Hey, Madman, you forgot that JFK was also a lifetime NRA member!

The difference between the Republicrats & Demoplicans is minimal to the point of stupid... There's only one thing we can do (short of armed revolt)... NO INCUMBENTS IN 2008 and DR.RON PAUL for Prez!

Yes. Too bad he didn't shoot his younger brother.

But, getting back to Kennedy.... there seems to be a trend whereby people look back at JFK with some type of unreal and romanticized notions of his presidency. The user who started this thread clearly is looking at it through that lens.

Kennedy wasn't all that popular or all that beloved in his short time in office. Half the country liked him and the other half couldn't care less about Kennedy.

He was barely elected. If Richard Nixon had contested the election, it is very possible Kennedy may not have won in the final result. He squeaked into the White House through corruption and manipulation of the voting process.

He also didn't make many friends in Washington. Making his own brother Attorney General right off the bat was an unprecedented feat of nepotism.

His fuckup of the Bay of Pigs didn't win him many friends nor did it instill much confidence in him. Even from members of his own party.

The public was curious and fascinated by Kennedy because he was young, he had a young wife, and very young children while serving as president. He was a young president who was assassinated while in office. That in of itself created the romanticized version of the Kennedy years that everyone has been served up ever since his murder. He has been somewhat deified in the American lexicon.

Had Kennedy lived, he would have most likely been reelected, but the social strife of the times in the later 1960's would still have occurred and would have left huge stains on his legacy and his presidency. If he had lived, no one would be looking back on his time in office with a romanticized view of the times. Does anyone look at LBJ's time in office with any fondness?

Kennedy wasn't all that inspirational in his time. He was a curiosity. He had youth on his side. However, if the public at the time really knew the truth about JFK, they would have hated him. If they knew the truth about him, he may not have been reelected if he had lived.

Many people forget that JFK was protected by the media and they presented the image to the public that JFK wanted presented. If JFK had been a Republican, would the media back then still have been so kind knowing all they knew about him? I kind of doubt it.

I am still baffled at how anyone can make any type of bizarre connection between JFK and Star Trek.

Quote:

The difference between the Republicrats & Demoplicans is minimal to the point of stupid... There's only one thing we can do (short of armed revolt)... NO INCUMBENTS IN 2008 and DR.RON PAUL for Prez!

I agree that the differences between many of the Democrats and Republicans currently serving is minimal. However, the party platforms are very different. Their philosophies of government are different.

I agree that many incumbents are HUGE problems. The Senate is the biggest of all cesspools. It is by far the biggest problem with the US government. It is a cesspool of coagulated scum and vermin.

I disagree about Ron Paul. The guy is a kook. He may be a kook that occasionally says something right, but he is a kook nonetheless.

Ron Paul and Mike Gravel from the Democrat side of the aisle should get together and do a buddy film. Something like a new version of a Jack Lemmon and Walter Matthau movie. Maybe "Grumpy Old Candidates".

I'm not trying to twist your words into anything.

I'm trying to figure out what type of peyote or other hallucinogen gets you from JFK to Star Trek.

I pretty much forgot about responding to this ridiculous thread until someone else bumped it back to the top.

Quote:

The point of my original post (The one you missed by the way) was about a great leader who had the skill and foresight to inspire and unify a great nation with nothing more than a few words, neatly arranged to convey a simple thought...go to the moon. A skill which Bush has failed to master. Yes, they do say that actions speak louder than words but when Kennedy’s words can inspire so much action and accomplishment how can you debate the value of his feats and his communication skills.

I think I answered that in a post above.

Kennedy was not as inspirational as you are led to believe. His time has been very over-romanticized.

I'm not saying he was a bad guy or anything. He just wasn't as great as he is made out to have been.

There are far greater American presidents much worthier of admiration than JFK. That also includes other Democrat presidents.

Quote:

To me Kennedy was a great man simply because he was able to bring the whole world together as one community, for one event, in the name of science and peaceful exploration, plain and simple. If you don’t see a connection there to Star Trek then your mind is more twisted than you think mine is.

Kennedy didn't bring the world together. The world was spilt during Kennedy's time. It was the Cold War. You are looking at the past with an emotional and romanticized view of things. Not an accurate view either.

A lot of the world was allied behind the Soviet Union for various reasons. Some because of politics. Some because they were forced into it by totalitarianism. Most of the free world was allied toward the US and NATO. None of them were forced and some were actually a disappointment.

Much of the world was never even allowed to see or hear a Kennedy speech during his time in office. The only people who saw Kennedy or heard any of his speeches intact were people living in free countries.

It's kind of hard to argue that he brought the world together when most of the world at the time only heard what their totalitarian governments allowed them to hear.

But then again. you probably recently read some bullshit article claiming Kennedy brought the world together the same day you created this thread. The romanticized Kennedy legend.

