Interesting read

Bfgrn said:
Don't forget elements of our own government.

"In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist. We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together."
President Dwight D. Eisenhower's farewell address
Click to expand...

I can't see why they would be unhappy considering that Kennedy opened up the coffers to pay for the race to the Moon.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I can't see why they would be unhappy considering that Kennedy opened up the coffers to pay for the race to the Moon.
Click to expand...

The military was very unhappy with President Kennedy. On at least 3 occasions, Kennedy refused to use military force/invasion to solve a crisis. He was a peace-monger in their eyes.

After the first crisis, President Kennedy said: "I'll shatter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds"

The Bay of Pigs fiasco...
jfk_campaign_tout.jpg


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 counter move 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.

While he famously took responsibility for the Bay of Pigs debacle in public, privately he lashed out at the Joint Chiefs and especially at the CIA, threatening to "shatter [the agency] into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds." J.F.K. never followed through on this threat, but he did eventually fire Dulles, despite his stature as a legendary spymaster, as well as Bissell.

Weeks after the Cuba fiasco, J.F.K. was still steaming, recalled his friend Assistant Navy Secretary Paul (Red) Fay years later in his memoir, The Pleasure of His Company. "Nobody is going to force me to do anything I don't think is in the best interest of the country," the President told his friend, over a game of checkers at the Kennedy-family compound in Hyannis Port, Mass. "We're not going to plunge into an irresponsible action just because a fanatical fringe in this country puts so-called national pride above national reason. Do you think I'm going to carry on my conscience the responsibility for the wanton maiming and killing of children like our children we saw [playing] here this evening? Do you think I'm going to cause a nuclear exchange—for what? Because I was forced into doing something that I didn't think was proper and right? Well, if you or anybody else thinks I am, he's crazy."

This would become the major theme of the Kennedy presidency—J.F.K.'s strenuous efforts to keep the country at peace in the face of equally ardent pressures from Washington's warrior caste to go to war.
Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I have often wondered if we would even be here now if Nixon had won the election.
Click to expand...

A profound question...

Kennedy never again trusted his generals and espionage chiefs after the 1961 fiasco in Cuba, and he became a master at artfully deflecting their militant counsel. "After the Bay of Pigs, Kennedy had contempt for the Joint Chiefs," historian Arthur Schlesinger Jr. recalled over drinks in the hushed, stately rooms of New York City's Century Club not long before his death. "I remember going into his office in the spring of 1961, where he waved some cables at me from General Lemnitzer, who was then in Laos on an inspection tour. And Kennedy said, 'If it hadn't been for the Bay of Pigs, I might have been impressed by this.' I think J.F.K.'s war-hero status allowed him to defy the Joint Chiefs. He dismissed them as a bunch of old men. He thought Lemnitzer was a dope."

President Kennedy never thought much of the CIA either, in part because he and his indispensable brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, became convinced that the agency was not just incompetent but also a rogue operation. After the Bay of Pigs—and particularly the Cuban missile crisis—the Kennedys seemed more concerned with defusing Cuba as a political issue at home, where it was a rallying cry on the right, than with actually enforcing a regime change. The darker efforts against Castro—the sinister CIA plots to assassinate him in partnership with the Mafia—began before the Kennedy Administration and continued after it ended. Robert Kennedy—a legendary crusader against organized crime—thought he had shut down the murder plots after two CIA officials sheepishly informed him of the agency's pact with the Mob in May 1962. But there was much that the Kennedys did not know about the agency's more shadowy operations.

"I thought and I still feel that the CIA did wet work on its own," says John Seigenthaler, Robert Kennedy's administrative aide at the Justice Department and later publisher of the Tennessean. "They were way too in thrall to 007... We were caught in the reality of the cold war, and the agency obviously had a role to play. But I don't think the Kennedys believed you could trust much of what they said. We were trying to find our way out of the cold war, but the CIA certainly didn't want to."

