Conservatives...

Superfreak said:
I'll post this again since you clearly are incapable of reading comprehension the first time around.....
Click to expand...

I saw what you wrote, and who took the responsibility publicly?

The Bay of Pigs was the best thing that ever happened during the Kennedy administration. Kennedy never again trusted his generals and espionage chiefs after the 1961 fiasco in Cuba. It was a lesson JFK applied during the Cuban Missile Crisis. If the Bay of Pigs hadn't happened, it could have led to the biggest disaster in human history. And you and I wouldn't be having this conversation.

Years later, attending the 40th anniversary of the crisis at a conference in Havana, Schlesinger, Sorensen and McNamara were stunned to learn that if U.S. forces had attacked Cuba, Russian commanders on the island were authorized to respond with tactical and strategic nuclear missiles. The Joint Chiefs had assured Kennedy during the crisis that "no nuclear warheads were in Cuba at the time," Sorensen grimly noted. "They were wrong." If Kennedy had bowed to his military advisers' pressure, a vast swath of the urban U.S. within missile range of the Soviet installations in Cuba could have been reduced to radioactive rubble.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1635958_1635999_1634954,00.html #ixzz1PSAzGUbm
 
Bfgrn said:
I saw what you wrote, and who took the responsibility publicly?

The Bay of Pigs was the best thing that ever happened during the Kennedy administration. Kennedy never again trusted his generals and espionage chiefs after the 1961 fiasco in Cuba. It was a lesson JFK applied during the Cuban Missile Crisis. If the Bay of Pigs hadn't happened, it could have led to the biggest disaster in human history. And you and I wouldn't be having this conversation.

Years later, attending the 40th anniversary of the crisis at a conference in Havana, Schlesinger, Sorensen and McNamara were stunned to learn that if U.S. forces had attacked Cuba, Russian commanders on the island were authorized to respond with tactical and strategic nuclear missiles. The Joint Chiefs had assured Kennedy during the crisis that "no nuclear warheads were in Cuba at the time," Sorensen grimly noted. "They were wrong." If Kennedy had bowed to his military advisers' pressure, a vast swath of the urban U.S. within missile range of the Soviet installations in Cuba could have been reduced to radioactive rubble.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1635958_1635999_1634954,00.html #ixzz1PSAzGUbm
Click to expand...

yet you continue posting this nonsense. The fact that a greater disaster could have occurred does not change the recklessness of the original event.

Now are you EVER GOING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION OR ARE YOU GOING TO CONTINUE CUTTING AND PASTING IRRELEVANT CRAP?
 
Superfreak said:
yet you continue posting this nonsense. The fact that a greater disaster could have occurred does not change the recklessness of the original event.

Now are you EVER GOING TO ANSWER MY QUESTION OR ARE YOU GOING TO CONTINUE CUTTING AND PASTING IRRELEVANT CRAP?
Click to expand...

Irrelevant crap? You really are a moron aren't you?
 
Superfreak said:
So the answer is 'no, I am not going to answer your questions because it would make me look stupid again'

Thanks....
Click to expand...

Yea, the decisions that averted American cities being reduced to radioactive rubble, citizens being vaporized (the LUCKY ones), and a nuclear war with the Soviet Union is irrelevant. Let's instead talk about the REAL issues we face as a nation...

palinaffair__oPt.jpg


You are too irrelevant to be a moron...you are a pea brain.
 
Bfgrn said:
Yea, the decisions that averted American cities being reduced to radioactive rubble, citizens being vaporized (the LUCKY ones), and a nuclear war with the Soviet Union is irrelevant. Let's instead talk about the REAL issues we face as a nation...

palinaffair__oPt.jpg


You are too irrelevant to be a moron...you are a pea brain.
Click to expand...

You asked SF a question and he answered it. He asked you a question and you refuse to answer it.

Why?
 
Bfgrn said:
Yea, the decisions that averted American cities being reduced to radioactive rubble, citizens being vaporized (the LUCKY ones), and a nuclear war with the Soviet Union is irrelevant. Let's instead talk about the REAL issues we face as a nation...



You are too irrelevant to be a moron...you are a pea brain.
Click to expand...

So once again you revert back to your typical news source?

The Bay of Pigs is irrelevant to the topic of this thread. You are attempting to continually divert from the thread topic onto something else. I played along to a degree with the hope that you in turn would actually answer MY question to you. But as is typical of you, you are far too cowardly to do so.

YOU SLANDER me by accusing me of slander, yet you continually FAIL to address WHAT it is that is slanderous.

Why do you continue to run away from the question douche bag?
 
Superfreak said:
So once again you revert back to your typical news source?

The Bay of Pigs is irrelevant to the topic of this thread. You are attempting to continually divert from the thread topic onto something else. I played along to a degree with the hope that you in turn would actually answer MY question to you. But as is typical of you, you are far too cowardly to do so.

YOU SLANDER me by accusing me of slander, yet you continually FAIL to address WHAT it is that is slanderous.

Why do you continue to run away from the question douche bag?
Click to expand...

Listen you tiny little turd. From the beginning of talk about the Kennedy family, your CLEAR INTENT was to slander, dismiss, belittle and disparage the family. I wasn't born yesterday and I didn't just fall off the back of a turnip truck. Did those events happen, yes they did. Do they matter...only to the people involved. If jack cheated on Jackie, then it was her problem, not ours. Do we know the details? No. And there is no way we ever will know the truths. You want to slime around in sordid details of people's personal lives...I don't.

You said: "My original comment on the Kennedy's was that their family far more so than the Bush's were political 'royalty'" Then, I provided stories told by Secret Service agents that show the Kennedys didn't act at all like 'royalty'

Your reply: "Ok.... and WHAT does that have to do with ANYTHING?"

I am well aware of the human foibles of the Kennedy family. They ARE human. But there is a very human side that probably saved the nation from a nuclear war.

I saw an interview with the late Hugh Sidey (Time magazine) who was a friend of JFK's. After confronting Khrushchev's nuclear brinksmanship in Vienna, President Kennedy broke down to Bobby: “you know it’s just so implausible that humans could allow this to happen. Bob, it doesn’t matter about you and me; were adults, we’ve lived, but the thought of destroying millions of children that never had a chance.”

Bobby confided to Hugh Sidey of Time Magazine: “I had never seen my brother weep; until he came back from the Vienna Summit and he felt we could not escape a nuclear exchange of some kind.”
 
Bfgrn said:
Listen you tiny little turd. From the beginning of talk about the Kennedy family, your CLEAR INTENT was to slander, dismiss, belittle and disparage the family. I wasn't born yesterday and I didn't just fall off the back of a turnip truck. Did those events happen, yes they did. Do they matter...only to the people involved. If jack cheated on Jackie, then it was her problem, not ours. Do we know the details? No. And there is no way we ever will know the truths. You want to slime around in sordid details of people's personal lives...I don't.
Click to expand...

So AGAIN, you proclaim that I intended to slander and belittle them, yet then you go on to admit that the events actually happened. SO AGAIN... HOW THE HELL IS THAT SLANDER???? STATING FACTS ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IS NOT SLANDER.

The events matter as well in discussions of 'They did far more good than harm' you idiot.

You said: "My original comment on the Kennedy's was that their family far more so than the Bush's were political 'royalty'" Then, I provided stories told by Secret Service agents that show the Kennedys didn't act at all like 'royalty'

Your reply: "Ok.... and WHAT does that have to do with ANYTHING?"
Click to expand...

LMAO.... you do understand what political 'royalty' refers to don't you? It doesn't mean they run around treating every single person they encounter like trash you dolt.

I am well aware of the human foibles of the Kennedy family. They ARE human. But there is a very human side that probably saved the nation from a nuclear war.

I saw an interview with the late Hugh Sidey (Time magazine) who was a friend of JFK's. After confronting Khrushchev's nuclear brinksmanship in Vienna, President Kennedy broke down to Bobby: “you know it’s just so implausible that humans could allow this to happen. Bob, it doesn’t matter about you and me; were adults, we’ve lived, but the thought of destroying millions of children that never had a chance.”
Click to expand...

Much more about nothing. Thanks.

STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO ANSWER MY QUESTION.

WHAT WAS SLANDEROUS??????????????
 
