Jump to content
The Education Forum

Kennedy Family Secrets ?


Recommended Posts

It is my opinion, and I feel the opinion of the majority, that when a person ascends to great public prominence,as a result of their own desire and efforts, they are felt to belong to much more than their immediate family, and have voluntarily and knowingly accepted that they are under constant scrutiny.

Fair point, Charlie, the problem lies with the selectivity of that scrutiny.

Consider, for example, JFK's alleged infidelities.

We're treated to endless rehashes of this topic, yet I'd be willing to bet a tidy sum that Allen Dulles betrayed his wife's trust on many more occasions than JFK. Yet what do we hear on that subject? Nothing. This is particularly odd given Dulles' legendary penchant for extra-marital sex. So why the silence on this issue? Is it only Presidents, not senior spooks, who are susceptible to blackmail?

And if unfaithfulness to one's wife is held to be a capital offence, how many senior Agency people should have been put up against the wall and shot? Or members of this forum?

Paul

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 67
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Dawn Meredith

It seems that you began taking exception to everything that I post since I had somewhat of a running gun battle with your friend Ashton Gray.

Although you certainly have the right to expess whatever you wish regarding your personal views,

It seems ridiculous of accusing me of "Kennedy bashing" if I post anything other than flattery of the Kennedys.

Although I greatly admired Jack Kennedy personally,

that is not to say that I have admired a great deal of Kennedy family behavior neither before nor since the assassination.This lack of admiration also applies to his brother Robert, both before and after, and the attitude of the entire Kennedy family of "silence" since the assassination. I feel this has introduced an unnecessary stumbling block in the extensive investigation by researchers, and possibly has provided irreparable harm.

It is my opinion, and I feel the opinion of the majority, that when a person ascends to great public prominence,as a result of their own desire and efforts, they are felt to belong to much more than their immediate family, and have voluntarily and knowingly accepted that they are under constant scrutiny.

There have been many Kennedy family members which have risen to prominence as a direct result of JFK's election to the Presidency, however there have been virtually none that have been willing to share with the nation, which has lifted them to this prominence, an iota of assistance, in an area that has greatly divided and changed this country.

Please do not tell me of the terrible losses this family has endured....so has mine and many others.

And please do not tell me that a family which has some very sordid events in its past, should be immune to criticism, because of the rise of one of its members to lofty political prominence.

If you are not willing to accept, that regardless of the assistance which they volunteered to this nation, that they made some mistakes", is both ridiculous and childish. It is as prudent and necessary, to point out their shortcomings, possibly moreso than their acconplishments, when attempting to study the causes of their demise.

I feel that the good that John Kennedy accomplished has often been credited to him on this and other forums and discussions. A discussion of possible

mistakes, should not be considered "bashing" as it is nothing more than a discussion of history.

If this so terribly offends you, what prevents you and possibly others to start a forum on which

Kennedy criticism is forbidden...sort of like a fan club.....you might also start one for Elvis.

I find your attacks and attempted belittlement

to be immature to the point of nausea.

Remember, if the kitchen gets too hot, you are not required to enter it !

Charlie Black

**************************************************************

"I feel that it is quite immature and irrational to to constantly express the opinion that they were any more faultless than most of the billions who have lived on this earth. You often sound, to me, like a 15 year old President of the "Elvis Fan Club"."

Now, is that right! Come to think of it, I never needed to be a fan of some white boy who made millions by covering the songs of black artists, while those black artists, who wrote their own material, never received the air play or distribution afforded the white covers of their material. Or, the publishing royalties they were entitled to, for that matter. I was fortunate enough to have grown up in NYC, and had first rate exposure to the black R 'n' B radio stations. I didn't need to be a fan of some white boy copy-cat, whom I could see right through his feeble attempts to come off sounding as good as his black counterparts. Therefore, your pitiful attempts at drawing a ridiculous analogy between my support of the Kennedy brothers, and equating it to a 15 year old Elvis "fan," tend to fall hollow in your desperate attempt to discredit my views on the subject. Which, BTW is still this... Why do you find the necessity to start two threads on the exact same subject, long after it has already been hashed out quite thoroughly in Doug Caddy's original thread involving Monroe and the Kennedy brothers?

What you posted to Dawn in that other thread of yours:

"If this so terribly offends you, what prevents you and possibly others to start a forum on which Kennedy criticism is forbidden...sort of like a fan club.....you might also start one for Elvis.

I find your attacks and attempted belittlement to be immature to the point of nausea."

It's, AD NAUSEUM, Charlie. At least, that's how I described this redundant quality of yours, when I put up that first page of Doug Caddy's original thread on the subject. But no. You had to insist on re-hashing this topic in the two extra threads you've managed to start on the subject. How pathetically un-original. You're beginning to sound like some menopausal woman in midlife crisis.