Nor did President Kennedy have a firm hand on the Pentagon. "Certainly we did not control the Joint Chiefs of Staff," said Schlesinger, looking back at the Kennedy White House. It was a chilling observation, considering the throbbing nuclear tensions of the period. The former White House aide revealed that J.F.K. was less afraid of Soviet leader Nikita Khrushchev's ordering a surprise attack than he was "that something would go wrong in a Dr. Strangelove kind of way"—with a politically unstable U.S. general snapping and launching World War III.

Kennedy was particularly alarmed by his trigger-happy Air Force chief, cigar-chomping General Curtis LeMay, who firmly believed the U.S. should unleash a pre-emptive nuclear broadside against Russia while America still enjoyed massive arms superiority. Throughout the 13-day Cuban missile crisis, Kennedy was under relentless pressure from LeMay and nearly his entire national-security circle to "fry" Cuba, in the Air Force chief's memorable language. But J.F.K., whose only key support in the increasingly tense Cabinet Room meetings came from his brother Bobby and Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, kept searching for a nonmilitary solution. When Kennedy, assiduously working the back channels to the Kremlin, finally succeeded in cutting a deal with Khrushchev, the world survived "the most dangerous moment in human history," in Schlesinger's words. But no one at the time knew just how dangerous. 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
 
apple0154 said:
True, but if you notice longevity is greater in countries that have government medical. I would think the lack of high tech is balanced with having people address their illnesses early. Also, statistics show that costs for countries like Canada with a large area and small population are very similar to countries having a small geographical area and a large population like the U.K.
Universal medical doesn’t mean there has to be a major hospital in every small community. The serious cases can be referred to major centers.
Click to expand...

Again.... the overly obese status of Americans relative to other countries would play a large role in longevity. The other factor not usually accounted for is that mortality rates are not universally calculated... especially among infants.

Ahh, but you do. It would be a lot easier to just cover those in need or help those on the borderline but that’s not the way things work. It’s next to impossible to help people when capitalism is so strong and everyone talks about hard- earned money. It’s the same with SS. People will not contribute unless there’s something in it for them. Do you really believe the people who can afford medical insurance but don’t buy it will pay for someone who can’t afford it? Well, we know the answer. It’s never happened in the last 200 years.
Click to expand...

That is nonsense. We already have vast Welfare programs, Medicaid etc... There is no reason to say that everyone has to participate in a government plan in order to take care of those who cannot afford care. Medicaid already covers those people. The ones with pre-existing conditions, we would have to create something there. Yes, we ALREADY pay for those that cannot afford it. It is called Medicaid.

If universal medical was in force the taxes paid would be less than the average cost one now pays for insurance and deductibles. It’s natural Medicare is unfunded considering it serves mostly the elderly, people who require more medical attention. There would be sufficient money if everyone paid in taxes what they pay for insurance and deductibles.
Click to expand...

That is nonsense. Unless you address the reasons behind the price increases in health care, it doesn't matter how you structure payments, the payments will still be increasing. No, there would not be sufficient money if everyone paid in to a government plan. That is just absurd. The reason they are unfunded is because the COSTS have increased at an unsustainable pace and we do NOTHING to address those cost increases.

People do continue to require medical attention but it's the major preventable diseases that take the toll. People will not change their lifestyle if they feel healthy. Just the idea of a free yearly check-up would make a huge difference.
Click to expand...

Most plans today offer free preventative care.

Medical advancements enable doctors to spot problems not readily apparent but people won't go to a doctor if they feel OK. Some countries have clinics staffed by nurses. A person can drop in to have a small ailment checked out free of charge. Maybe that small ailment is a sign of something major. The nurse will be aware of the possibilities and send the person to a doctor. If it's free people will go see the nurse. If it's not free they won't. An example can be the start of diabetes. If caught early and diet change made it can make all the difference. Just consider how many visits to nurses and doctors can be covered compared to the amputation of a foot due to diabetes. Or a stroke. Or skin cancer.
Click to expand...

Annual checkups solve the above. Most people in the 60's/70's paid for annual checkups. It is silly to suggest that they wouldn't do the same today. You are using extreme situations and pretending they happen often. They do not. Most cases where amputation becomes necessary are not due to diabetes not being caught it is due to people not taking care of themselves. THAT is by far our biggest problem.
 
