Except that we didn't enter this thread to conduct a 'debate'. Or at least I didn't. The thread began with a question as to whether JFK's father had ties with a certain organization, as implied by a History Channel documentary (did you happen to see that one, DFTC?).

A few of us replied, and a discussion was underway.

Apparently you WANTED a debate, but were a little freaked when you didn't get one.

Now, sonnyboy, why don't go and start a new topic...'JFK - GREAT PRESIDENT OR NOT?' Include a poll to make it official, then ask people to state their reasons as to why they voted one way or the other.

Then, you'll have yourself a debate.

And I'll be back at the NEVERENDING SENTENCE thread because you've become a colossal bore, one of the endless stream of kidneystones in the world of the BB Gangster Board.

You too shall pass.

Regards,
Apple

Why am I being dragged into this? I'm a mutual observer. I already said I have no knowledge on Kennedy. It wasn't the facts I had a problem with it was the lack of debating.

If you have a problem with ANYTHING I have said, simply quote me and we'll discuss it like adults.

Like I just said to apple I think this topic went totally out of control and I'm obviously a man who respects JFK and has a wealth of knowledge on the man. I think it got a little carried away. If you would like to know more about JFK and his assasination Turi I suggest the film JFK by Oliver Stone its a little bias in some aspects but very interesting at the same time b/c a lot of its true. A very good movie that lets people into the world in which JFK lived in and all the enemies he had among him.

I respect JFK too, even like him. I just don't think he was a great President. And to tell the truth, I have watched LOTS of documentaries on him and his assasination and heard accounts from people who were there and spent time with him and confirm that he was not the 'popular idol' he is today. In fact, at first the administration was a bit wary of that trip to Dallas, they were worried about him getting a less than warm reception from the citizens of Texas. However, as we now know they had nothing to worry about on that front.

By the way, DFTC...if you are SERIOUSLY recommending Oliver Stone's movie as TRUE, then I have lost what little respect I had for you.

Well, time for me to go home.

G'night...

Apple

To say the missiles being put in Cuba as a response to the Bay of Pigs is making claims for which you can have no facts - unless you somehow have access to Kruschev's thought process. It also weakens any argument you have when you make up facts to shore up your arguments.

Kennedy's presidency started out a little rocky, but he got stronger and stronger as a leader. His handling of the missile crisis was like a chess game and he out played the Russians.

If he had lived, and got us out of Vietnam like he intended, this country would have been a far different place. The turmoil of the 60's wouldn't have been driven by the anti-war sentiment.

Just think of it, JFK is re-elected in 1964 and is followed by 8 years of his more liberal brother Robert. It's enough to make the conservatives cry!

True, it would make a scary bad dream but actually never would've happened. Had his brother lived, I don't think RFK would have ever run for President.

Speaking of Robert though, he most definitely would've been elected in 1968 had he not been assasinated. I'm not sure just how swell his presidency would've been, however. Probably very similar to the disasterous 4 years we suffered under Jimmy Carter.

But of course, as with JFK's re-election speculation...we shall never know.


AppleOnYa

And then, since Teddy wouldn't have been drinking as heavily (without the deaths of his 2 brothers) he never would've been at that party on Martha's Vineyard. He gets elected in 1976 and 1980.

Then we run out of electable Kennedy's until JFK junior turns 35. It's a conservative nightmare!

Actually, I think RFK would've been elected in 1968. I think he would've gotten us out of Vietnam quicker than Nixon did, but what a battle he would've had with J. Edgar Hoover. Hoover may not have liked JFK much, but he hated RFK.

Dear Apple,

I would like to know your opinon on why you lost "respect" for me which I could care less about in mentioning JFK by Oliver Stone. It was named one of the Top Ten movies of the 90's and makes a good case in proving the assasination of JFK as a conspiracy. I too was skeptical of the movie being fact but I have done a lot of research on the movie and in general the entire assasination plot. In my mind there is no way it wasn't a conspiracy with the CIA being behind it the whole way. If you would like to talk about this i've got some great facts for you. Maybe i'm wrong though maybe you just didn't like the movie. I would like a response though.

I'm not saying the movie wasn't entertaining, which it was...and I agree one of the best released that year.

