W. Niederhut Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 Hey, since our Water Cooler-hating friend, Mathew Koch, is posting definitions of the term, "liberal," and since this is a JFK forum, let's quote JFK, himself. Has anyone ever said it better than our favorite POTUS? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted June 9 Share Posted June 9 That is a really great quote by Kennedy that does not get used enough. Ever since they have made the term "liberal" a profanity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted June 9 Author Share Posted June 9 2 hours ago, James DiEugenio said: That is the only way that RFK Jr could try to declassify the remaining documents. And that is what the question was about, declassifying the rest of the documents. JD- As of now, the only candidate with even a remote chance of the winning the White House and then releasing the JFK Records is RFK2. So I brought up the topic. I wanted to know if RFK2 could release the docs...a topic the establishment media is deeply uninterested in. As for promoting the RFK2 candidacy...the readership of the EF-JFKA is minute, in relation to the voting population of the US. Nothing said he will have any influence on the pending election. Mods and participants should learn to tolerate and try to appreciate many points of view. Self-righteous animosity towards anyone who is not a carbon-copy of you....does not make the EF-JFKA a more-enjoyable forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 (edited) 1 hour ago, James DiEugenio said: That is a really great quote by Kennedy that does not get used enough. Ever since they have made the term "liberal" a profanity. Agreed. And 21st century Republicans are far to the right of Eisenhower. In fact, they're closer to Eisenhower's anti-New Deal right wingers-- e.g., Prescott Bush, Fred Koch, and the John Birchers. They're even right of Reagan on issues like immigration and assault weapons bans. Edited June 10 by W. Niederhut Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Griffith Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 9 hours ago, W. Niederhut said: RFK went out on a political limb to get Martin Luther King out of prison back in the day. He knew the Dixiecrats would be angry. RFK, Jr. is doing the opposite. He's pandering to white supremacists in the Trump cult. That is one of the most absurd, erroneous statements I've ever seen posted in an online forum. I won't even bother asking you to explain how you could possibly believe that RFK Jr. is "pandering to white supremacists in the Trump cult." I am certain your answer would be as vacuous and lame as your excuses for Fletcher Prouty, who, by the way, appeared numerous times as a guest on a white supremacist radio show, who praised two journals that promoted white supremacy, and who spoke at two conferences hosted by groups that supported white supremacy. Folks, look at RFK Jr.'s positions in the liberal column in the article below and try to fathom how anyone could accuse him of pandering to white supremacists: What Conservatives and Liberals Would Each Get with Robert F. Kennedy Jr. in the White House Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 I totally agree with that William. Eisenhower would probably not even be part of the GOP today. Especially on domestic issues. Imagine we once had a political spectrum made up of Kennedy on the left, and Eisenhower on the right. Whew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 6 hours ago, W. Niederhut said: Paul, I was a fan of James DiEugenio's scholarly work-- and a donor to his excellent K&K website-- long before he achieved notoriety through his film with Oliver Stone. And Jim and I have occasionally discussed the history of the Civil War, Reconstruction, and the Jim Crow era, including Professor Eric Foner's work. That is why I seriously doubt that Jim agrees with RFK, Jr.'s recent public comments decrying the removal of Jim Crow era Confederate statues. Unlike RFK-- who risked alienating Dixiecrats by freeing Martin Luther King from prison-- RFK, Jr. appears to be pandering to white supremacists. I mentioned this Confederate statue issue in the context of Michael Griffith's claim that RFK, Jr. can "heal the partisan strife that is tearing this country apart." Do we "heal partisan strife" by denying that slavery, racism, and Trump's J6 attack on Congress ever happened? My psychiatric opinion is that the first stage of "healing" requires overcoming denial-- not reinforcing it. Removing statues is just dumb. It’s not a substitute for educating, rather an empty symbolic gesture, leading to abuses, such as SF board of supervisors recommending that schools should not be named after Washington, or Jefferson, or even Lincoln. It’s a missed educational opportunity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paul Brancato Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 So Democrats were, perhaps still are, giving financial support to right wing extremists figuring they’d be easier to beat than centrists. Who defines who is a stalking horse, the candidate, or the cynical donators to their campaigns? It’s horrible to smear Cornel West or RFK Jr in this way. the best antidote to lies is truth, not censorship. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted June 10 Author Share Posted June 10 10 hours ago, Paul Brancato said: I don’t agree with Jim D on everything, but he has devoted decades to seeking truth and exposing lies. And all he gets here is flack from the very people that should have a bit of respect. Why is that? my opinion about moderators here, one I didn’t share while that thread was up and running because I was too busy trying to understand all the posts and arguments, is that it should just be uncensored. Why? Because I don’t trust anyone to be in charge of what ok to say and what isn’t ok. I’d prefer a free for all, damned the consequences, because after reading the posts on that thread it felt like we already had one. Plenty of disrespect to go around from the people who like to point fingers at others. Take the motes out of your own eyes first. Paul B- I echo your sentiments. We have seen serious and earnest JFKA and RFK1A researchers in the EF-JFKA lately berated and denigrated...because they do not believe the exact same details and credos of their critics. A forum, and the EF-JFKA, is a place to host and see different points of view. That is what a forum is for. I happen to disagree with with James DiEugenio and Pat Speer on some details about the JFKA and RFK1A. So what? Maybe I am wrong. I assume we have earnest disagreements. I wish this self-righteous animosity so often on display in the EF-JFKA, towards any viewpoint not exactly in line with the antagonist, could be eliminated. This angry sniveling has probably chased away many a would-be participant in the EF-JFKA. Some people are LN'ers, others are CT'ers. Some are libs, some are righties. Some are independent. So it goes. Live and let live. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
