books.

(I read hundreds of book per year. Being retired allows me to read more than I used to, but even while employed, I read a lot. I'd be happy to compare reading lists with any of the folks who have responded negatively to this OP. I'm confident that I have read more than the combined total of those people. And I'm even happy to compare and contrast reading comprehension, should any/all of them want. One on an above section made a rather glaring error regarding history, that I didn't point out, because I'm not going to try to embarass anyone who wants to have a civil discussion. So should anyone want, let's get it on.)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ichingcarpenter Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #134
136. Agreed..... when I first came to DU
I thought as a Historian in one of my degrees that I knew shit.
Both you and Octafish have turned me on to reading stuff
checking stuff, cross referencing stuff to see what the REAL STORY IS.

Many of the threads here on The Bay of Pigs by some
are talking out of a pig's ass and porting the same neo con shit.

The thing is ......many don't want to look very deep but just keep believing what they are told.

JFK was killed only by Oswald...... and didn't work for the CIA
and ....... oh shit, I said to much...... and this too will go to the dungeon.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
grahamhgreen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 11:13 AM
Response to Reply #133
139. Oh, Snap!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mix Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 11:00 AM
Response to Original message
137. I voted for a less flawed candidate.
Tonally different than his predecessor, somewhat socially progressive, but still a neoliberal warrior in the Reagan mold and committed to free market-solutions, the same ones that have destroyed our schools, decimated our economy and left 30-40 million in poverty.

It takes a strong leader to reject the entrenched failures of the establishment. The end of this country's neoliberal nightmare won't come soon.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Arkana Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 11:10 AM
Response to Original message
138. Yes, I've always thought that Blogspot blogs were the best source of news around.
:eyes:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
frogmarch Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sat Jan-22-11 11:17 AM
Response to Original message
140. I didn't. I knew Obama would be
all about making nice with the republicanz, so I'm not surprised that he is - only disappointed that he didn't prove me wrong.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
McCamy Taylor Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 01:53 AM
Response to Original message
145. Sorry, but Obama made his policies clear and anyone who thought he was JFK
did a very superficial job of getting to know the candidates and basically allowed himself to be attracted to the hype.

I feel absolutely no pity for those who claim they were mislead. Had they bothered to follow the Founders advice about being eternally vigilant, they would have understood who Obama is. That is what you get when you let Madison Ave. choose for you.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Bluebear Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Sun Jan-23-11 01:56 AM
Response to Reply #145
146. "The bill I sign must include the public option! I will roll back the Bush-era tax cuts!"
Edited on Sun Jan-23-11 01:59 AM by Bluebear
Yes, nobody was paying attention.

"It's true that I want to roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans." Chester, Pennsylvania, October 28, 2008

"We are going to roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans, those making more than $250,000 a year." Lake Worth, Florida, October 21, 2008

"Yes, I'm going to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the very wealthiest Americans." New Philadelphia, Ohio, September 3, 2008

"I think it is very important to roll back the Bush tax cuts on some of the wealthiest Americans." Chesapeake, Virginia, August 21, 2008

"We're going to have to roll back the Bush tax cuts on the top one percent." Fargo, North Dakota, July 3, 2008

"I'm going to roll back the Bush tax cuts back to the levels they were in the 1990s." Interview with Fox News Channel, June 26, 2008

"I will roll back the Bush tax cuts on people making over $250,000." Watertown, South Dakota, May 16, 2008

"We are going to roll back the Bush tax cuts for the wealthiest Americans." Raleigh, North Carolina, May 3, 2008

"It is true that I would roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans back to the level they were under Bill Clinton." Fox News Sunday, April 27, 2008

"We're going to roll back the Bush tax cuts on the top one percent." Lancaster, Pennsylvania, March 31, 2008

"I want to roll back those Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans." Youngstown, Ohio, February 18, 2008

"Let's roll back the Bush tax cuts on the wealthiest Americans." Washington, DC, June 19, 2007

"I would roll back the Bush tax cuts for those making over $250,000." Manchester, New Hampshire, June 3, 2007


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
deacon Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-24-11 03:37 AM
Response to Original message
150. To be honest I voted for him believing he would be Bill Clinton Part II and it seems
thats the direction he is heading. I never thought he was a liberal and don't see Hillary as a liberal either. Just because right wingers scream someones a liberal - doesn't make them one. I guess thats why I haven't been surprised by how things have been panning out.

Comparing Obama and JFK is pretty far out there. That was such a different time and place. I don't know why people bother.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
truth2power Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-24-11 05:20 AM
Response to Original message
151. Thanks for posting, Octafish. It's amazing, isn't it, how on what is supposed to be a progressive
board, there are those who want to make a case for what you repudiate in your OP, that "there are things and people We the People should not discuss." Hmph!

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
robertpaulsen Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Mon Jan-24-11 12:02 PM
Response to Original message
152. Sorry I didn't catch this in time to recommend.
Right on the money. You and H2O Man nailed some righteous shit in this thread. Bravo! :applause:
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Tue Oct 21st 2014, 07:20 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » General Discussion Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC