JFK - 50 years ago

[Bean Bag]

This Friday will mark the 50th anniversary of JFK's assassination.  An event that changed America forever.

Why do they say that?  Have you ever wondered?  I have.  Did it change America?  Really?  He wasn't the first President to die -- or be assassinated.  (Remember Lincoln?)  Was it because JFK was just so totally awesome and the country so behind him?  Or smitten perhaps, with the fantasy of "Camelot?"  

No.


JFK was in trouble in 1963.  His reelection in jeopardy.  The whole Camelot thing came later, after his death.  Still... how did this "change America forever?"  The real story is told in this book:  
Camelot & the Cultural Revolution: How the Assassination of John F. Kennedy Shattered American Liberalism

Basically... it changed AMERICAN LIBERALISM.  Not America.  It's because JFK was killed by a COMMUNIST.  A communist killed JFK.  A communist.  And the Left in this country couldn't process that.  Joseph McCarthy was supposed to be the great evil.  Not one of their own.  So they began constructing lies, to make sure history saw it their way.

Kennedy -- by today's standards would be quite Conservative.  He cut taxes and believed in American military strength.  With Kennedy died the old Democrat Party.  A once good party.  And the carcass of the old Democrat Party was feasted on by a blood-thirsty demonic (I love saying that!) brand of Leftist.  The pro-communist.  The pro-socialist.  The pro-progressive.  That's why it changed America.  The Democrat Party became the DemoRat Party -- at war with America.  



Anyway... reflect on this event how you must, just thought some truth would be helpful while you do.  It was of course a true tragedy.  In more ways than the media will be telling you.  

 Lincoln, Garfield, and McKinley were all killed long before the age of mass media, while JFK's death was processed by millions in an entirely different way. Here's another bulletin for you: The assassination of an American president would always be a traumatic event.

 As for political troubles, JFK was indeed down a bit in the polls, but he would have still defeated Barry Goldwater, although not by the landslide LBJ did.

 You are correct in stating that the liberalism of JFK might not mesh with the liberalism of say EMK, but again we are talking about differences in context and era. JFK was never fully trusted by the more liberal elements of the Democratic Party, in part because of his reluctance to condemn McCarthy, etc.

A traumatic event is a traumatic event -- Thanks for the bulletin.   

I disagree that "mass media" made a difference with Kennedy though.  There was no interweb, DrudgeReport and YouTube.  No cellphones, chat rooms and Politico.  No Keith Olbermann.  No Air America.  No wall-to-wall, cable news (to drive the left crazier than they are).  It was caught on tape -- yes, but was that widely seen at the time?  Like 9/11 was?  With those towers coming down, unholy, on Live TV. 

Regardless.  If the media of 1963 changed how people "processed," as you say, the event -- fine, but I don't think it changed America.  Which was the topic point.  It changed American Liberalism.  The point was the media has remade the event -- made an effort to change history -- and thus how people see it today.  That's the deeper point that the author was making -- and as I mentioned in my initial post.  A commie, pinko killed the President.  And the Liberal/Progressives took the opportunity, to plant their flag.  The Progressives are back.

Never let a crisis go to waste.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Bean, anyone who can read a single sentence of words strung together can gather that Oswald denounced both Communism and Capitalism. Nor was he any shining example of some rightous Communist soldier. Most people anyhow believe he was simply a puppet of both extreme right and left wing shadow factions colluded with organized crime...... JFK's assasination changed neither liberalism or conservatism squat.

Mind you: I do get your thinking and it has validity I can easily see if I make the mental leap for a moment. I just don't happen to agree.... Not necesarilly in that it didn't so much change liberalism per se, but that it's just one of those incidents that any/all sides can spin to mean basically whatever they want.

[guitarfool2002]

Bean, anyone who can read a single sentence of words strung together can gather that Oswald denounced both Communism and Capitalism. Nor was he any shining example of some rightous Communist soldier. Most people anyhow believe he was simply a puppet of both extreme right and left wing shadow factions colluded with organized crime...... JFK's assasination changed neither liberalism or conservatism squat.

Mind you: I do get your thinking and it has validity I can easily see if I make the mental leap for a moment. I just don't happen to agree.... Not necesarilly in that it didn't so much change liberalism per se, but that it's just one of those incidents that any/all sides can spin to mean basically whatever they want.

Maybe you missed this from page 1. There is film of Oswald after returning from Russia where this can be seen and heard in Oswald's own words.

Oswald is on camera saying he was not a Communist...but he was a Marxist. It would seem he soured on the actual implementation of Communism, yet held fast and true to his Marxism. Of course there's a conspiracy theory disputing that, but judge for yourself.

And it was odd last month to witness two infamous "anniversaries" of tragedies...both JFK and the Jim Jones "Jonestown" mass murder.

And it's ironic how both key figures in those tragedies were avowed and very vocal/loyal Marxists.

Hmm. 

Anyway, check out the book about the accidental kill shot, and see if that adds another angle to all the theories.

It's tough to argue a point when a man's own words are captured on a newsreel saying he is a Marxist. And that's where we get into all the issues of parsing words and everything else, but the fact is Oswald was a Marxist.

And that's the crux of the issue for some people, when the JFK history is being bastardized into a narrative that the "far right" philosophies led to this. No matter who fired the "kill shot", did Oswald fire his weapon that day in Dallas?

And if any overreaching bias was at play against Jack Kennedy, the part that gets lost to the "new history" behind JFK is that many more were opposed to JFK if not holding a personal grudge against him because of his religion - JFK was Irish Catholic, and even in the heat of the 1960 campaign this angered a lot of people across party lines who didn't want a Catholic president. But that aspect gets whitewashed out of the new narrative because it doesn't fit the desired goals of that narrative.

Look it up.   

[Bean Bag]

Bean, anyone who can read a single sentence of words strung together can gather that Oswald denounced both Communism and Capitalism. Nor was he any shining example of some rightous Communist soldier. Most people anyhow believe he was simply a puppet of both extreme right and left wing shadow factions colluded with organized crime...... JFK's assasination changed neither liberalism or conservatism squat.

Mind you: I do get your thinking and it has validity I can easily see if I make the mental leap for a moment. I just don't happen to agree.... Not necesarilly in that it didn't so much change liberalism per se, but that it's just one of those incidents that any/all sides can spin to mean basically whatever they want.

I'm not going argue/defend the author's assertions.  I haven't read the book, nor am I an expert on the subject.  I don't know if Oswald poured hot candle wax on his chest while reading Marx or not.  But the basic premise was interesting.

The media (aka the modern Left) has remade history into something it was not.  A total Camelot fantasy.
The modern Left has become radical Progressive, since about this time.
And... why all the wacky conspiracy theories?  A diversion?


There's a long overdue discussion here -- not about grassy knolls, and all that.  But, rather the actions of the modern Left.  They're the ones that have made this curious and fishy, with all their actions since.  For whatever reason.  Why did they canonize JFK?  Especially since JFK would be at odds with the radical agenda of those propping him up?  Isn't that weird?

Things are what they are, so I have no recourse but to accept them.  But I do not have to accept what Radicals tell me, if common sense reveals something quite different.  So now, I have no recourse but to be curious.  The modern Left propping up and rewriting the legacy of a guy who did not agree with them. That makes me super-wicked-curious.  And I would think it should make you too.

I suspect, the book just exercises this natural inclination to explore that which doesn't make sense.  And a good detective would explore that which makes them twitch the most.

[guitarfool2002]

I know what happens here...from previous issues...so please keep in mind the fact that Oswald is on film revealing all we need to know about him, in his own words, to effectively settle this non-issue. Marxist. Period. No debate necessary.

Notice too how the telling of the "Jonestown" incident can sometimes go less on the Marxist angle of the story than might be told if Jones had been filmed discussing another "-ism" that he followed or believed in. Anyway.


Plus...no detective skills necessary. It's simple. What does that kind of narrative depend on perhaps more than anything in order to spread the word? What is the base, "gut feeling" kind of undercurrent behind any of these historical or even current-event type of scenarios where a narrative is woven into the actual reporting and analysis in order to promote another agenda or philosophy as a "solution", "cure", or even panacea to heal the wounds and solve the issue at hand?

Emotion. And if emotion and emotional response should happen to get in the way of reality and any kind of factual account of what really happened, that's not only allowed but encouraged. Because emotion can open vulnerable people up to anyone offering a grand solution, something to heal everyone's pain, and right there is the heart of this thing in a nutshell, applicable to many similar "tragedies" and the solutions offered in their wake.

Who needs a detective to suss that out? 

[Bean Bag]

Yes.  To the radicals (who would otherwise not be privileged to our sensibilities) actual events are merely kindling to their narrative fire.



The more emotion tied to the event, the more fuel it provides.

[Bean Bag]

I know what happens here...from previous issues...so please keep in mind the fact that Oswald is on film revealing all we need to know about him, in his own words, to effectively settle this non-issue. Marxist. Period. No debate necessary.

Notice too how the telling of the "Jonestown" incident can sometimes go less on the Marxist angle of the story than might be told if Jones had been filmed discussing another "-ism" that he followed or believed in. Anyway.


Plus...no detective skills necessary. It's simple. What does that kind of narrative depend on perhaps more than anything in order to spread the word? What is the base, "gut feeling" kind of undercurrent behind any of these historical or even current-event type of scenarios where a narrative is woven into the actual reporting and analysis in order to promote another agenda or philosophy as a "solution", "cure", or even panacea to heal the wounds and solve the issue at hand?

Emotion. And if emotion and emotional response should happen to get in the way of reality and any kind of factual account of what really happened, that's not only allowed but encouraged. Because emotion can open vulnerable people up to anyone offering a grand solution, something to heal everyone's pain, and right there is the heart of this thing in a nutshell, applicable to many similar "tragedies" and the solutions offered in their wake.

Who needs a detective to suss that out? 

Putting on my Columbo trench-coat, I would argue that the Marxist angle is thus NOT a non-issue as you say.  If it's the missing common-denominator in both this and the Jonestown story.  Is that what you're saying?

[guitarfool2002]

I know what happens here...from previous issues...so please keep in mind the fact that Oswald is on film revealing all we need to know about him, in his own words, to effectively settle this non-issue. Marxist. Period. No debate necessary.

