JFK was a pervert

Caroline Kennedy turned six, on November 27th, 1963 - 5 days after her father's death. JFK never got the chance to sleep with a woman younger than his daughter.

Would he have if he had lived another 15-20 years? We'll never know...

 

And frankly most of us weren't even wondering.

 

If she didn't want it, she should have turned him down. When I was 20, which was only a few years ago, by the way, I had an nice looking older women make advances to me, and I wanted nothing to do with it, so, I ::gasp:: turned her down. Just because your in your late teens/early 20s, doesn't mean you can't make informed decisions. The lady was an adult for Gods sake.

It seems like Neocons only like it when young adults die in stupid wars, or get annoyed with jury duty. Sex, alchohol, and the works, they want to either restrict, baby or condemn.

 

I got to give it to you on this one, I laughed my ass off when I saw this.

 

You telling me that you wouldn't have knocked the lining out of that hootch back in the day? And whoever said that women have to think?

 

Still struggling with reading comprehension, eh, kid?
It's clearly better to not be a hypocrite and tell others how to behave while you are living in the gutter yourself.

 

So, it's better not to have principles, then. Thanks for clarifying.

Dems don't run on infidelity and serial philandering. To act like they are not hypocrites when they get busted for cheating on their wives is foolish.

 

Lol...Unlike cons, who run on family values while behaving like perverts.

 

Liberal Dems do run on a sense of moral superiority, however. Is infidelity part of the left's moral superiority, these days? Honest question, because the left is so (*)(*)(*)(*)ed up, I really wouldn't be surprised.

 

Given the morass of right-wing hypocrisy, stupidity, intolerance and selfishness that characterizes their opposition, who can blame them?

 

Glad we agree that the left employs a sense of moral superiority. However, you managed to avoid the question I asked. How does infidelity work with the moral superiority that the left has? Is infidelity part of it, nowadays? Let's answer this time, we wouldn't want to reveal the left's hypocrisy, stupidity, intolerance, and selfishness, now would we?

 

Sorry, but supply-siders do not have a monopoly on lowering taxes. That is just absurd. What makes supply-siders unique in their defense for lower taxes is that they argue that it is a panacea to all our economic problems. This is what makes students of this particular school of thought "charlatans and cranks" to quote Mankiw - a leading conservative economist.

I used the phrase "charlatans and cranks" in the first edition of my principles textbook to describe some of the economic advisers to Ronald Reagan, who told him that broad-based income tax cuts would have such large supply-side effects that the tax cuts would raise tax revenue. I did not find such a claim credible, based on the available evidence. I never have, and I still don't.
http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/07/on-charlatons-and-cranks.html

In addition, you call me a lib since I view supply-side economics as anathema to my views. This is an extremely ignorant statement based delusions and only a partisan hack would make such a flagrant statement. I support many tax cuts. However, I simply don't view tax cuts as a panacea to all of our problems.

I don't have time to watch your video nor am I going to defend modern day liberals. However anyone who disagrees with your historical revisionism is going to get labeled a modern day liberal while you passive aggressively label anyone who disagrees with you as a partisan hack. The irony in you is strong.

Yes, there is room for debate. Calling Kennedy a supply-side conservative President is historical revisionism at its finest. Kennedy was simply not a supply-conservative President.

We finally agree on something. I am for cutting spending and limiting the scope of the federal government. However, this is what supply-siders often forget. They cut taxes since they always believe that we are on the right side of the Laffer curve pinnacle and then increase spending.

Go ahead and bash nanny-state liberals all you want. However, your energy should be focused on your supply-side brethren whose mantra is cut taxes and increase spending. However, partisan hacks never take issue with this fact.

 

Neither do I. Are you arguing a strawman, or are you just making statements hoping they will stick somewhere?

Yes, of course you won't watch the video. It's far more comfortable to just assume increasing taxes on the rich will solve our problems, even though they won't.

Why did he lower corporate tax rates, then? Why is it that when Democrats cut personal and corporate taxes, they are demand side only, but when Republicans cut personal and corporate taxes, they are "supply-siders"?

Who's mantra is that? My "brethren" will want to cut spending as well as taxes.

 

Truly a great post. You have pointed out a major problem. If someone disagrees with a certain type of right winger on one very narrow issue they are automatically labeled a "liberal" and everything they say is then ignored or misconstrued.

Another problem that you pointed out is taking things completely out of historical context. The top marginal tax rate under Kennedy was 91%! That "supply sider" slashed it to 65%. If Obama proposed a 65% top marginal tax rate today I doubt anyone would call him a "supply sider."

People just don't understand economics. When you are on the 91% marginal tax rate part of the curve that is a vastly different scenario than when the top marginal tax rate is 35%. Anyone that thinks the phenomena witnessed when moving from 91% to 65% will be present in the same magnitude when moving from 35% to 20% or 15% is on crack.

Another thing totally disregarded by the right when they make these ridiculous JFK "supply sider" arguments is the federal budget was vastly different back then. There was no medicare or medicaid. The military was at its Pre-Vietnam size. In other words most of today's current expenditures didn't even exist back then. I am no expert on the federal budget on the 1960s but I'm curious why the top marginal rate was 91% when the federal government was a fraction of the size it is today. I suspect not many people were paying that full 91%

 

So did Roman Polanski, didn't he? For liberals, if it isn't illegal, they're good to go. That's why they think no human can behave without strict government oversight and control.

