June 5, 1968

[knuckleboner]

Originally posted by Rikk
No offense, UNCHAINME...but before you start with psychological theories...

Read a few books about the subject first...look at the murdered witness lists...look at the film footage of the day...look what happened politically in the immediate aftermath...

And why the fuck would a mobster (who actually knew Oswald beforehand and was associated with other suspects in the months leading up to the assassination) kill the fucking guy? Are mobsters really idealized patriots underneath everything? Or do you think it's just a bit more likely that someone needed to be silenced? And how did he get in in the first place?

There are just too many questions...and to slag it off as a psychological phenomenon without knowing any facts is a little premature.

And I'm someone that generally can't stand conspiracy theories...

I am more of the school that anything should always be questioned...

But most conspiracies annoy me...

This is just one you can't get away from.

there's no proof that jack ruby was a mobster. that's speculation. which is the problem with the "alternative" theories on the JFK assasination. they involve a great deal of speculation.


i have no doubt that the official investigation was muddled. was that because the government had a hand to play? or was it because the government was just lax (as government can tend to be) and either screwed up the investigation after the fact; or perhaps negligently (but not intentionally) screwed up the protection? i can't say for certain

at the end of the day, i definitely do not trust any of the stories (official, included) 100%.


still, the alternative theories often have glaring holes of their own. take the head movement issue. a lot of the conspiracy theories say there must've been a 2nd shooter, because JFK's head moved backwards, away from the knoll, but towards oswald. common sense, they say, says that it CAN'T have been a shot from behind, because that would push the head forwards, not backwards.

of course, ballistically, that's not necessarily the case. it's definitely possible to have a bullet enter cleaning from the back, but blow out a large hole in the front, thereby causing a backwards pushing force.

now, does that debunk ALL of the alternative theories? no way. but it means we shouldn't question only the official story.

[Rikk]

The key to science is disproving. That's what science is about. Not proving: disproving. Scientific method.

There has been enough of the official story absolutely disproved.

This does not make all the stories and theories from scientific minds and nuts alike concerning the conspiracy theories all true. Far from it: lots of crap on the "unofficial" side as well. But the bottom line for many is that the official story is garbage...and it's muddled with lies. And if that is true, then there is a conspiracy.

It's not mere speculation that Ruby had contact with Oswald, Clay Shaw, Guy Bannister and others in the months leading up to the assassination. And it's not speculation that each of these men were somehow connected to Oswald and nefarous business in Mexico, New Orleans, Dallas...and connected to Cuba.

[Nickdfresh]

Actually, science has also validated many (but not all) of the parts of the 'official story' as well...

[knuckleboner]

dude, i totally understand that you can't disprove a negative. sorry, if it sounded like i was implying that; it's not what i meant.

however, what of the official story has been absolutely disproven? (again i don't believe that story 100% by any means. i'm just not sure that there's strong consensus on particular aspects of it being disproven.)

as for ruby, entirely possible all that stuff is true. i was only saying that it's far from definitive that he was officially associated with the mafia.

i agree, saying, "a mobster killed oswald," definitely raises eyebrows.

but, saying, "a guy with a few ties to the mob through previous business dealings killed oswald," may still raise suspicion, but not as much.

and from what i've seen, that's a lot of what happens with the JFK assassination. the "may haves" become, "definitely was," in a bunch of the issues and a definitely muddled incident, in many people's minds suddenly becomes concrete.

i'm NOT saying that the official story is the definite correct one. but i also don't think i'm crazy or naive for not really accepting the other explanations at this point, either.

now where's sgt. hartman? he'd definitely back me that as a marine, oswald easily could've done the deed...

[studly hungwell]

What's funny is that if JFK were running today he would most resemble a conservative.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by studly hungwell
What's funny is that if JFK were running today he would most resemble a conservative.

Not at all true, and a classic conservative myth that was shilled when Reagan was in office. And many today fail to grasp that Reagan's conservatism was as least as much related to the individualism and romantic notions of "The New Left" as it was to Goldwater's idealism...

He was a "liberal," no matter how you cherrypick the cold-warrior and tax-cut stuff. This belies the fact that most liberals were fiscally responsible and were ardent anti-communists/totalitarians...

