Anniversary of JFK, the last great president

In a way, he brought esclation to the Vietnam war. His supported a coup against Diem...a Saddam-like fella. Diem died in the coup. Suggestions are that Kennedy planned that, but there's no physical evidence other than that he had his hand in the coup.

This created a huge vacuum of power, that could not be repeated....

http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB101/index.htm
-------------------------------------------------
Kennedy wasn't always wise in his choses. He shouldn't have done that. IMO, he should have not support Diem at all, nor involved himself with Vietnam. But one has to say, he had a role in making Vietnam an American interest...more so that it should have been.

 

Rick i did not study much on diem but i know where i will find the best info on that and that is colonel fletcher prouty's site www.prouty.org. This guy knew vietnam like the back of his hand and was the head of weapons procurment for special ops so he had intimate knowledge of this and many other coups , all i know is that through the freedom of information act nsam's 55,56, 57 and 263 proved without a shadow of a doubt that he wanted out of vietnam but could not make the full withdrawal until 1965 and we all know that jhust 2 weeks later , after lbj promised he would carry out all of kennedys policies the same way kennedy would have done, lbj signed nsam 273 (which went 360 degrees against jfk's vietnam war policy ) giving the green light forcovert action against the north vietnamese and that STAGES GULF OF TONKIN incident which anyone that was there knew it was false. I will however look up diem and study that a bit more in depth.

 

Here's few extreme social agenda items:

-Freedom from religion instead of freedom of religion.
-Tax beyond a single digit (most Americans are probably at 40%+), the Boston Tea Party was over a 1% tax on tea)
-Killing the innocent (unborn babies) while protecting the guilty (convicted criminals)
-Government take over of healthcare (let's hear it for Hillary 08)
-Government raising your children from cradle to kindergarten
-Anything leading to one world government

That should get you started.

 

I don't know why anyone would want to subject others to their religion, so to me freedom from religion is a good thing

Don't really know what you are talking about on those 2 though

 

We'll I'm sure some people definitely wanted war. My thoughts are that JFK perpetuated a problem even more so. I'm not sure he intended such. But the story is always the same. Cuba's despot leader leaves, communist take-over. Half of central america's leader and south america's corrupt leaders get killed or are exiled....and another takes-over. Iran's despot leader leaves and fundamentalists take-over.

You might even say that's the problem facing us in Iraq...our leaders don't want this to be as clear as our past 'failures'. In this case, I don't think they can fail.

America's foreign policies a bit odd. I'm not going to pretend I know better than the majority of presidents that once resided. Frankly there's probably some rather pragmatic arguements of why to do things a certain way. I don't believe the results all came-out as desired or perhaps they did. *shrug*

In this world, I think the most idealistic people get runned-over, so you're always going to have a few manipulators on top. My question is whether they're well-intended dicks or complete assholes. I garner that they probably do have well-intentions. To some level I believe they're needed...I think the gullibility of the common American in world war II was incredibly high.

Some suggest that the pearl harbor attacks were a desire by our government...so we could enter the war...just as Lincoln desired the south to attack Fort Sumter.

I wonder if the world would be better off if Lincoln had let Sumter go, like he initially promised or if Roosevelt remained neutral durning war time, and didn't start sanctioning Japan to the point of war. If those pivotal events did not happen, many things wouldn't have happened. America would have remained split, and probably even more divided than Europe; and Germany would have only needed to fight one front as hard as it did on two. A different world, by far. Idealism had no part in Lincoln or Roosevelt's behaviour.

While I'm not a big fan of big government of despot action, I believe a middle-ground of practicality must be met in all situations. I'm still not quite sure how that can be accomplished in this sort of world in an honest way...almost seems like you have to have manipulators.

 

Government raising your children from cradle to kindergarten

Not quite appling but...

9th circuit court of appeals...under prodominately liberal judges, ruled that school's had special rights to teach morality, even superceding the rights of those children's parents.

Fortunately 3/4's of the rulings from the 9th circuit are pissed on by the supreme court,...and the court is slowly changing back to a more even judicial position.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Just found the nearest article...I'm sure there are better ones available as well.

How kind of them to assert that authority.

That's so much worse than prayer school!? *sarcasm*

http://www.renewamerica.us/columns/adamo/051201

Side note:Fuck judicial activists.

 

How about freedom from liberalism and neo-cons?

That's the sort of think I could liken to. : )

 

yeah, well both liberalism and neo-cons ideals are actually based on real life instead of arbitary supersition.

yeah but does that mean, that they can teach a skin head's kids that racism is wrong? That they can teach muslims kids that equal rights is superior to shria law?

Do want schools were exceptions have to be made for each crackpot family?

I don't know I don't consdered sex to be dirty or taboo, and there is not context to your quote. Where they asked those questions in a sex ed class, because they might be appropiate there.

and with the exams was there are reason to suspect molestation had occured? because usually that is the first they do isn;t have an exam?

 

You're defending neo-cons? lol

Modern liberalism is a hybrid of classical liberalism and socialism. Often it looks at the Constitution as rather abitrary,...just picking certain parts of it as valid, insteady of the whole. It's like most modern liberals (not all) wish to avoid the vast historical trends of the past, and the original view of the Constitution, in favor of their agenda.

Neo-cons are just demographic followers+risky takers. I don't like their over aggressiveness. Neither do you. I find they discredit a rather reputable philosophy ie conservatism.

Both are fiscal and social freedom nightmares. The sooner they're marginalized the better. Actually, I think either in moderation is a lot more understandable.

Morality has no place in public school. What's the difference between a school teaching one morality vs teaching a morality of religion....basically they're both beliefs...so neither have their place in school.

Or is this just picking and choicing? Agenda over principle?
-------------------------------
The admin applies all reasonable enforcements. People are not to be violent towards each other or harass each other (etc). This is to keep an enviroment where teaching is possible.

I didn't need a teacher to show me a pro-choice video (when I was younger), much less have them force a morality down my throat.

I don't want my kids to be taught your belief system, just because a dozen skin head kids are morons. Your beliefs are a very similiar to a religion, no-matter the semantic differences, and they have no place in my home.

These are young kids, whom normally get a permission slip to involve themselves in almost anything (as little as a field trip). I know I had to get one when I was a child. It was for sex-ed. Apparently the 9th circuit court (in that case) didn't believe in permission or parent's rights.

No insult, but who cares what your sexual beliefs are!?

If you don't know the context, read in to it.

59 girls. You tell me...? What's the likelyhood these kids were all molested? Have common sense, chief.

It had to do with medicaid laws, not molestation. Those that could not provide a private healthcare inspection of their child were 'unknowingly' signing documents to approve medical procedures. Problem is, they performed it on kids that already had private healthcare performed on them...which was completely unnecessary.

Personally, everything should be noted out in the open. One could easily get in trouble via private contracts that way,...which should still apply to public domain.

Many of these kids requested to call their parents or opt out of the examine, but were denied.

 

you think that public schools should teach that owning slaves etc is the same as equal rights?

that martin luther king and hitler are equals?

well if there wern't so many wack job parents scared to teach kids about sex then a lot of these problems would be eliminated wouldn't it

either way these are couple of werid out there cases, might be good for a straw man argument but thats about it. Who gives a crap about kids anyway?

 

Public schools should not exist, as Rick said, what they teach comes down to basically a religion and our youth should not be indoctrinated into a secular cult by force of the government.

 

good idea! and 2-3 generations we can become a third world country

 

What part of 'not teaching morality' doesn't make sense?

English, Math, Science, History...what happened to teaching those?

Look at Wikipedia's policy of neutrality. It requires that all ideas remain unbias, and support a rather objective view of the situation...which can well note multiple opinions, leaving moral chose in the hands of the reader.

What problems are you refering to?

My parents didn't teach me shit, and I learned little from my school that I didn't already know. Either way, a parent's right to permission of what's instilled in their child is rather reasonable. After all, they pay for public schools.

Yeah, I want your views to run this country.

 

why sex ed classes exist in the first place

 

Not quite an answer, ferret.

Let me answer. Because certain cultures fail to impose some sort of standards of behaviour or consequences within (in a rational fashion), and thus have higher rate of disease.

I'm fine with the teaching (within reason),... as long as they ask permission. Not quite sure asking questions about sexual thoughts is necessary or appropriate.

Other than that, who doesn't learn more from their first partner?

 

I know, because before public schools came along education didn't even exist!

 

so we should go back to medival times where only the wealthy get eductated and everyone else get dig ditches etc

sounds great

I'm sure we do really well competiting with countries with a good public school systems

 

Sarcasm?

3/4's of India's education is private owned, and slowly there an attempt to wipe that out via regulation.

Prior to 1840, the vast majority of schools were privately owned. The states slowly lubricated the system, so they could fuck it ie they started funding and centralizing their authority.

 

I'm sure that's why India's mostly private education system is farting out engineers at a higher percentage than the states.
-----------------------------------------------

 

yeah in india can't you be born an untouchable, they got a great caste system over there, like 50% of the country can't read

we should model our education system after them, maybe we get that caste system going too

they also have like a billion people in that country