Bfgrn, how after 50 years has every single person involved in this massive conspiracy you claim has taken place remained silent?
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I can't see the problem in posting something that is part of the historical record.
Click to expand...

There is nothing wrong with posting something of historical record or using links, quotes to back up what you are saying. When someone just cuts and pastes and rarely includes their own opinion then it becomes worthless. Especially in the case of the post I was referencing there. The fact he cut and paste something that talked of how poorly the investigation was being run blah blah blah three days after the President was assassinated really doesn't tell us anything. We have had DECADES of study of the case, hundreds if not thousands of books written on it. Conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory brought up, some debunked, some not. Yet he posts a response to Darla from the dep AG written three days saying 'I don't like how this is going'.

Then he offers little to nothing to tell us WHY he chose that piece or WHAT HE thinks it means. THAT is why I mock him. Because THAT is what he consistently does. Just like that moron Cypress used to do.
 
Superfreak said:
There is nothing wrong with posting something of historical record or using links, quotes to back up what you are saying. When someone just cuts and pastes and rarely includes their own opinion then it becomes worthless. Especially in the case of the post I was referencing there. The fact he cut and paste something that talked of how poorly the investigation was being run blah blah blah three days after the President was assassinated really doesn't tell us anything. We have had DECADES of study of the case, hundreds if not thousands of books written on it. Conspiracy theory after conspiracy theory brought up, some debunked, some not. Yet he posts a response to Darla from the dep AG written three days saying 'I don't like how this is going'.

Then he offers little to nothing to tell us WHY he chose that piece or WHAT HE thinks it means. THAT is why I mock him. Because THAT is what he consistently does. Just like that moron Cypress used to do.
Click to expand...

I am sure most cognizant adults could decipher the gravity of a memo from the Justice Department to the White House two days after the President of the United States is assassinated at high noon on a city street in broad daylight saying:

1. The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial.

2. Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off...

3. We can scarcely let the world see us totally in the image of the Dallas police when our President is murdered.


Isn't it AMAZING that the Warren Commission came to the SAME conclusion a year or so later? AMAZING!
 
Superfreak said:
So you think they all remained silent and NEVER told ANYONE about what they did?
Click to expand...

I think that Lee Harvey Oswald probably was the lone killer but I like to keep an open mind, there are definitely a number of anomalies that have never been cleared up. If it was the Mafia that ordered the kill then I wouldn't be surprised that no one has come forward, the concept of Omerta is very powerful.
 
Bfgrn said:
I find it ironic that freak chastises me when I copy and paste factual information to back up my claims. Yet he figuratively copies and pastes the beliefs of others as fact.

I have done a lot of reading about the Kennedy assassination. There are way too many holes in the Warren Report and the single bullet/Oswald lone assassin theory. Anyone who is familiar with the crime knows that without the single bullet theory, there HAD to be more than one gunman. SBT falls apart on so many fronts that anyone who believes it today must also believe our government would never lie.

I would be willing to discuss the case with anyone if they are willing to approach it on an adult level.

I will present a few anomalies to consider.

This is the Warren Commission's official story of how the President was murdered and Governor John Connally was wounded. The Commission never even viewed the autopsy photos, claiming deference to the Kennedy family. Instead, they relied on artist renderings

THIS IS what the Warren Commission said happened:

CE385.jpg
CE386.jpg
CE388.jpg


Warren Commission exhibits 385 (left), 386 (center), and 388 (right). Produced under the direction of JFK autopsy physician Dr. James Humes, these drawings represent the Commission's view of the paths of two bullets that struck Kennedy.
(see Warren Commission Volume 16, CE 385, CE 386, and CE 388).

But, it is NOT what ACTUALLY happened, proof?... the holes in the President's clothing and in the President are ACTUALLY in a different location. The actual location creates a path that DOESN'T line up with an exit wound in his neck and then a line through Governor Connolly.

marler.jpg


How much clearer does it have to be to see that the Warren Commission 'placed' the wound where it would line up with Connolly, NOT where it actually was, because the single bullet theory would not wash.