Notice too how the telling of the "Jonestown" incident can sometimes go less on the Marxist angle of the story than might be told if Jones had been filmed discussing another "-ism" that he followed or believed in. Anyway.


Plus...no detective skills necessary. It's simple. What does that kind of narrative depend on perhaps more than anything in order to spread the word? What is the base, "gut feeling" kind of undercurrent behind any of these historical or even current-event type of scenarios where a narrative is woven into the actual reporting and analysis in order to promote another agenda or philosophy as a "solution", "cure", or even panacea to heal the wounds and solve the issue at hand?

Emotion. And if emotion and emotional response should happen to get in the way of reality and any kind of factual account of what really happened, that's not only allowed but encouraged. Because emotion can open vulnerable people up to anyone offering a grand solution, something to heal everyone's pain, and right there is the heart of this thing in a nutshell, applicable to many similar "tragedies" and the solutions offered in their wake.

Who needs a detective to suss that out? 

Putting on my Columbo trench-coat, I would argue that the Marxist angle is thus NOT a non-issue as you say.  If it's the missing common-denominator in both this and the Jonestown story.  Is that what you're saying?

It is the common denominator, as I see it, and as I posted and re-posted my previous words from page one, it's the undercurrent running through these issues that some of the new narratives would like to shut out. It's the unspoken reality behind Jim Jones as well, where we have him on camera espousing Marxism and Marxist philosophies just before his "Jonestown" communal society became a mass graveyard. The anniversaries of both the JFK/Oswald and Jonestown events happened to fall within the same time frame.

What caught my eye was seeing any further debate on Oswald getting stoked here a few weeks later in light of the fact that we can all watch film of Oswald in his own words saying he's a Marxist after fleeing Russia.

I didn't understand how and where there would be further debate necessary on who or what Oswald was or what his political philosophies may have been when we have film of him in his own words saying he's a Marxist. And this was a guy named Oswald before 98% of the public at large knew anything about Lee Oswald, where his defection to Russia was a minor story that still garnered enough novelty interest in the press at the time to have news cameras interviewing him on his attempt to return to the US after renouncing his citizenship and moving to Russia.

That's what I meant by "non-issue", where we have a guy on camera saying exactly who he was, and therefore that would seem to end any speculation or debate on where his political beliefs were at the time. A man says he's a Marxist, he's a Marxist - end of debate, and I can't see any point in trying to argue against the man's own words after the fact. Unless half a century later we can find some way to go back in time and convince Oswald he's really not what he said he was, in order to fit the new narrative.

That's silly. 

[SMiLE Brian]

Pinder, GF, and Bean's  points in this thread are great. My personal theory was Oswald was a loner who threw out political terms like "marxism" to cover up a deep dislike of society that really didn't belong to any left or right group. He wanted to be somebody and did so by killing Kennedy.

[guitarfool2002]

Pinder, GF, and Bean's  points in this thread are great. My personal theory was Oswald was a loner who threw out political terms like "marxism" to cover up a deep dislike of society that really didn't belong to any left or right group. He wanted to be somebody and did so by killing Kennedy.

All I ask is that you have a look and listen at these clips, time permitting, and reconsider some parts of that theory after hearing Oswald in his own words.

These were taken in and around August 1963, centered around New Orleans, when Oswald had garnered some notice in the press after being arrested for handing out "Fair Play For Cuba" leaflets in that city. His title was officially the "secretary" of that group, and therefore he was approached by at least these two media outlets for interviews and comments after his public arrest brought attention to the larger group.

One is a short local television interview, the other a radio interview for a program that catered to Latin American issues.

Remember, this in August 1963...Oswald was still a nobody for most of the public, but was considered enough of a story for these local interviewers to seek him out.

And after hearing him speak, does he sound at all confused or conflicted about who he is or what he believes as he states very clearly "I am a Marxist" and proceeds to run through a set of facts on and about Marxism, socialism, and communism that suggests he knew exactly what he was talking about, rather than being a loner who simply latched on to a movement or philosophy?

August 1963 TV interview:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JP4qwrniKt0

August 1963 radio interview part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vy9k5C94ENw

August 1963 radio part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wjg188Yk7BI

August 1963 radio part 3:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AFqRx-wJw8Y

Oswald was invited back on the program for a panel discussion and debate, after the interview posted above. Here is that panel show on tape:

Panel discussion Aug 1963 part 1:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ao2a9mRWkso

Panel discussion Aug '63 part 2:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ya9BLrmOf2o

Listening to this, the man not only seems knowledgeable on the topics at hand, but also self-confident in his beliefs on socialism and Marxism and his support of Fidel Castro, and was willing to identify himself without question as a Marxist.

I cannot see how there can be a debate over who or what Oswald was after hearing him in his own words before he was an infamous figure or much of a figure at all outside of New Orleans after his arrest.

EDIT: I added two clips of a follow up appearance Oswald made on that radio program, where he was part of a panel discussion. Again, Oswald clearly states "Yes, I am a Marxist" and proceeds to discuss Marxism versus communism.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I know what happens here...from previous issues...so please keep in mind the fact that Oswald is on film revealing all we need to know about him, in his own words, to effectively settle this non-issue. Marxist. Period. No debate necessary.

Notice too how the telling of the "Jonestown" incident can sometimes go less on the Marxist angle of the story than might be told if Jones had been filmed discussing another "-ism" that he followed or believed in. Anyway.