W. Niederhut Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 20 minutes ago, Paul Brancato said: Removing statues is just dumb. It’s not a substitute for educating, rather an empty symbolic gesture, leading to abuses, such as SF board of supervisors recommending that schools should not be named after Washington, or Jefferson, or even Lincoln. It’s a missed educational opportunity. Paul, I was specifically referring to the Jim Crow era statues glorifying Confederate defenders of slavery like Robert E. Lee, Stonewall Jackson, Nathan Bedford Forrest, et.al. Would you approve of them if you were black? Analogously, would you approve of statues glorifying Adolph Hitler? And, if not, why not? I need to track down Columbia University historian Eric Foner's excellent NYT op-ed about these Jim Crow era Confederate statutes-- glorifying the bogus "Lost Cause" mythology of the Confederacy. I'll try to post Foner's essay (for non-subscribers) on the Political Discussion board thread about RFK, Jr.'s "whitesplaining" of the Confederacy. Perhaps it will help Michael Griffith get a clue. (I won't hold my breath.) Most of those statues were erected during the Jim Crow era of the early 20th century-- during the reincarnation of the KKK, in the aftermath of the white supremacist, Birth of a Nation film. Have you ever watched the ghastly, racist film, Birth of a Nation? If not, you should watch it. It's the white supremacist propaganda film that launched the reincarnation of the KKK. It was immensely popular in 1915, and was even watched, and praised, in the White House by Woodrow Wilson, a frankly racist native of Virginia. The mythical romanticization of slavery and the Confederacy has played an integral role in the multi-decade oppression of black people in the U.S. since the 1860s-- including the systematic suppression of 15th Amendment voting rights for blacks in the South from 1877 to 1965, following the collapse of Radical Reconstruction. Eric Foner has written the definitive history of Reconstruction, and its tragic collapse, if you and Michael Griffith are interested. A Short History of Reconstruction [Updated Edition] (Harper Perennial Modern Classics): Foner, Eric: 9780062370860: Amazon.com: Books Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Koch Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 Columbia and Harvard sure don't have the ring to those once prestigious universities and I understand why.. We have Harvard 911 for Truth Scholars talking about history like the Confederates weren't later the souther Democrats of the 40's 50's 60's and 70's. That Abe Lincoln and Frederick Douglas wern't Republicans. Comparing people who wanted to secede from the country and owned slaves to Adolf Hitler??? The statues were of people's relatives and ancestors who fought honorably and if they hadn't would have won the War Because that's how DC didn't get taken. I got to say it is a real talent to leave out the fact that Woodrow Wilson was a Democrat and that he got Birth of a Nation popularized or that the KKK was a Democrat Organization. (1:29:00 for Lincoln assassination) This is the type of behavior that I am talking about, that needs not be on the forum. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Benjamin Cole Posted June 10 Author Share Posted June 10 Could people stay on topic---do you have an informed view on whether RFK2, on the low-odds chance RFK2 is elected, could open up the JFK Records, or has a legal juggernaut been built to, in perpetuity, prevent the JFK records from being released. Could the "Transparency Board" flummox even a Chief Executive? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cory Santos Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 8 hours ago, Matt Allison said: LOL No one makes you look at the Coolers Forum. It is a forum that is almost entirely posts about factual news items of that day. Anyone that finds factual news triggering to their political slant should probably steer clear. The title of this thread starts with the words "If RFK Jr. is elected", so I'm hardly the person that made this thread political. I'm not interested in being berated about telling the truth about how RFK Jr is not going to be elected POTUS, or how the JFK files issue has clearly been weaponized for political purposes on this board. But if I am, my response will be factual, and if people have a problem with that, they should try presenting facts and evidence, not conspiracy theories, to bolster their opinion. Here is a fact. He will not be elected because one campaign is pushing to keep him out of the debates, oh and off state ballots. Oh and Jim D could note rightly also that the son of the man who is the reason presidential candidates qualify for secret service protection has been denied it by one administration several times now. Amazing. I think Jim’s responses have been rather tempered and factual to this point. it is too bad so much name calling continues on this site just for debating or discussing an issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
James DiEugenio Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 Thanks Cory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matt Allison Posted June 10 Share Posted June 10 45 minutes ago, Cory Santos said: Oh and Jim D could note rightly also that the son of the man who is the reason presidential candidates qualify for secret service protection has been denied it by one administration several times now. Amazing. There has been exactly one serious 3rd party candidate in my lifetime: Ross Perot. He did not get Secret Service protection. The rules regarding SS protection are easy to Google. One person has been granted an exemption to these rules early, and that was Barack Obama. Dur to threats on his life that the FBI deemed credible, he was granted SS protection early. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Please sign in to comment
You will be able to leave a comment after signing in
Sign In Now