"My question relates to the mental state of a U.S. President and Attorney General to have confided "anything" of a confidential nature to this mentally unstable woman. Her mental instability and drug usage was certainly known to nearly the entire world. They could not have needed to further IMPRESS this lady. They certainly were not stupid enough, to under normal conditions, have discussed publicly, in bed or at parties, issues of National Security.

Considering my immediately prior statement, were they suffering from something that may have altered their minds.....this not the rational behavior of a President and Attorney General, or for that matter, anyone entrusted with National Security issues.

Or is there something factual in reports of White House drug usage ? Or was Marilyn simply making up that she was going to expose "secrets" and had in fact a "secret diary" or possibly tape recordings.

Perhaps this drug addict did die from an accidental overdose.....but there appear to be some weird happenings at around the "time of her death".

This matter could definitely relate to some opinions of important persons, regarding JFK & Bobby's "potential recklessness", which could be endangering the security of the nation."

First of all, how about corroborating your stellar opinion with some documentation instead of your supermarket tabloid, "Only inquiring minds want to know." approach to the issue. Your conjecture and supposition with regard to what amounts to circumstantial evidence, at the most, and hearsay, at the least, may appear to be a somewhat "noble" stance for someone, such as yourself to take. Especially, the constant referencing to National Security, and the importance of maintaining what you consider to be politically correct protocol while assigned to the office of the presidency. But name me one president who hasn't had a spot on their past, or a transgression that may have eluded the general public, in the not so distant past, or even in recent years. Oh, maybe Ike, or Calvin Coolidge? Even Warren G. Harding had his skeleton in the closet. "Ma Ma, where's my Pa? He's in the White House, ha ha ha!"

So, go on and ride your horse, Charlie. Every season needs its "piety league." Or, its tabloid mentality to drive a point home.

"My very admittedly speculative question was meant to actually delve into another area....tho we will not find an answer.

"IF" their was reckless sexual behavior of John or Robert Kennedy which may have in some way have had even a remote impact on what was perceived to be National Security.....and IF this alledged behavior

( even falsely created conversational tapes ) came into the hands of JEH.....there could "speculatively" have been a number of "consequences" which followed, involving Marilyn.

My point being, and this is not meant to be Kennedy bashing, nor is this meant to be a "moral judgement" of "anyone's" sexual behavior"....when an individual accepts the honor of being the Foremost Representative of the United States, he must ACCEPT also that that his "position" disallows him freedoms which he may once have had, or would like to have. "Everything has a price that must, in one way or another, be paid." "

Yeah, right, and that's a big "IF" without actual documentation. "But, I really liked the guy. I just hated his brother."

Fine. Whatever you say, Charlie.

Happy Estrus.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is my opinion, and I feel the opinion of the majority, that when a person ascends to great public prominence,as a result of their own desire and efforts, they are felt to belong to much more than their immediate family, and have voluntarily and knowingly accepted that they are under constant scrutiny.

Fair point, Charlie, the problem lies with the selectivity of that scrutiny.

Consider, for example, JFK's alleged infidelities.

We're treated to endless rehashes of this topic, yet I'd be willing to bet a tidy sum that Allen Dulles betrayed his wife's trust on many more occasions than JFK. Yet what do we hear on that subject? Nothing. This is particularly odd given Dulles' legendary penchant for extra-marital sex. So why the silence on this issue? Is it only Presidents, not senior spooks, who are susceptible to blackmail?

And if unfaithfulness to one's wife is held to be a capital offence, how many senior Agency people should have been put up against the wall and shot? Or members of this forum?

Paul

Hello Paul

I agree "somewhat" with your comments. Regarding Allen Dulles, considering one of his affairs was with a lady, who may have been quite involved with conspiracy, I would particularly agree with you.

But in Politics as in "football", it is the quarterback who gets both the glory and the blame.

In Politics, it is the President who calls the plays and therefore gets the most press.

When the President catches a cold....the entire world knows about it. Certainly not so with the CIA director.

Charlie Black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Terry

This is not meant to be name calling, but it is my personal belief that you are "QUITE INSANE" !

You feel that it is important to point out when "in your opinion" I have misused a word. I would not like to have my "words" changed by you. Had I wanted to say "ad nauseum" I would have done so.

I hope that I have the fortitude to NEVER respond to your maniacal attacks against me again.

Once again, and I think that it should be brought to the attention of those, in power on this forum....that I have absolutely and without reservation, the right to express my disagreement

with decisions that effected world politics, of the actions of both John and Robert Kennedy while in office.

Terry, in a most ignorant and hysterical manner, attempts to delve into my inner motivations to participate in what "she has termed as Kennedy Bashing".