Plus...no detective skills necessary. It's simple. What does that kind of narrative depend on perhaps more than anything in order to spread the word? What is the base, "gut feeling" kind of undercurrent behind any of these historical or even current-event type of scenarios where a narrative is woven into the actual reporting and analysis in order to promote another agenda or philosophy as a "solution", "cure", or even panacea to heal the wounds and solve the issue at hand?

Emotion. And if emotion and emotional response should happen to get in the way of reality and any kind of factual account of what really happened, that's not only allowed but encouraged. Because emotion can open vulnerable people up to anyone offering a grand solution, something to heal everyone's pain, and right there is the heart of this thing in a nutshell, applicable to many similar "tragedies" and the solutions offered in their wake.

Who needs a detective to suss that out?  

I'm sorry, but a mere moment caught on film does not tell us "all we need to know" about someone.... The story is a very easy to dig a bit deeper into.

Who cares what he considered himself anyhow? Yeah, he allegedly shot uber "liberal" JFK, yet he also tried to assasinate ultra "Conservative" General Walker..... This guy was a tad mixed up, but here we are slinging these stiupid terms around once again like they mean anything.... Don't you guys get tired of it??

[Bean Bag]

Don't confuse the act of pointing out how people are rewriting history with trying to apply meaning to a senseless act committed by a mixed up man.

[guitarfool2002]

Explain how nearly an hour's worth of audio tape from radio interviews and panel discussions along with the television clip adds up to a "mere moment". It's Oswald captured in his own words expressing his beliefs and Marxist philosophies coinciding with his support of Fidel Castro, summer 1963, when he was only on the public's radar screen for handing out a leftist group's pro-Castro leaflets in New Orleans. But I guess this man repeatedly saying "I am a Marxist" doesn't count for anything, does it? Same with Jim Jones, I guess just because he's on camera saying he's a Marxist isn't enough for those who don't want his expressed following of Marxism to be a part of the historical record in these cases.

Unlike, say, trying to suggest "hate radio" and "lack of civility" in political discourse or anything of the sort was behind another more recent tragedy. Paging Sheriff Dupnik, who seemed to think making political hay out of a crime scene was more important than the case at hand.

I guess if you really don't want to see something, there are a million excuses for keeping your eyes shut.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Explain how nearly an hour's worth of audio tape from radio interviews and panel discussions along with the television clip adds up to a "mere moment". It's Oswald captured in his own words expressing his beliefs and Marxist philosophies coinciding with his support of Fidel Castro, summer 1963, when he was only on the public's radar screen for handing out a leftist group's pro-Castro leaflets in New Orleans. But I guess this man repeatedly saying "I am a Marxist" doesn't count for anything, does it? Same with Jim Jones, I guess just because he's on camera saying he's a Marxist isn't enough for those who don't want his expressed following of Marxism to be a part of the historical record in these cases.

Unlike, say, trying to suggest "hate radio" and "lack of civility" in political discourse or anything of the sort was behind another more recent tragedy. Paging Sheriff Dupnik, who seemed to think making political hay out of a crime scene was more important than the case at hand.

I guess if you really don't want to see something, there are a million excuses for keeping your eyes shut.

I've listened to all that stuff and have read countless books in the subject. I'm not just tossing off an opinion. I happen to agree with Smile Brian that Oswald was a severely mixed up man who's own politics were extremely confused, and had more to do with his wanting to be somebody than his being a staunch this or that. The guy was only 24 years old when he was killed, for Christ's sake: not exactly a fully formed, mature human being and much of his behavior was highly contradictory (like most guys in their early 20's)  It would be a mistake to take almost anything the guy said on face value...... Oswald was either a patsy of simply a murderer..... Would I accuse Ted Bundy of changing Conservatism forever because he worked for Ross Davis (chairman of the Washington State Republican Party)? Of course not! He was a sick murderer, and that's all..... I personally don't give two shits what someone says they are (Marxist, Communist, Conservative, Liberal etc etc etc). I means absolutely nothing to me. How they apply their supposed beliefs/views in practical day to day life is what matters. Most faux conservatives or liberals only behave as such for the 5 minutes they spend in a voting booth every few years.

[Bean Bag]

Unlike, say, trying to suggest "hate radio" and "lack of civility" in political discourse or anything of the sort was behind another more recent tragedy. Paging Sheriff Dupnik, who seemed to think making political hay out of a crime scene was more important than the case at hand.

Ah, yes.  Tucson, Arizona.  The lunatic who shot a sitting Congresswoman.  Yeah, I remember that.  They told people it was right-wing talk radio that led to that horrific act of madness in Arizona.  They being the media.  And that wonderful President we got, what's was his name?  Who cares.  Anyway, that turd of a President showed up to give a speech in Tucson to talk about toning done the political rhetoric.

They had T-Shirts made.  I found a pic, in case everyone forgot.  A woman's fighting for her life, a little girl died -- as did others -- and that piece of you know what, President of ours is handing out tacky, chotchkies!  Using this awful event to talk about toning down the political rhetoric against him.  Not hypocritical, at all.