From that point forward, one can't avoid asking simple and straight forward questions...

Why did the Warren Commission move the first wound?
How did Oswald move the TSBD bldg to the opposite side of Elm St for the fatal head shot?

Explain how a bullet fired from a 6th floor window at a downward 21 degree trajectory can hit the President in the back at the level of the 3rd thoracic vertebra, then exit a wound in the front of his neck at the adams apple that is 11 degrees HIGHER. THEN, after exiting the front of Kennedy's neck, the bullet RESUMES the 21 degree downward trajectory and hits John Connally?

Get me past this and then you can explain how Oswald moved the TSBD to the opposite side of Elm St for the fatal head shot...

In 1978, the House Select Committee on Assassinations (HSCA) said this about the Warren Commission:

“It must be said that the FBI generally exhausted its resources in confirming its case against Oswald as the lone assassin, a case that Director J. Edgar Hoover, at least, seemed determined to make within 24 hours of the of the assassination.”

The HSCA concluded in its 1979 report that:

1. Lee Harvey Oswald fired three shots at President John F. Kennedy. The second and third shots he fired struck the President. The third shot he fired killed the President.

2. Scientific acoustical evidence establishes a high probability that two gunmen fired at President John F. Kennedy. Other scientific evidence does not preclude the possibility of two gunmen firing at the President. Scientific evidence negates some specific conspiracy allegations.

3. The committee believes, on the basis of the evidence available to it, that President John F. Kennedy was probably assassinated as a result of a conspiracy. The committee was unable to identify the other gunmen or the extent of the conspiracy.


If you need more narrative, why don't you pay some credence to someone that was actually in the car and wounded?


The great enemy of truth is very often not the lie – deliberate, contrived and dishonest – but the myth – persistent, persuasive, and unrealistic. Too often we enjoy the comfort of opinion without the discomfort of thought.
President John F. Kennedy
Click to expand...

All of your questions about the bullet trajectory are answered here.... along with the reason the conspiracy theorists consistently harp on what you just did.

http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/sbt.htm

Another thing conspiracy authors will do to attack the Single Bullet Theory is to move the entrance wound in Kennedy's back down below the Warren Commission location, and move the wound in the front of Kennedy's neck up in order to require an absurd trajectory though Kennedy's body. This drawing, again taken from Groden and Livingstone's High Treason, shows this assumption.

What is the evidence for the "low" back wound location? The piece of evidence that conspiracy books will most often show you is the facesheet from the autopsy. It seems to place the wound too low to be consistent with the exit wound in the front of the neck.

What will the conspiracy books not tell you about this? They won't tell you that the face sheet also has a measurement placing the wound. It places the wound 14 cm. below the tip of the right mastoid process. That's not consistent with the lower dot location, but it is consistent with other statements in the autopsy. They also won't tell you what the autopsy report says about the track of the bullet through the body.

The other missile entered the right superior posterior thorax above the scapula and traversed the soft tissues of the supra-scapular and the supra-clavicular portions of the base of the right side of the neck. This missile produced contusions of the right apical parietal pleura and of the apical portion of the right upper lobe of the lung. The missile contused the strap muscles of the right side of the neck, damaged the trachea and made its exit through the anterior surface of the neck. Warren Commission Report, p. 543.

But how could the facesheet show that dot in a lower location, yet describe the wound in a higher location, 14 cm. below the tip of the mastoid process, and above the scapula?

Commander J. Thornton Boswell, who drew the facesheet, was asked about this by The Baltimore Sun in 1966. He explained that he made no attempt to draw the facesheet exactly to scale, and insisted that the measurements he made were precise, and properly locate the wound. He made on "X" on a copy of the face sheet, to indicate where the wound actually was. See the November 25, 1966 issue of the Sun.

Of course, photos were made at the autopsy, including photos of Kennedy's back. You can see for yourself what they show.
Click to expand...

But since you have read so much on Kennedy, surely you have come across this. Right?