In fact, America's political lexicon has moved far too the right, and JFK would have been far closer to Al Gore/Obama/Edwards/Hillery/Kerry than he ever would Dumbya...

[studly hungwell]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
Not at all true, and a classic conservative myth that was shilled when Reagan was in office. And many today fail to grasp that Reagan's conservatism was as least as much related to the individualism and romantic notions of "The New Left" as it was to Goldwater's idealism...

He was a "liberal," no matter how you cherrypick the cold-warrior and tax-cut stuff. This belies the fact that most liberals were fiscally responsible and were ardent anti-communists/totalitarians...

In fact, America's political lexicon has moved far too the right, and JFK would have been far closer to Al Gore/Obama/Edwards/Hillery/Kerry than he ever would Dumbya...

This topic could fill a book....and probably has. The main reasons I liken JFK to a conservative are his faith and his economic policy. He was resolute as a leader and he believed in cutting taxes. My lifetime spans Nixon to present...I have yet to see a Dem cut taxes. Now, regardless of how much tax revenue is available, we need more for social programs. Thats code for "bought votes".

[FORD]

Do I have to post JFK's "I'm a Liberal and Proud of it" speech again?

[studly hungwell]

Originally posted by FORD
Do I have to post JFK's "I'm a Liberal and Proud of it" speech again?

Is an early 60's liberal really the same as an 07 liberal? I think equating the two would be a stretch at best.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by studly hungwell
This topic could fill a book....and probably has. The main reasons I liken JFK to a conservative are his faith and his economic policy.

I agree he was very resolute as a leader. But he also fought with warmongers like Curtis LeMay to restrain the provocations militancy to prevent a global nuclear exchange (as did Eisenhower)...

His "faith?" LOL He was totally "faithless" womanizer!

And don't even try to compare his sensible tax cuts to Bush's shameless, wholesale pandering to the rich and whorporations...

My lifetime spans Nixon to present...I have yet to see a Dem cut taxes.

Now, regardless of how much tax revenue is available, we need more for social programs. Thats code for "bought votes".

It's hard for the Dem presidents to cut taxes when the previous Republican president has gouged revenues by wholesale tax cuts aimed primarily for the upper classes...

But in fact, Clinton reformed the tax code, and we had a steamroller of an economy as a result and a gov't in the black --largely because corporations were more prone to pay their fair share...

And secondly, let me ask you what rhetorical question I have asked conservatives here in the past --and have never received a satisfactory answer:

What's the obsession with paying less taxes? Can't afford it? Don't believe in giving back to your country and properly funding necessary programs for its survival? Is the hyper-nationalistic, self-serving and ultimately insincere rhetoric of sacrifice relegated to the relative few volunteers in the military we keep resending to Iraq? Are you just greedy and selfish? Is it really just about a narcissistic, short sighted view of money?

I mean, for the party that seems to claim they have a lease on patriotism, the whole "I pay too much in taxes" rant seems to typify a latent hypocrisy..

[studly hungwell]

Originally posted by Nickdfresh
I agree he was very resolute as a leader. But he also fought with warmongers like Curtis LeMay to restrain the provocations militancy to prevent a global nuclear exchange (as did Eisenhower)...

His "faith?" LOL He was totally "faithless" womanizer!

And don't even try to compare his sensible tax cuts to Bush's shameless, wholesale pandering to the rich and whorproations...

It's hard for the Dem presidents to cut taxes when the previous Republican president has gauged revenues by wholesale tax cuts aimed primarily for the upper classes...

But in fact, Clinton reformed the tax code, and we had a steamroller of an economy as a result and a gov't in the black --largely because corporations were more prone to pay their fair share...

And secondly, let me ask you what rhetorical question I have asked conservatives here in the past --and have never received a satisfactory answer:

What's the obsession with paying less taxes? Can't afford it? Don't believe in giving back to your country and properly funding necessary programs for its survival? Is the hyper-nationalistic, self-serving and ultimately insincere rhetoric of sacrifice relegated to the relative few volunteers in the military we keep resending to Iraq? Are you just greedy and selfish? Is it really just about a narcissistic, shorty sighted view of money?