And, shoot... while I'm at it... weren't them Tea Party folks blamed for the Boston Marathon bombing?  They were.  By people in the media!  Oh... the media.  Again, many may have forgotten.  The crazy right-wing was initially blamed for that too.  Well, until the actual radicals were ID'ed.  And all was forgotten.  Happy times.


Now that I think about it -- weren't "Right Wing Extremists" blamed for that SUV bomb that was left un-detonated and later diffused in NYC?  Yes!  Of course no one remember this one.  But I do, because of -- not some loony on a blog, or some tool in the media -- but Mr Mayor himself.  Michael Doomberg.  Michael (Run As A Republican So People Think I'm NOT A Left Wing Nut) Bloomberg.  What a fck face that guy was.  Publicly blaming these mythical right-wing extremists, who he imagined were angry about taxes, er something all redneck-like.


And remember the Clintons?  That pair of azzhats?  Blaming "right-wing" extremists for everything.  Golly, I can't wait for that failure of a Secretary of State to run for President.  Cuz, you know... she's a "strong woman."  And we need a strong woman.   




Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh, Liberal T-Shirts!!

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Unlike, say, trying to suggest "hate radio" and "lack of civility" in political discourse or anything of the sort was behind another more recent tragedy. Paging Sheriff Dupnik, who seemed to think making political hay out of a crime scene was more important than the case at hand.

Ah, yes.  Tucson, Arizona.  The lunatic who shot a sitting Congresswoman.  Yeah, I remember that.  They told people it was right-wing talk radio that led to that horrific act of madness in Arizona.  They being the media.  And that wonderful President we got, what's was his name?  Who cares.  Anyway, that turd of a President showed up to give a speech in Tucson to talk about toning done the political rhetoric.

They had T-Shirts made.  I found a pic, in case everyone forgot.  A woman's fighting for her life, a little girl died -- as did others -- and that piece of you know what, President of ours is handing out tacky, chotchkies!  Using this awful event to talk about toning down the political rhetoric against him.  Not hypocritical, at all.


And, shoot... while I'm at it... weren't them Tea Party folks blamed for the Boston Marathon bombing?  They were.  By people in the media!  Oh... the media.  Again, many may have forgotten.  The crazy right-wing was initially blamed for that too.  Well, until the actual radicals were ID'ed.  And all was forgotten.  Happy times.


Now that I think about it -- weren't "Right Wing Extremists" blamed for that SUV bomb that was left un-detonated and later diffused in NYC?  Yes!  Of course no one remember this one.  But I do, because of -- not some loony on a blog, or some tool in the media -- but Mr Mayor himself.  Michael Doomberg.  Michael (Run As A Republican So People Think I'm NOT A Left Wing Nut) Bloomberg.  What a fck face that guy was.  Publicly blaming these mythical right-wing extremists, who he imagined were angry about taxes, er something all redneck-like.


And remember the Clintons?  That pair of azzhats?  Blaming "right-wing" extremists for everything.  Golly, I can't wait for that failure of a Secretary of State to run for President.  Cuz, you know... she's a "strong woman."  And we need a strong woman.   




Duuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuuh, Liberal T-Shirts!!

A little obsessive are we???

[guitarfool2002]

Explain how nearly an hour's worth of audio tape from radio interviews and panel discussions along with the television clip adds up to a "mere moment". It's Oswald captured in his own words expressing his beliefs and Marxist philosophies coinciding with his support of Fidel Castro, summer 1963, when he was only on the public's radar screen for handing out a leftist group's pro-Castro leaflets in New Orleans. But I guess this man repeatedly saying "I am a Marxist" doesn't count for anything, does it? Same with Jim Jones, I guess just because he's on camera saying he's a Marxist isn't enough for those who don't want his expressed following of Marxism to be a part of the historical record in these cases.

Unlike, say, trying to suggest "hate radio" and "lack of civility" in political discourse or anything of the sort was behind another more recent tragedy. Paging Sheriff Dupnik, who seemed to think making political hay out of a crime scene was more important than the case at hand.

I guess if you really don't want to see something, there are a million excuses for keeping your eyes shut.

I've listened to all that stuff and have read countless books in the subject. I'm not just tossing off an opinion. I happen to agree with Smile Brian that Oswald was a severely mixed up man who's own politics were extremely confused, and had more to do with his wanting to be somebody than his being a staunch this or that. The guy was only 24 years old when he was killed, for Christ's sake: not exactly a fully formed, mature human being and much of his behavior was highly contradictory (like most guys in their early 20's)  It would be a mistake to take almost anything the guy said on face value...... Oswald was either a patsy of simply a murderer..... Would I accuse Ted Bundy of changing Conservatism forever because he worked for Ross Davis (chairman of the Washington State Republican Party)? Of course not! He was a sick murderer, and that's all..... I personally don't give two shits what someone says they are (Marxist, Communist, Conservative, Liberal etc etc etc). I means absolutely nothing to me. How they apply their supposed beliefs/views in practical day to day life is what matters. Most faux conservatives or liberals only behave as such for the 5 minutes they spend in a voting booth every few years.

If you've already heard and read all that stuff, then why the attempt to marginalize it by dismissing the issue of Oswald being a Marxist and reducing the entire collection of examples of Oswald speaking and writing in his own words to "a mere moment caught on film"? I didn't even bring into the discussion his widow, both her recollections and actual letters and other items she either had or had seen related to her husband.