Quote:

Attacking Canada’s military is not only a national insult but a personal one, so my response to that is this; fellow Canadians soldiers are fighting and dying in Afghanistan along side your American brethren. They are fighting against the terrorist that attacked your great country. Your failure to acknowledge their sacrifice and your insults to them are not only a slap in the face to all Canadians but all the people who have died to fight terror including your fellow Americans. Good job man! Like I said before keep up the hate! We as Canadians rely on our allies for protection and we know they will help us in a fix because we have good diplomatic relations with the people we trade product and resources with. But don’t let that fool you, our metropolises may be filled with bleeding heart pacifists, but there are plenty of weapons here and real people who are ready to defend the best place in the world to live. Like they say “don’t confuse our politeness for weakness” ‘cause will kindly kick your ass Madman, but then we’d buy you a beer afterwards.

Attacking Canada's military is not that hard. You basically don't have any. That was my point.

If you want to take it as a personal insult, then go right ahead. You should be insulted and ashamed that a wealthy country with your large population and resources has a standing army of what.... maybe 65,000. How much hardware does your "great" nation have to contribute to the NATO alliance? I'll tell you right now... it is not much. Not much at all.

We are still celebrating the fact that you sent maybe 150 troops to the Bosnian conflict. Thanks. We couldn't have done anything without you.

A country your size and with your wealth should be completely ashamed of itself as far as military capabilities are concerned.

The students in the New York City Public School system could beat the Canadian Army and probably bring more hardware to the fight. That even takes into account the fact that your entire country has a little over 100 helicopters that can be used against an enemy in an urban assault.

You went off on a tangent claiming that I don't appreciate Canadian involvement in Afghanistan. I have never said any such thing. That is your own ridiculous emotional tirade. Don't put words in my mouth.

It is also not just a conflict to fight those that attacked my great country as you have aptly described the US. The fight is yours too. It is not solely a US fight. It is a fight that involves all Western nations. The uncovered plots to attack targets in your country in recent years should be more than enough of a wake up call.

Regarding your reliance on your neighbor and ally to protect you, my previous point was that you could be doing a lot more along those lines. I think every Canadian knows that fact. You all sleep safely at night under the blanket of security provided by the the United States.

I don't know if most Americans view Canadians as a bunch of pacifists. For the most part, I would think not. Most of us do view you as a people who have decided to sit back and let someone else take care of you. A little less so-called "democratic socialism" on your part and spending a little more of your wealth in ratio to your population on contributing to NATO and other things defense related would be nice. Thinking about the American taxpayer and sharing more of the financial load, instead of always selfishly thinking about yourselves would be a nice change.

Don't get me wrong. Americans love Canadians. (At least the English speaking provinces) I love all the English speaking Canadians. We have our differences, but I don't think we have any differences that can't be worked out over a few Molsens, some Canadian bacon, and your country spending a lot more on your military.

We are very forgiving of Canadians here in America. We are aware that there are a plethora of newspapers and TV shows that are anti-American. You think that is the cool thing to do and you want to be like the elitist Europeans.

It's been a long time since Star Trek's Captain Kirk (William Shatner) moved to the US from Canada. I have no idea if he ever connected the show to JFK.

There may be a common thread between JFK and Star Trek. Both had "prime directives". Captain Kirk's prime directive was not to interfere with planets that didn't have a certain level of technology. JFK's prime directive was that the Secret Service was to confiscate all pictures of him with women who were not his wife.

So, NuDan. Why were you talking about kicking anyone's ass. Canada can't kick anyone's ass. Canada couldn't even kick New Hampshire's ass. You, yourself, couldn't kick anyone's ass.

Doesn't Canada also have a "prime directive" which is basically out of control political correctness?

But, we are not here to talk tough. I get sad when Canadians start talking tough.

I'll end the post because I don't want to think I am keeping you from watching 'Avi Lewis' on TV or anything because of reading this thread. For some reason I have a feeling you are a fan of "On the Map with Avi Lewis".

One of my favorite TV shows is from Canada; "Holmes on Homes". I think I'd like to see Holmes beat the hell out of Avi Lewis. That would be really good Canadian television.

NuDan, did you ever see the movie War Games? At the end, the computer plays out all the doomsday scenarios and concludes, "Interesting game. The only way to win is not to play." There's a lesson there for anyone interested in "debating" with Madman.

His views are what they are. He'll never change his mind. He is seldom interested in any point you make. He uses "negative association" tactics. For example, mention you heard that Hillary Clinton's motorcade passed through your town two weeks ago and he'll take that and cast you as a Clinton supporter who works tirelessly in her campaign and secretly writes love poetry in her honor. He claims you said things you never said and then uses that to paint you as an unpatriotic Commie sympathizer who probably smokes cigars with Fidel Castro and doesn't even like apple pie. All this results in keeping you completely occupied with correcting his BS rather than articulating your own point of view.

Sadly, any valid points he makes - and in fairness, he does make some - are obscured by this unnecessary approach.

Trust me, you'd do better putting on a steak suit and "debating" a tank full of starving sharks.

I dunno. NYMM's assessment of Kennedy is spot on, as far as I'm concerned, and he said the same exact things I said early in this thread, only in a far more wordy way.

It's clear, though, that some other people can't handle anyone interjecting a differing opinion, since clearly, I hurt someone's pussy in here, and it cost me a little truck. Rat bastages.

My observations are more of a general view on Madman.

Wow! That is an amazingly accurate figure. You must have spent hours researching that statistic.