I have stated nothing more than I think that they both made some reckless decisions which both endangered world peace, and greatly disrupted internal political stability within the U.S.

I feel that her attacks are so far "out of order" and directed personally at me....for reasons which she may not even know....that she should be called on to both make a formal apology on this forum, and in the future desist from personal attacks on my person.

Her personal guardianship of the "Kennedy Honor", I feel, is well beyond the "norm" of mental stability.

Instead of posting "disagreements" with my comments, she because most of these comments are quite reasonable, chooses to instead attack me.

She constantly in other threads and posts has expressed that she would like to "hang up certain men by their balls". I don't feel that this is either acceptable forum behavior....or even social behavior within my social group.

She has expressd that I seem like a female who has been suffering thru menopause. I take particular exception to this as mine has not yet begun !

I feel that this person needs to be tamed or seriously curtailed.

I am asking for moderator participation !

Charlie Black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My gosh, Charles, I just re-read some of Terry's posts, and they were no more out of line than your own. You certainly knew going in that certain people would take exception to your argument that Bobby somehow caused his brother's death. So where's the beef? You got what you bargained for.

Edited by Pat Speer
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello Pat

I verbally expressed that I felt that both Jack and Robert Kennedy made, what I believe to be mistakes.

I always thought that this was "free speech" !

An elementary school student can see that the references to me were personal affronts. One does not have to be a PHD to recognize this. Yet you and others, even the moderating committee, have taken the position that her normal responses, a part of which has frequently been that certain men should be "strung up by their balls" is "satisfactory behaviour on this forum.

The rationale is apparently, that if one does not like the political position expressed by a complaint poster, the person so accused will never be in error. It will be reversed so that it appears as if the less popular individual has attacked the more popular.

Does anyone really believe that it can remotely be conceived that this complaint was "moderated" ?

This has been a political "SHAM" !

It appears that NO ONE has "objectively" read this entire thread as I requested.

The MODERATORS closed the thread on which I issued a complaint. I take it that the reason given is that I did not register it in the proper foremat.

What has happened here is an example of the way political matters are handled by our respective governments. That is why the JFK investigation ran into a brick wall !

Charlie Black

Charlie Black

Edited by Charles Black
Link to comment
Share on other sites

My gosh, Charles, I just re-read some of Terry's posts, and they were no more out of line than your own. You certainly knew going in that certain people would take exception to your argument that Bobby somehow caused his brother's death. So where's the beef? You got what you bargained for.

**********************************************************

Quite right, Pat. It seems that if there is anyone attacking anyone's mental stability here, it's Black's incessant reference to mine. If you read back in the thread, I never attacked Black's. I simply chastised him for joking about his own, which I don't feel is any laughing matter to be bandied about in a forum such as this, relegating it to the level of a chat room. I was referred to as a "dullard" for expressing my concern, which BTW has always been a point of contention for me with regard to the "free speech" amendment that is so easily thrown about, especially by those, who after a certain number of their posts, begin to reveal the true nature of their intentions, be it that of a provocateur, or that of a mentally unstable or unbalanced person with nothing better to do with their time but express their skewed opinions regarding a subject they know absolutely nothing about. Sometimes, inventing scenarios that could be considered libelous with regard to "gov. officials raping their daughters.," as happened in the not so distant past on this forum, if you get my drift, here?

I stand by my ethics with regard to how referencing, and more so, as even a "joking aside" to one's mental stability, acuity, etc. only serves to leave the rest of the forum members to be held up as "incredible, sensational, radical, and controversial in the extreme," due to the subject matter involved in this case. And, once again leaves the "bonafide" researchers and writers to be held up as cannon fodder for those gov. agents and otherwise "conduit asset status" monitors, to continue their free-for-all attacks on those who would prefer to have this case tried, as it should have been, in an unbiased "court of law," should such an institution actually exist, in this day and age.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

All Forum Members

Since Terry Mauro apparently remains incapable of controlling herself, as I have strongly suggested in some of my prior posts......I will take it upon myself to attempt to end this very nasty degradation of a well meaning forum.

Though my views regarding Terry Mauro have not changed one iota from what I have previously posted, I wish to apoligize to all other Forum Members for my contribution to this dung heap.

I should have been intelligent enough and gentlemanly enough to have long withdrawn from a thread which unmeaningly bred such strong hostility.

I apparently must have somehow exceeded my original

beliefs which were only that both Kennedy's were "mere mortals", and were as subject to error as the rest of us who are in that same classification.

For those of you who I had impressed as a "Kennedy Basher", I truly apologize as I have never meant to be that.

Hopefully, my plans to not respond to Terry's comments regarding me should help clear the atmosphere, and will certainly come at no sacrifice to me.

Again...my apologies !

Charlie Black

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...