Take a look at all the photographic evidence shown in links on that page. There is no magic trajectory if you put the two in their ACTUAL locations rather than placing JC directly in front of JFK. When you take the NOTATIONS from the face sheet you (like other conspiracy theorists use) posted, you can see the hole is not to scale on the anatomical drawing.
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I think that Lee Harvey Oswald probably was the lone killer but I like to keep an open mind, there are definitely a number of anomalies that have never been cleared up. If it was the Mafia that ordered the kill then I wouldn't be surprised that no one has come forward, the concept of Omerta is very powerful.
Click to expand...

There have been numerous mafia snitches over the years. Is the Kennedy Assination so sacred that even mafia snitches know not to talk about it?
 
I just got back from Costco doing Thanksgiving shopping and I got the book. I'm going to start it this weekend, once I recover from all the work I'll be doing today and tomorrow. So probably Friday. I'm sane so I don't do the whole Black Friday thing. BTW, you can do black friday from your computer! No need to get trampled. Just a holiday tip!

I will look forward to talking more about the book once I read it. Happy Thanksgiving to all you idiots! LOL :)
 
Aoxomoxoa said:
I think that Lee Harvey Oswald probably was the lone killer but I like to keep an open mind, there are definitely a number of anomalies that have never been cleared up. If it was the Mafia that ordered the kill then I wouldn't be surprised that no one has come forward, the concept of Omerta is very powerful.
Click to expand...

I leave open the possibility that someone was pulling Oswalds strings.... as that is hardly something we can rule out 100%. But the whole magic bullet theory of conspiracy theorists has been debunked quite well. I just posted a link to that.
 
Darla said:
I just got back from Costco doing Thanksgiving shopping and I got the book. I'm going to start it this weekend, once I recover from all the work I'll be doing today and tomorrow. So probably Friday. I'm sane so I don't do the whole Black Friday thing. BTW, you can do black friday from your computer! No need to get trampled. Just a holiday tip!

I will look forward to talking more about the book once I read it. Happy Thanksgiving to all you idiots! LOL :)
Click to expand...

Give us your book review and buy/don't buy recommendation please!
 
Superfreak said:
Yes, I know that. My point is that we ALSO spend more per capita on many other areas. Given that we are the largest economy in the world, that is going to happen.



The government can put a lid on excessive jury awards WITHOUT having to take control of the health care system.



You are the one that brought up geographical conditions. The point is, we have far greater land mass than the European countries and far greater population. We also again have more tech per hospital bed.... ie.... we spend more on high tech than most countries and couple that with the litigious element and you have escalated costs.



Assuming that number is correct, again, we DO NOT NEED to put the entire country on a government plan in order to take care of those that cannot afford health care.



Apparently you don't comprehend what UNFUNDED means. It means we are NOT paying the taxes to support our current systems. We would have to dramatically raise taxes just to cover the existing Medicare unfunded liabilities.



I agree with the above. Preventative care, education on dietary and exercise habits etc... would drastically reduce the health care costs by reducing the obesity levels. The only part I disagree with is the lack of knowledge on what is bad. You would have to be a moron on the scale of Mott to not know that McDonalds/Burger King/KFC/Taco Hell etc... are horrid for your diet.

Side note....Everyone has a different metabolism that will be affected by the extra curricular activities they partake in. I consume about 4500-5000 calories a day just to maintain my weight. One of the common problems for women that causes them to gain weight is that they don't consume enough calories. You can consume as many calories as you want, provided you burn more. The best way to lose weight is to find out how many calories you burn in a day on average, then start consuming about 500 or so under that number (though a bare minimum should be 1200 for a small female... otherwise your body goes into starvation mode)



Wow.... tell me, do people stop getting ill in Canada? No, they keep getting sick, needing surgeries, getting injured playing sports etc... While I agree that preventative care can help alleviate many problems (if the people stick to the dietary and exercise regimens), the health care industry can benefit from that side as well. Personal trainers, dieticians, physical therapists etc...
Click to expand...

I am most curious. Are you aware of what has happened to medical costs SINCE tort reform in Texas? Texans were told that with Tort Reform they would see reductions in all their medical costs. Did it happen? Malpractice suits have declined greatly so that should have led to costs coming down. I wonder, did they?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top