BoatBanter.com - An OT question

On Wed, 23 Mar 2011 00:17:29 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 19:44:46 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 22:14:35 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 13:56:28 -0700, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 15:15:57 -0400, wrote:

On Tue, 22 Mar 2011 10:44:54 -0700, wrote:

Feel free to claim victory. JFK... such a terrible president, esp.
compared to who.. Nixon?

I will give you my JFK challenge. Name 3 great things he did.

Averted a nuclear exchange with the Russians.

He barely dodged a bullet he fired himself. The Cuban missile crisis
was all JFKs doing, thinking with his dick and not his head. In the
end, we took the same deal from the Soviets they wanted before the
whole thing started (removing missiles from Turkey). Basically they
pushed and we backed down, in spite of all the saber rattling.

Nonsense. He was a new president and was pushed by the generals to do
more than was right. He did everything right after that wrt the
Russians, despite your views.

That was a year and a half into his presidency. The fact remains, the
only reason there were ever missiles in Cuba was a response to our
obsolete missiles in Turkey that were scheduled to be removed and if
we had simply pulled them out when Krushchev asked us to, there would
have been no Cuban missile crisis. In the end that was exactly what we
did.

So, you believe in a policy of appeasement.

Since that is what we were going to do anyway, there was no reason to
risk a war that would kill half the people on the planet.

Then, why did we attack Germany? They didn't attack us.

It was just JFK's lack of willingness to do anything the Soviets
wanted, even if it was in our best interest that caused the problem.
Pure testosterone, no brains.

According to you, expert in all things.

I didn't make this up. Read a little

I probably read a bit more than you, but in any case, it's nonsense.

JFK was a lot of things, but stupid wasn't one of them.

The real screw up was at the beginning of JFKs term when he failed to
honor our commitments to the Bay of Pigs. All he was supposed to do
was provide a no fly zone (before that term was popular) and take out
a little of Castro's armor. He didn't . If he had done that, we
probably would not have had a Castro.

So, we should have continued a war in Cuba? Yet, they hadn't attacked
us, so it sounds like your hypocrisy is showing.

We would not have actually been in the war, we were only supplying
logistic support and air cover in planes without any US markings on
them and no direct relationship to the US military. It was a CIA
operation, back when they were good at doing things like this.

So, you don't mind covert operations to overthrow a regime you don't
like.

The CIA was never particularly good at anything, except perhaps
removing elected presidents from office. Of course, we got Pinochet
and his death squads, but that's ok in your book.

By withholding the promised air cover, we doomed a lot of people to
die on the beach.

Not our war... remember comments like that from.... wait for it....
YOU.

see above

No, you see above.

Space program to go to the moon.

He made the challenge but had very little to do with actually
implementing it.

Sure... whatever. I guess you think he was supposed to be out there on
the pad filling the fuel tanks or something.

I just do not think he contributed anything but the vague idea,
similar to Bush promising we will go to Mars
I suppose if Bush had been shot we might go.

Sure, Mr. Expert. You're in denial.

What was NASA doing in 1963?

Hint; we were still flying Mercury missions, something started by
Eisenhower.

And we got to the moon how? Who put us on that path? Sounds like
you're still in denial.

Civil Rights, which LBJ finished.

That was all LBJ, JFK resisted that legislation.

Total nonsense. I guess you don't know much about history, even recent
history, like him bringing in the Fed marshals and nationalizing the
Alabama Nat. Guard. Oops... try again.

Find me the links to his name or his endorsement on any of the
legislation.

Changing the subject. Address my comment.

That Alabama action was taken by the DoJ (Bobby) and only after the
Supreme Court ruled in the case.

So, you think JFK shouldn't have waited for legal authority. So, Bobby
never spoke to or consulted with his brother. Now you're just making
stuff up.

OK how did Senator Kennedy vote on the Eisenhower 1957 civil rights
bill? (no)

A political move. Not his best moment, but he made it clear that he
supported civil rights after his nomination.

What bill did he sign as president ? (none)

JFK did everything he could to stop the 1963 march on Washington.

Nonsense.

In 1963 he was afraid that legislation would sink his second term and
he ran from it like a scalded dog.
Why do you think he was in Dallas smooching with Connally? It was to
prop up the southern vote.

And, that has to do with Civil Rights how?

JFK had nothing to do with civil rights now, if that is what you are
admitting. That was all LBJ

Total nonsense. Feel free to keep making things up.

You want to coddle China?

What does changing China from a cold war enemy to a trading partner
have to do with Coddling? That was Clinton who signed the disastrous
trade deal.

So, Nixon "opened up China" but Clinton created a trading partner? How
did Nixon "open up China"? He visited? That's it? He got on a plane?

That is like saying Carter took Begin and Sadat on a picnic in
Maryland. There was a lot accomplished in the talks with China.

Really? Like what? Human rights? Name something substantive that we're
still benefiting from.

The short answer, not being in an arms race with China.

Really? I hear they've been upgrading their military. Perhaps you'd
like to blame Clinton? Or, maybe you should blame Bush for not doing
anything about N. Korea.... nah, he's a Republican.

The Republicans
nearly botched the latest arms control treaty.

That is not what we are talking about is it?

You mentioned the Start 1. So, it is what we're "talking about' even
if you want to claim I've "changed the subject."

It is hard to talk about Nixon (which is exactly what we were talking
about,) without talking about Start 1

Which leads right to the current treaty that the Republicans almost
ditched... all for politics because their #1 priority is to get rid of
Obama at any cost.

Try to stay in the right century, you asked about Nixon.

You're really not very good at changing the subject. The fact is that
the Republicans, for purely political reasons, were willing to put
this country at great risk by opposing the new treaty.

You are doing it again, that is not what we are talking about it.
You are certainly a one trick pony. No matter what we are talking
about, you come back to GW Bush. You are simply obsessed.

I'm sorry if you're unable to answer a simple question.

You and Harry did a pretty good job of saying the good things Bush
did.

So, you refuse to answer. No thoughts of your own I guess.

I simply agree with Harry.

Not good enough. You asked me a question, which I answered. I asked
you a question, and you refuse to answer.

History has a way of glossing over screw ups if things come out OK.
Just look at the "missile crisis".

If any good comes out of the Iraq war, it won't be because of Bush.

Now you're equating the missile crisis with Iraq??? GOOD GRIEF!

Both were manufactured problems, brought on by a presidential lie.

We have made the Cuban Missile Crisis look like some kind of triumph
and it really was a useless exercise in nuclear brinkmanship for no
particular reason and we ended up doing everything Kruschev wanted us
to do.

Cheese and tomatoes are both food, but they're not very closely
related.

It was not "a useless exercise" in anything. I think you need to "read
up" before you make more foolish statements.