I mean, for the party that seems to claim they have a lease on patriotism, the whole "I pay too much in taxes" rant seems to typify a latent hypocrisy.. [/QUOTE]

Whats the obsession with paying less taxes? I'm going to try to answer your question. Were it possible that I could pay a given amount of my income to make things better for everybody I would do so gladly. In my short time on this planet I have observed that the government is barely competetant at building roads and providing national defense, so, the last thing I want to do is put more money in the hands of incompetant people who spend in the interest of their party's political interests as opposed to best interests of the people. That's my short answer.

I don't credit Clinton for the economy of the 90's.

The tax code in itself is power...the power to divide the people. Congress will NEVER do away with our "progressive" tax code in favor of a flat or national sales tax. Will not happen.

As far as corporations and the "rich" paying their fair share....get real, dude. There is no effective way to punish the upper class without it "trickling down" to the lower classes. A good example; you have never in your life paid a "sales tax". Never! It's a buyers tax and retailers are allowed to pass it on the consumer. If you punish the rich they will sit on their money and the middle class suffers as a result. Works everytime its tried.

[Nickdfresh]

Originally posted by studly hungwell
Whats the obsession with paying less taxes? I'm going to try to answer your question. Were it possible that I could pay a given amount of my income to make things better for everybody I would do so gladly.

Actually, I have a lot of evidence that can clearly dispute that theory, starting with the fucked up educational system that underfunds schools on chronically poor areas whilst giving the rich kids everything they need for a winning football team.

In my short time on this planet I have observed that the government is barely competetant at building roads and providing national defense,

Well, if you lived in parts of Europe, you might have a very different opinion on this. BTW, most European nations pay far more in taxes than we do...

But I assure you that that US spends far, far more on nat'l defense than it spends of fixing and building roads.

In fact, the US spends about 50% of the world defense budget...

so, the last thing I want to do is put more money in the hands of incompetant people who spend in the interest of their party's political interests as opposed to best interests of the people. That's my short answer.

But yet you voted for Bush...

I don't credit Clinton for the economy of the 90's.

Oh, of course not. Only Republican presidents get credit for good economies, even though Reagan's tax cuts failed to lift the US out of a recession any faster than not cutting taxes would have. In fact, there is no evidence that tax cuts really do much for the economy at all...

The tax code in itself is power...the power to divide the people. Congress will NEVER do away with our "progressive" tax code in favor of a flat or national sales tax. Will not happen.

Divide people how?

And thank fucking God we'll never have a flat tax!

As far as corporations and the "rich" paying their fair share....get real, dude. There is no effective way to punish the upper class without it "trickling down" to the lower classes.

But isn't that what the whole progressive tax rate is about?

A good example; you have never in your life paid a "sales tax". Never!

Are you mad? Never paid a "sales tax?" I paid 8.25% in Western New York!

It's a buyers tax and retailers are allowed to pass it on the consumer. If you punish the rich they will sit on their money and the middle class suffers as a result. Works everytime its tried.

It's a horseshit theory developed and propagated by the selfish, inhuman extreme rich for their benefit, not the country's! Just like the whole inheritance tax "issue," which benefits whom?

The rich can be made to pay their taxes by eliminating the loopholes, and a lot of the rich would agree with me on this. Warren Buffet being one of them, in fact, taxes are clearly not an issue any longer with most people.

[Redballjets88]

but the thing about school systems is that most school districts are funded by people that live in the area. and sometimes the way the do the taxes is bullshit. In texas they have a robin hood type system where they take money from larger school districts and give the money to other places, thats where the government should step in. and in reality most of the money given to sports programs, at least in texas, is put up by booster clubs or parents. when i played football for my highschool we got calls from the booster club at least once a week maybe more. its just stupid when a school in a somewhat wealthy area has computers from 1982. that was about 3 years ago until we got a donation from microsoft and got some up dated equipment. where money should be taken is from other things, i dont think any school should be held back for another. in the city i live in the crime rate is less than 1% while all the cop cars are totally decked out and they have 2005 ford expeditions. cut that shit and give it out.

[Nitro Express]

Politicians are whores that you buy. I doesn't matter if they are riding an elephant or a donkey.

[Redballjets88]

politics are bullshit in general.