Conservatives...

Volt said:
Why do Potspin and Ascii-fail refuse to answer simple questions?

1. How do you believe Americans should defend themselves against criminals?
2. How would you accomplish disarming criminals?
Click to expand...

Because they're nothing but whiny little cowards; who just want to make noises like little dogs do, when they're trying to act big.
 
WinterBorn said:
I recognize that the Kennedys did a lot of good. I also recognize that they skirted rules, cheated on spouses, lied to authorities and the public, and more.

I see them as real people. You, however, seem hell bent to make them saints.

Their private lives effected all of us. Is ted Kennedy's murder of Mary Jo something that should have remained private?
Click to expand...

Do you always project WB? It is hilarious that you even mention the word 'saints'...YOU are the one who demands our public officials be saints. If they break their wedding vows, they should be removed from office.

There needs to be a wall of separation between a person's public life and their private life.
 
Bfgrn said:
Do you always project WB? It is hilarious that you even mention the word 'saints'...YOU are the one who demands our public officials be saints. If they break their wedding vows, they should be removed from office.

There needs to be a wall of separation between a person's public life and their private life.
Click to expand...

Nice response. Pity it wasn't to anything I said in this thread.

And just to remind you, the main point about your fav politician was that he lied to the public. That you think that is acceptable is pretty sad.
 
WinterBorn said:
Nice response. Pity it wasn't to anything I said in this thread.

And just to remind you, the main point about your fav politician was that he lied to the public. That you think that is acceptable is pretty sad.
Click to expand...

If we're talking about Anthony Weiner, he lied about HIS private life. THAT part of his life is NOT YOURS, it is his. You really can't absorb anything can you? You are the type of ideologue who will only have an epiphany when it is YOUR private life that is invaded.
 
Bfgrn said:
If we're talking about Anthony Weiner, he lied about HIS private life. THAT part of his life is NOT YOURS, it is his. You really can't absorb anything can you? You are the type of ideologue who will only have an epiphany when it is YOUR private life that is invaded.
Click to expand...

How about we save the petty insults and we stick to the topic.

Yes, he lied about his private life. But the point is that he lied. Had he said "its none of your business" or whatever, I wouldn't mind. But he chose to lie to the public. That should not be an offense that is dismissed with some "aw shucks, it is his private life" bit of nonsense.
 
Bfgrn said:
Maybe you need to read over the thread and take off you partisan glasses. SF refuses to give credit without some caveat or slam. He has twisted every incident or story about the Kennedys into a negative.

"Ted didn't really work on the legislation"

"Eunice was able to create Special Olympics because of daddy's trust fund"

"additional familiarity lend to being a bit more relaxed around those you are supposed to be guarding?"

"the Kennedy's pawned off the parenting role"

SF is a slime ball.
Click to expand...

Maybe it is you that should read over the thread. I started out by giving credit on two of the MAJOR issues the Kennedy's benefited this country on. I then acknowledged some of the others that you mentioned, especially Eunice. You just glazed right over those comments and focused on your straw man building.

I never said Ted didn't really work on the legislation. I stated clearly the ones I knew he had and then pointed out the fact that YOU did not provide ANY evidence of WHAT he had done on the rest.

Eunice WAS able to work on creating Special Olympics because of the family money you dolt. That doesn't make HER efforts bad, but you were harping on the philanthropic side of the family, while ignoring HOW they were able to perform such work rather than getting jobs like the majority of the country. It again highlights YOUR refusal to look at ANY negative of the Kennedy's.

I ASKED if people thought that the familiarity would tend to make them more relaxed. I believe it does.

The pawned off the parenting role was intended as sarcasm. But since you are such an ignorant moron, you are incapable of detecting sarcasm because you ignore the ACTUAL negatives of the family.
 
Bfgrn said:
Bullshit. You and SF will 'allow' praise of the Kennedys, just as long as I cower and say they are slime. They were and are human, very human. But their private lives should be THEIR business, not ours. You just can't seem to absorb that can you WB?
Click to expand...

No one asked you to say they are slime. My original comment on the Kennedy's was that their family far more so than the Bush's were political 'royalty'. You then jumped in proclaiming how superbly wonderful the clan was. I pointed out the unethical behavior of Joe Kennedy and you called it 'slander' even though his actions are well known. You then turn a blind eye to any and all criticisms of the clan.

What is really ironic is the slander piece SF posted without giving credit to the author is titled: 'Reckless Sex and Power'. If you know JFK, studied his administration and the events that occurred during those 3 turbulent years, the words 'Reckless' and 'power' LEAST describe the man. As a matter of fact, if America had a 'Reckless' man in the White House during the Cuban Missile Crisis, there would be no America and you and I would not be having this conversation.
Click to expand...

I admit, I forgot to post the link. My fault on that. It doesn't happen often that I forget to do so.

Again, you show that you clearly have no comprehension of the Kennedy's. JFK, Robert, Ted were all groomed for power and politics by Joe. To suggest otherwise is nothing short of absurd. The Bay of Pigs is a great example of where JFK WAS reckless. I think he was a good President, especially for his foresight into the benefits of the space race.

Again.... if you think that 'reckless sex and power' is slander.... TELL US WHAT PARTS OF IT YOU THINK ARE INCORRECT.

The TRUE slander is you running around screaming SLANDER without ANY substantiation. Each of the sexcapades listed in the seven DID occur. So tell us how it is slander.
 
Superfreak said:
No one asked you to say they are slime. My original comment on the Kennedy's was that their family far more so than the Bush's were political 'royalty'. You then jumped in proclaiming how superbly wonderful the clan was. I pointed out the unethical behavior of Joe Kennedy and you called it 'slander' even though his actions are well known. You then turn a blind eye to any and all criticisms of the clan.



I admit, I forgot to post the link. My fault on that. It doesn't happen often that I forget to do so.

Again, you show that you clearly have no comprehension of the Kennedy's. JFK, Robert, Ted were all groomed for power and politics by Joe. To suggest otherwise is nothing short of absurd. The Bay of Pigs is a great example of where JFK WAS reckless. I think he was a good President, especially for his foresight into the benefits of the space race.

Again.... if you think that 'reckless sex and power' is slander.... TELL US WHAT PARTS OF IT YOU THINK ARE INCORRECT.

The TRUE slander is you running around screaming SLANDER without ANY substantiation. Each of the sexcapades listed in the seven DID occur. So tell us how it is slander.
Click to expand...

Let's start with the Bay of Pigs...tell me how JFK was reckless?
 
WinterBorn said:
How about we save the petty insults and we stick to the topic.

Yes, he lied about his private life. But the point is that he lied. Had he said "its none of your business" or whatever, I wouldn't mind. But he chose to lie to the public. That should not be an offense that is dismissed with some "aw shucks, it is his private life" bit of nonsense.
Click to expand...

He didn't just lie about his private life, he lied about the VERY MOST private part of anyone's life. SEX. Do you claim you would have done it differently if you were in his shoes?
 
Bfgrn said:
He didn't just lie about his private life, he lied about the VERY MOST private part of anyone's life. SEX. Do you claim you would have done it differently if you were in his shoes?
Click to expand...

Yes, I would have told people it was my private life and none of their business. They may not have liked it, but I would not have LIED to the public that I served. That is the point you continually fail to learn.
 
Bfgrn said:
Let's start with the Bay of Pigs...tell me how JFK was reckless?
Click to expand...

Sending in a bunch of refugees who weren't even capable of landing the boat without the support they needed to win.... that was reckless. Had Obama and the UN 'backed' the Libyan rebels in such a manner it would have been an equally collossal failure due to reckless behavior. Obama and the UN learned from situations like the Bay of Pigs. The Bay of Pigs was a complete disaster. Much can be laid at the feet of the CIA, but ultimately such action is in the end the responsibility of the President.

Now... how about YOU ANSWER my question.... WHAT was slanderous about the sexual exploits of the Kennedy's listed in that article?
 
Bfgrn said:
He didn't just lie about his private life, he lied about the VERY MOST private part of anyone's life. SEX. Do you claim you would have done it differently if you were in his shoes?
Click to expand...

First of all, I wouldn't have sent the pics. Second of all, I have absolutely no desire to be in public office. Third of all, if I were in his shoes I would have either said it was my private business or I would have told them the truth.

You keep trying to make this about me. It is not. It is a simple discussion of whether or not we require our politicians to be honest. I think that is the most basic trait and one that cannot be side-stepped.
 
Superfreak said:
Sending in a bunch of refugees who weren't even capable of landing the boat without the support they needed to win.... that was reckless. Had Obama and the UN 'backed' the Libyan rebels in such a manner it would have been an equally collossal failure due to reckless behavior. Obama and the UN learned from situations like the Bay of Pigs. The Bay of Pigs was a complete disaster. Much can be laid at the feet of the CIA, but ultimately such action is in the end the responsibility of the President.

Now... how about YOU ANSWER my question.... WHAT was slanderous about the sexual exploits of the Kennedy's listed in that article?
Click to expand...

No, what would have been reckless is to send US forces into Cuba. It would been seen as an invasion by the United States. It is ironic that we are talking about lies. Because the kind of lies that really matter were perpetrated by the CIA.

During the final months of the Eisenhower Administration, the CIA started planning an invasion of the island, recruiting Cuban exiles who had fled the new regime. Agency officials assured the young President who inherited the invasion plan that it was a "slam dunk," in the words of a future CIA director contemplating another ill-fated U.S. invasion. J.F.K. had deep misgivings, but unwilling to overrule his senior intelligence officials so early in his Administration, he went fatefully ahead with the plan. The doomed Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961 became the Kennedy Administration's first great trauma.

We now know—from the CIA's internal history of the Bay of Pigs, which was declassified in 2005—that agency officials realized their motley crew of invaders had no chance of victory unless they were reinforced by the U.S. military. But Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell, the top CIA officials, never disclosed this to J.F.K. They clearly thought the young President would cave in the heat of battle, that he would be forced to send in the Marines and Air Force to rescue the beleaguered exiles brigade after it was pinned down on the beaches by Castro's forces. But Kennedy—who was concerned about aggravating the U.S. image in Latin America as a Yanqui bully and also feared a Soviet countermove against West Berlin—had warned agency officials that he would not fully intervene. As the invasion quickly bogged down at the swampy landing site, J.F.K. stunned Dulles and Bissell by standing his ground and refusing to escalate the assault.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1635958_1635999_1634954,00.html #ixzz1PRznRri2
 
Bfgrn said:
No, what would have been reckless is to send US forces into Cuba. It would been seen as an invasion by the United States. It is ironic that we are talking about lies. Because the kind of lies that really matter were perpetrated by the CIA.

During the final months of the Eisenhower Administration, the CIA started planning an invasion of the island, recruiting Cuban exiles who had fled the new regime. Agency officials assured the young President who inherited the invasion plan that it was a "slam dunk," in the words of a future CIA director contemplating another ill-fated U.S. invasion. J.F.K. had deep misgivings, but unwilling to overrule his senior intelligence officials so early in his Administration, he went fatefully ahead with the plan. The doomed Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961 became the Kennedy Administration's first great trauma.

We now know—from the CIA's internal history of the Bay of Pigs, which was declassified in 2005—that agency officials realized their motley crew of invaders had no chance of victory unless they were reinforced by the U.S. military. But Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell, the top CIA officials, never disclosed this to J.F.K. They clearly thought the young President would cave in the heat of battle, that he would be forced to send in the Marines and Air Force to rescue the beleaguered exiles brigade after it was pinned down on the beaches by Castro's forces. But Kennedy—who was concerned about aggravating the U.S. image in Latin America as a Yanqui bully and also feared a Soviet countermove against West Berlin—had warned agency officials that he would not fully intervene. As the invasion quickly bogged down at the swampy landing site, J.F.K. stunned Dulles and Bissell by standing his ground and refusing to escalate the assault.

Read more: http://www.time.com/time/specials/2007/article/0,28804,1635958_1635999_1634954,00.html #ixzz1PRznRri2
Click to expand...

I'll post this again since you clearly are incapable of reading comprehension the first time around.....

The Bay of Pigs was a complete disaster. Much can be laid at the feet of the CIA, but ultimately such action is in the end the responsibility of the President.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top