How they apply their beliefs and views in everyday life should also then be part of the record when discussing Jim Jones and Jonestown. How did a man who on the surface was out to organize and run a communal society based in part on the principles of Marxism turn that version of Utopia into a mass graveyard? Again, the man in his own words was a Marxist who believed in Marxist ideals. That somehow turned from a communal society where everyone was equal and contributed their fair share to live in peace into an armed encampment run by a demagogue and control-freak dictator...isn't the ideology he espoused and took ownership of at least worthy of being included in the history?

At the same time, I used the hapless Sheriff Dupnik as an obvious example from the Arizona tragedy, but there are any number of cases which could be cited. If some kook flies off the handle, and the "fact checkers" of various political outlets decide to dig up his NRA membership card, or a blog where he rails against gun control laws, or even some high school term paper the guy wrote which leaned a certain way, it's instant fodder for those who would point a finger of blame at the "gun culture" or any number of failings and foibles in America surrounding gun ownership and 2nd Amendment rights issues which need to be "fixed" so it doesn't happen again.

Guns and gun control being only one example of an issue that gets annoyingly and incessantly piggybacked onto any number of tragedies when those talking heads start saying we need to "understand" the motives so they can be "corrected".

In other words, all the usual talking-point nonsense, geared toward the concept of "never let a tragedy go to waste".

Yet when it's something like Marxism, where two of the most significant and infamous criminals of the 20th Century both express themselves as Marxists, which is still a philosophy and ideology the last time I checked (unless it has since shifted into a warped quasi-religious devotion), it should be on the table alongside those who think the history of a tragic event has as much to do with the perpetrator's political or ideological affiliations. Like Sheriff Dupnik who pinned the blame on a tragic multiple murder on "hate speech" and talk radio, and was not only encouraged but also embraced by those who were looking to make the "changes" in light of the tragedy.

So I say Oswald's openly expressed political beliefs and leanings are more than fair game, as are Jim Jones', they're a part of the history that could be explored further.

And Oswald's ideology becomes even more connected to the story when in 2013 there were more examples than ever of the talking head types trying to assign blame to things like a "climate of hate" around Dallas much like Dupnik tried to do in Arizona.

Fortunately Dupnik's credibility was shredded by the actual facts of the case, and he's a footnote if that. I wonder if that will be the case in 50 years when Kennedy is discussed, or whether the narrative will include the supposed climate of hate in Dallas when discussing JFK and totally ignore the fact that Oswald was a Marxist who ideologically leaned far to the left in 1963.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Explain how nearly an hour's worth of audio tape from radio interviews and panel discussions along with the television clip adds up to a "mere moment". It's Oswald captured in his own words expressing his beliefs and Marxist philosophies coinciding with his support of Fidel Castro, summer 1963, when he was only on the public's radar screen for handing out a leftist group's pro-Castro leaflets in New Orleans. But I guess this man repeatedly saying "I am a Marxist" doesn't count for anything, does it? Same with Jim Jones, I guess just because he's on camera saying he's a Marxist isn't enough for those who don't want his expressed following of Marxism to be a part of the historical record in these cases.

Unlike, say, trying to suggest "hate radio" and "lack of civility" in political discourse or anything of the sort was behind another more recent tragedy. Paging Sheriff Dupnik, who seemed to think making political hay out of a crime scene was more important than the case at hand.

I guess if you really don't want to see something, there are a million excuses for keeping your eyes shut.

I've listened to all that stuff and have read countless books in the subject. I'm not just tossing off an opinion. I happen to agree with Smile Brian that Oswald was a severely mixed up man who's own politics were extremely confused, and had more to do with his wanting to be somebody than his being a staunch this or that. The guy was only 24 years old when he was killed, for Christ's sake: not exactly a fully formed, mature human being and much of his behavior was highly contradictory (like most guys in their early 20's)  It would be a mistake to take almost anything the guy said on face value...... Oswald was either a patsy of simply a murderer..... Would I accuse Ted Bundy of changing Conservatism forever because he worked for Ross Davis (chairman of the Washington State Republican Party)? Of course not! He was a sick murderer, and that's all..... I personally don't give two shits what someone says they are (Marxist, Communist, Conservative, Liberal etc etc etc). I means absolutely nothing to me. How they apply their supposed beliefs/views in practical day to day life is what matters. Most faux conservatives or liberals only behave as such for the 5 minutes they spend in a voting booth every few years.

If you've already heard and read all that stuff, then why the attempt to marginalize it by dismissing the issue of Oswald being a Marxist and reducing the entire collection of examples of Oswald speaking and writing in his own words to "a mere moment caught on film"? I didn't even bring into the discussion his widow, both her recollections and actual letters and other items she either had or had seen related to her husband.

How they apply their beliefs and views in everyday life should also then be part of the record when discussing Jim Jones and Jonestown. How did a man who on the surface was out to organize and run a communal society based in part on the principles of Marxism turn that version of Utopia into a mass graveyard? Again, the man in his own words was a Marxist who believed in Marxist ideals. That somehow turned from a communal society where everyone was equal and contributed their fair share to live in peace into an armed encampment run by a demagogue and control-freak dictator...isn't the ideology he espoused and took ownership of at least worthy of being included in the history?