But that doesn't make all the over-researched, exagerated conspiracy theories within it anywhere close to the truth. And it should not be recommended as a film in which anyone will find...the TRUTH behind JFK's assasination.

If you want to recommend it as a great movie then that's one thing. But to recommend it as fact v. fiction is another.

Now don't get your panties all in a twist again, DFTC. I've had my say and you've had yours. It's over.

Take care,
Apple

You said it, Apple! It’s good entertainment. But most of it is fiction. To support his thesis that President Kennedy was murdered by the CIA, acting on behalf of unnamed right-wing interests, Oliver Stone had to create a picture of JFK as a liberal “flower child” who was knocked off because he irritated the Radical Right by sucking up to the Russians, opposing the oil depletion allowance, planning to dump Vice President Lyndon B. Johnson from his ticket in 1964, etc.

Nothing could be further from the truth. JFK was a dedicated Cold Warrior who took a much harsher line toward the USSR than did his predecessor, Dwight D. Eisenhower; and who brought us to the brink of nuclear war several times during his brief administration. Kennedy never opposed the oil depletion allowance, either as a Congressman, Senator or President. And he valued LBJ for his skill in dealing with Congress (a skill JFK utterly lacked), and was depending on him to carry Texas in 1964 (as he did in 1960) and possibly other Southern states.

Stone tries to make a hero out of New Orleans DA Jim Garrison, a crackpot who had no credibility even with the most diehard conspiracy theorists. One of his own staffers said that “as an investigator, Jim Garrison couldn’t find a pubic hair in a whorehouse during rush hour.” Garrison’s reputation, never strong, took a terminal nosedive after the debacle of the Clay Shaw trial. Shaw was acquitted, and even Garrison’s fans were disgusted with the prosecution’s performance.

We've had a few discussions in the past about the JFK assassination, so I'm not going to dredge up all the theories again.

The Stone film was a mish-mosh, in which he incorporated parts of other theories along with Jim Garrison's. I certainly wouldn't rely on it as a factual representation of history.

The fact is though, that in my opinion there is a lot more credible evidence of a conspiracy of some sort than there is for the theory that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone.

The problem is, after reading about 20 books on the subject, I'm just not sure which conspiracy theory I subscribe to.

I agree with all of you on this subject I was just suggesting a movie that I find very interesting. I also agree with you on the reality of the movie, I feel Oliver Stone tried to incorporate every single theory possible so as not to leave anything out. However we cannot deny all the eye witness who saw smoke behind the grassy knoll, the way President Kennedy's head went "back and to the left" "back and to the left" "back and to the left" "back and to the left" I always thought they did that about 4 times to many in the movie. So personally theres just to much there to make me think it was one man. Who then himself is murdered before he can say anything or get a chance to prove anything in his own defense. Its strange very strange.

No, you recommended it to Turi as a movie that would reveal "... more about JFK and his assasination...", you claimed it was interesting although biased because "...a lot of its true."

You recommended it as "...A very good movie that lets people into the world in which JFK lived in and all the enemies he had among him."

I give you credit, DFTC, for now agreeing that while interesting, the reality of Stone's 'incorporations' are to be questioned at the very least.

But of course...I'm sure Turi knew all that, anyway, without Turnbull, plawrence and myself having to point it out !!

Apple

Yea I think it does raise some questions about JFK's assasinations and I think it brings up some good points too. I also think it lets us in on the fact that JFK did have enemies around him how do you figure it didn't????

Did I say it didn't?

Once again you are making assumptions and putting words in other's mouths in order to stir up an argument.

Get over yourself, and quite while you're a

And I will, too (sorry, forgot to add that the first time...!!! )
Apple

well the way you worded it, it sounded as if you were attacking what I had said. You need to take it easy and not get so worked up in life. Its too short to be getting all upset over nothing. I really think its hilarious how pathetic you are. I love messing with you, your so easy to get going. I can't wait to read your next reply. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

Up at the beginning of this topic, there was talk about maybe the Sam Giancana-Kennedy relation story was false... because why would Giancana help Kennedy? Actually, it was, true, because Joseph Kennedy asked Frank Sinatra to ask Giancana if he would swing votes for Kennedy. Giancana agreed to do it as a personal favor to Frank Sinatra, with whom he was friends.