And, liberals think it's cool for a sitting President of the U.S. to order a college student intern to give his buddy a blowjob. There is no sense of shame for some.

 

Bottom line is JFK's daddy literally bought the election.http://books.google.ca/books?id=slV...ction+for+JFK&source=bl&ots=FGAxAgNxm7&sig=sH
Bottom line is the Kennedy boys were brought up to believe they could behave anyway they wanted and 'daddy' would make things OK. JFK was a pervert who used his imbalance of power to take advantage of a young woman. He then was just enough of a pig to 'pimp' her out to his buddies. No matter how long ago it happened any man who would behave like that is scum in the eyes of any sane human being.

 

Awful lot of that going around, now and always. Not just rich and powerful. At the bottom end of the spectrum, fatherless families are the norm. The "(*)(*)(*)(*) 'em and forget 'em," attitude has nothing to do with net worth.

 

I will show you what a strawman is.

That is a strawman. I never argued or implied this.

Kennedy lowered the corporate tax from 52% to 50%. How is that a practice in supply-side economics?

Well, which Republicans have done that since supply-siders took over since the Reagan administration? All I have seen is spending going up.

 

Sure you didn't. Tax cuts don't solve problems, and you aren't for raising taxes on the rich? What's your solution, then? Let me guess, "a balanced approach"?

Combined with a much lower top marginal tax rate, and an explanation about how higher taxes discourages investment, it was a solid supply-side argument. Again, whether or not this was his intention or not is debatable.

Reagan pushed hard for spending cuts. He was stymied by Tip Oneil and his Democratic congress. He made the mistake of trusting Dems when they offered him tax hikes now for spending cuts down the line. And they wondered why Repubs didn't want to go along with that idea last year.

 

YES spending is going UP

FY 2003
Revenue $1,782.3 trillion [down $70.8 billion from FY2002.
Spending $2,159.9 trillion, [UP $149 billion] Deficit, $377.6 billion.
FY 2004
Revenue, $1,880.1 [up from FY2003
Spending, $2,292.8, Deficit, $412.7 billion [a national and Republican High RECORD deficit]
FY 2005
Revenue, $2,153.6 trillion [UP again]
Spending $2,472.0 trillion, Deficit, $318.4 billion [Down from FY 2004]
FY2006
Revenue, $2,406.9 trillion [UP again]
Spending $2,655.1 trillion, Deficit $248.2 billion. [DOWN again]
FY2007
Revenue $2,568.0 trillion [UP again]
Spending, $2,728.7 trillion, deficit $160.7 billion [DOWN again] And taxes still cut and 2 wars still going on AND BEING PAID IN FULL!

DEMOCRATS TAKE OVER BOTH HOUSES OF CONGRESS.

FY2008
Revenue $2,524.0 [DOWN from 2007]
Spending $2,982.5 trillion, Deficit $458.6 billion [UP from 2007] And a new national and Democrat RECORD high deficit!
FY 2009
Revenue,2,105.0 [DOWN again]
Spending, $3,517.7 trillion, Deficit $1,412.7TRILLION. [UP again] and a NEW Democrat high deficit and the first deficit over $1 trillon. This record beats the Republican record by exactly $1 trillion dollars.
FY2010
Revenue, $2,162.7 trillion. [UP from 2009]
Spending $3,456.2 trillion, Deficit $1,293.5, TRILLION. [another TRILLION DOLLAR DEFICIT]
FY2011
Revenue $2,303.5 trillion [UP again]
Spending $3,603.1 trillion, Deficit $1,299.6 TRILLION. [another trillion dollar deficit]

Total deficits by Republicans FY2003 thru FY 2007 [5 years]
$1,517.6 trillion
Total deficits by Democrats FY 2008 thru FY 2011 [4 years]
$4,464.4 TRILLION

Gross increase in spending by Republicans, $568.8 billion
Gross increase in spending by Democrats, $620.6 billion.

These are the real numbers.

 

Any man/woman who is in a position of power over someone else......whatever their age differences, who is clearly exercising an abuse of that 'imbalance of power' for their sexual gratification is committing an immoral and some would suggest an illegal act. That is what is at issue here. Not the young woman's age. There are those on this forum who are suggesting that this woman's claims are not necessarily true. Go back to those whose who were in the Kennedy's 'inner circle' and they have all agreed that in fact this woman did have an affair with JFK. The fact that JFK 'pimped' her out to his buddies speaks volumes about his lack of character. You agree that she may have been "too scared to say something". That sounds a lot like 'work place' rape to me. The word 'victim' comes to my mind. Does that word also come to your mind?
Woman at work who goes to the authorities: "He was the most important man in the company and I had only worked there for four days. He influenced/talked me into having sex with him and then he sent me to one of his friends, also a powerful man in the company, to have sex with him. Was what he did wrong?". One last point. If someone in their mid forties did what JFK did to the young woman who just happened to be your daughter/sister/relative what would you be thinking about the person who was clearly committing an immoral act associated with the 'imbalance of power?

 

JFK died 50 years ago next November.

I'm not saying this isn't important (though I'm not totally convinced that it is), but how does it go in "Current events"?

 

It is well known that Pelosi banged her way to the top.