At the same time, I used the hapless Sheriff Dupnik as an obvious example from the Arizona tragedy, but there are any number of cases which could be cited. If some kook flies off the handle, and the "fact checkers" of various political outlets decide to dig up his NRA membership card, or a blog where he rails against gun control laws, or even some high school term paper the guy wrote which leaned a certain way, it's instant fodder for those who would point a finger of blame at the "gun culture" or any number of failings and foibles in America surrounding gun ownership and 2nd Amendment rights issues which need to be "fixed" so it doesn't happen again.

Guns and gun control being only one example of an issue that gets annoyingly and incessantly piggybacked onto any number of tragedies when those talking heads start saying we need to "understand" the motives so they can be "corrected".

In other words, all the usual talking-point nonsense, geared toward the concept of "never let a tragedy go to waste".

Yet when it's something like Marxism, where two of the most significant and infamous criminals of the 20th Century both express themselves as Marxists, which is still a philosophy and ideology the last time I checked (unless it has since shifted into a warped quasi-religious devotion), it should be on the table alongside those who think the history of a tragic event has as much to do with the perpetrator's political or ideological affiliations. Like Sheriff Dupnik who pinned the blame on a tragic multiple murder on "hate speech" and talk radio, and was not only encouraged but also embraced by those who were looking to make the "changes" in light of the tragedy.

So I say Oswald's openly expressed political beliefs and leanings are more than fair game, as are Jim Jones', they're a part of the history that could be explored further.

And Oswald's ideology becomes even more connected to the story when in 2013 there were more examples than ever of the talking head types trying to assign blame to things like a "climate of hate" around Dallas much like Dupnik tried to do in Arizona.

Fortunately Dupnik's credibility was shredded by the actual facts of the case, and he's a footnote if that. I wonder if that will be the case in 50 years when Kennedy is discussed, or whether the narrative will include the supposed climate of hate in Dallas when discussing JFK and totally ignore the fact that Oswald was a Marxist who ideologically leaned far to the left in 1963.

Is there a single personal belief or cause that someone has not historically killed for? It doesn't matter much what he called himself just because of the desire to assume that he killed for it..... Regardless, Lee H did not behave like a dyed-in-wool Marxist (BTW, any guy who doesn't like Russia because there are no night clubs there is no dyed-in-wool anti-Capitalist either) considering the central antagonism in Mark's work is between workers and owners, not citizens and political figures.

Jim Jones is a better example, yes, because he put his supposed beliefs into practice. Then again, Jones was a power monger and paranoid substance abuser, so we can't say how much of what was what. He turned his utopia into a graveyard, but be careful here: we have people dying in the streets in the US just because some folk put all their faith in the idea of a free market paradise.....

And again I'll ask: did Ted Bundy's murder spree just HAVE to be based upon his Conservative views??? See what I'm getting at?

[Bean Bag]

A little obsessive are we???

You just have to laugh.  As GFool pointed out, we've got a document Left-o who killed Kennedy.  But it's not enough.  The Left denies it.  Yet when something happens -- without any evidence -- the left shoots first at one of the below targets.  They never axe any questions.  And never apologize (which is why Rush calls the media "the drive-bys.")

The Left just picks their target and BAM BAM BAM...
Conservatives.
Libertarians.
1st Amendment supporters.
2nd Amendment supporters.
4th Amendment supporters.
Whites.
White Hispanics.
Christians.
Southerners.
Republicans.

The list goes on.  If there's bad news, somewhere -- look out.  Anybody the Left doesn't like -- is to blame.  If it's cold outside... America did it with their cars.  If it's warm outside... America did it with their cars.


It's loony tunes.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

A little obsessive are we???

You just have to laugh.  As GFool pointed out, we've got a document Left-o who killed Kennedy.  But it's not enough.  The Left denies it.  Yet when something happens -- without any evidence -- the left shoots first at one of the below targets.  They never axe any questions.  And never apologize (which is why Rush calls the media "the drive-bys.")

The Left just picks their target and BAM BAM BAM...
Conservatives.
Libertarians.
1st Amendment supporters.
2nd Amendment supporters.
4th Amendment supporters.
Whites.
White Hispanics.
Christians.
Southerners.
Republicans.

The list goes on.  If there's bad news, somewhere -- look out.  Anybody the Left doesn't like -- is to blame.  If it's cold outside... America did it with their cars.  If it's warm outside... America did it with their cars.


It's loony tunes.

....... jesus.....

I mean, it's hypocrisy defined: ...... "I'm right wing therefore all reality that I dislike is simply the evil "left" ....... Must make life a bit easier in a tinfoil lined cave, but eek!!!!!

[Bean Bag]

Huh?  The left uses crises to blame their political adversaries -- to gain political advantage and power (as proven by my examples).  And somehow, pointing this out makes me like them?  Because I'm "blaming them."

Ok.  

Rock, rock, roll... Plymouth Rock roll over.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

Huh?  The left uses crises to blame their political adversaries -- to gain political advantage and power (as proven by my examples).  And somehow, pointing this out makes me like them?  Because I'm "blaming them."

Ok.  

Rock, rock, roll... Plymouth Rock roll over.