Superfreak said:
So AGAIN, you proclaim that I intended to slander and belittle them, yet then you go on to admit that the events actually happened. SO AGAIN... HOW THE HELL IS THAT SLANDER???? STATING FACTS ABOUT WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED IS NOT SLANDER.

The events matter as well in discussions of 'They did far more good than harm' you idiot.



LMAO.... you do understand what political 'royalty' refers to don't you? It doesn't mean they run around treating every single person they encounter like trash you dolt.



Much more about nothing. Thanks.

STILL WAITING FOR YOU TO ANSWER MY QUESTION.

WHAT WAS SLANDEROUS??????????????
Click to expand...

I just did...your INTENT... Events did happen, but like I said before, you weren't there, and neither was I. So scurrilous details surrounding those events are speculation and often nothing more than the author's bias....they call it muckraking.
 
Bfgrn said:
I just did...your INTENT... Events did happen, but like I said before, you weren't there, and neither was I. So scurrilous details surrounding those events are speculation and often nothing more than the author's bias....they call it muckraking.
Click to expand...

So you are pissed at SF because you know his intent??? :rofl:

But you get pissed when other people try and tell you what you meant or intended. Funny how that hypocrisy rears it's ugly head so often.
 
Bfgrn said:
I just did...your INTENT... Events did happen, but like I said before, you weren't there, and neither was I. So scurrilous details surrounding those events are speculation and often nothing more than the author's bias....they call it muckraking.
Click to expand...

Again moron.... show me what I STATED that was slander. Regardless of what your PERCEPTION of my intent is.... STATING A FACT IS NOT SLANDER.

The ONLY SLANDER is you proclaiming that I am slandering the Kennedy's as you have yet to show ANY evidence of such other than 'I knowz what ur intent waz' comment. Which is nothing more than your own biased crap. My being there or not and your being there or not IS IRRELEVANT.
 
WinterBorn said:
So you are pissed at SF because you know his intent???

But you get pissed when other people try and tell you what you meant or intended. Funny how that hypocrisy rears it's ugly head so often.
Click to expand...

yeah... it is truly comical. He says because HE thinks I intended to slander that it is slander even though I didn't slander????? Seriously.... WTF????
 
Superfreak said:
Again moron.... show me what I STATED that was slander. Regardless of what your PERCEPTION of my intent is.... STATING A FACT IS NOT SLANDER.

The ONLY SLANDER is you proclaiming that I am slandering the Kennedy's as you have yet to show ANY evidence of such other than 'I knowz what ur intent waz' comment. Which is nothing more than your own biased crap. My being there or not and your being there or not IS IRRELEVANT.
Click to expand...

Hey, do all the spinning you want, it's clear you were reaching for reasons to criticize the Kennedys. President Kennedy's Secret Service agents loved him, and you tried to turn it into a negative. Did you or did you not freak? It makes no sense that they would be anything but MORE diligent in their protection. But the right wing authoritarian mind can't think that way.

You know freak, you keep mentioning that daddy's money made a lot of the good things the Kennedys did possible. So that ends up being a good thing, a positive payback...hats off to the old man. And the fact they didn't have to worry about money removed the possibility of being bribed. President Kennedy donated his Presidential salary. He worked for free...
 
Bfgrn said:
Hey, do all the spinning you want, it's clear you were reaching for reasons to criticize the Kennedys. President Kennedy's Secret Service agents loved him, and you tried to turn it into a negative. Did you or did you not freak? It makes no sense that they would be anything but MORE diligent in their protection. But the right wing authoritarian mind can't think that way.
Click to expand...

Yeah, he was reaching for a reason. lol Thats rich.

Bfgrn said:
You know freak, you keep mentioning that daddy's money made a lot of the good things the Kennedys did possible. So that ends up being a good thing, a positive payback...hats off to the old man. And the fact they didn't have to worry about money removed the possibility of being bribed. President Kennedy donated his Presidential salary. He worked for free...
Click to expand...

Funny, in other threads you malign the rich as not paying their share. But Joe kennedy's money allowed him to have kids that didn'thave to work regular jobs and could pursue other things. Nice double standards, Bfgrn.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top