Just pointing out that few people in the universe view the left/right theory as violently set in stone as you do.... I mean, more power to you, man. You are an intelligent person, so I must lend your thoughts much credence, but I just promise you it's not as severely black & white a world as you consistently accuse it of being... If all you do is watch/listen/intake either right wing or left wing media, then sure: it seems like it is, but why on earth would anyone think any form of mass media is feeding you an accurate picture?... You keep referring to this massive LEFT but it basically comes off as ANYONE who's not as religiously right wing as you. You really can't think the world is as simple as that. Just because thinking so makes you feel better, I can understand, but you still must KNOW deep down.... Most people I know or speak to away from this board might still vote left or right, but are fully aware of what a sham both parties have become. But you take it much much further and seem to believe that people are simply either as FAR FAR right as you or extremely "left" with nothing in-between. .... It's faulty logic at it's most dangerous.

[Bean Bag]

I know what you mean.  Most people don't give two shts about sht.  I get that.  I mean, look here -- its essential only a few of us that get into these discussions on this board.  Total microcosm of the world.  Reality.  Which is why I love posting sht like this here.  It's the real world, a microcosm of reality.  Politically-focused forums are not reality, they're madness.

The vast, vast, VAST majority of the country scoffs at this right/left stuff.  Like we're crazy.  And they roll with what happens.  I totally get that.  They don't wake up until sht smacks them in the face (if it ever does).  I think that has started to happen, and will happen more and more, with ObamaCare, for example.  And it's the formerly-mainstream media's mission (which includes a lot of the entertainment industry) to make sure people stay aloof -- or blame "the other guy."  Which is the undercurrent of this topic.

But, I understand that 7 out of 10 are not seeing what I see.  But that doesn't mean I'm more "right wing" and the rest is thus more "left wing."  I don't see everyone as to my left.  In all honesty, here's what I see -- a few elitists and a gaggle of unpaid, disgruntled henchmen, under the spell of the elitists, regurgitating what the snide elitists spew, all to get people to part with their money and property, and to funnel said money back to the elitists.  And the vast, vast, VAST majority of the country are merely the mark.

[Pinder's Gone To Kokomo And Back Again]

I know what you mean.  Most people don't give two shts about sht.  I get that.  I mean, look here -- its essential only a few of us that get into these discussions on this board.  Total microcosm of the world.  Reality.  Which is why I love posting sht like this here.  It's the real world, a microcosm of reality.  Politically-focused forums are not reality, they're madness.

The vast, vast, VAST majority of the country scoffs at this right/left stuff.  Like we're crazy.  And they roll with what happens.  I totally get that.  They don't wake up until sht smacks them in the face (if it ever does).  I think that has started to happen, and will happen more and more, with ObamaCare, for example.  And it's the formerly-mainstream media's mission (which includes a lot of the entertainment industry) to make sure people stay aloof -- or blame "the other guy."  Which is the undercurrent of this topic.

But, I understand that 7 out of 10 are not seeing what I see.  But that doesn't mean I'm more "right wing" and the rest is thus more "left wing."  I don't see everyone as to my left.  In all honesty, here's what I see -- a few elitists and a gaggle of unpaid, disgruntled henchmen, under the spell of the elitists, regurgitating what the snide elitists spew, all to get people to part with their money and property, and to funnel said money back to the elitists.  And the vast, vast, VAST majority of the country are merely the mark.

OK, you're most certainly making more sense now, Bean

My only disagreement is that I personally think the media wants us not aloof but fighting with each other over left/right issues so enough or us keep voting either way and then going back to sleep.

[guitarfool2002]

I'm still trying to chip away at the facade to get to the foundation, and a lot of times I notice attempts to either shield or even protect Marxism from the kind of critique and finger-pointing that other "isms" receive whenever something runs amok on a large scale. I've already mentioned the gun control issue, that's an easy one.

But let me run an "if...then" scenario and see if it fits these "isms".

When there are examples like Enron or Miliken (the 'Junk Bond King') or any number of rip-offs in the financial industry, you'll see in the analysis an indictment of not only the individuals responsible for the bad behavior, but for the entire notion of capitalism. None of it would have happened if not for the evils of capitalism, and similar sentiments.

So when there are examples like Jonestown, or pick any country that governs under Marxist philosophy, where things go terribly wrong and people get hurt as a result, isn't it fair then to point at least a questioning finger at Marxism, and ask if there is something inherent in the "ism" itself which leads to things going that horribly wrong as they did with Jones?

Yet it's hard to find this kind of across-the-board indictment when it's something like Marxism versus something like capitalism.

I understand how loyal some are to the Marxist ideals, but at the same time it's hard to understand why the efforts to deflect any kind of questioning of the ideology itself versus the individuals responsible for the malady are so strong when the bad guy is a Marxist, while any number of criminals who gamed the financial system are held up as examples of a bad system (capitalism) and that system (or 'ism') is more to blame than the bad individuals.

It feels like a double standard, and I guess trying to paint the JFK case into a more modern climate-of-hate scenario that existed in 1963 Dallas just tipped the scales of reason and logic too far.

Boil it down: When a self-described capitalist commits a crime, it's an indictment of capitalism, but when a self-described Marxist commits a crime, it's not an indictment of Marxism?