DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: BT on March 01, 2008, 05:15:53 AM
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PE7JDIkiEZg[/youtube]
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkryNyxlubY&NR=1[/youtube]
-
Meanwhile, his brother is authorizing roaming wiretaps on Martin Luther King.
-
Meanwhile, his brother is authorizing roaming wiretaps on Martin Luther King.
Nonsense. In order to do something like that, you have to be a paranoid, Hitler-loving Republican . . .
-
Nonsense. In order to do something like that, you have to be a paranoid, Hitler-loving Republican . . .
Oh yeah? For some reason, I don't quite believe that.
-
In fairness to Bobby, he knew Hoover had some major dirt on his brother and himself.
-
Does the hypocrisy of JFK de-legitimize the speech?
-
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qdrGKwkmxAU[/youtube]
Shortly after the Kennedy ad. I think this clip is from the documentary "Why We Fight", which is one of the best documentaries I've seen in awhile.
-
crap. Bt, how do we post youtube movies?
-
Life isn't black and white, good or evil. It is a constant kaleidescope of shades of gray.
You were talking about Nixon in an earlier thread. Did Deep throat feed Woodward and Bernstein for altruistic reasons or was he bitter because he was passed over to succeed Hoover?
Shades of gray. Ideal vs real.
-
Life isn't black and white, good or evil. It is a constant kaleidescope of shades of gray.
You were talking about Nixon in an earlier thread. Did Deep throat feed Woodward and Bernstein for altruistic reasons or was he bitter because he was passed over to succeed Hoover?
Shades of gray. Ideal vs real.
Excellent point and taken. I think it was in the same post that you referenced that I also said that I felt JFK was overrated as a President.
-
crap. Bt, how do we post youtube movies?
second row far left is a youtube icon. surround the youtube video id with this. same way you would bold a phrase.
-
Thanks for the help bt
-
Oh yeah? For some reason, I don't quite believe that.
I'm hoping you realized I was being sarcastic and you were responding in kind. If not, please be aware that I meant that as a comparison with the current screeching about wiretapping under the Patriot Act. It is amazing to me to find that MLK - often linked with the Kennedy icons - was being targetted by them. It is a sad revision to history which is not yet politically ripe for revision. It's kind of like suggesting one of Christ's apostles would betray him - oh wait, one did.
-
I'm hoping you realized I was being sarcastic and you were responding in kind.
Of course, I read here often enough that I know where you stand on a lot of things Pooch. I apologize for not clarifying my dry humor.
If not, please be aware that I meant that as a comparison with the current screeching about wiretapping under the Patriot Act.
I don't agree with the domestic wiretaps in either case. The communist threat as stated by J. Edgar was largely overstated (though not non-existent), and I think that arguments along the same line could be made about wiretapping under the PA. It's hard to judge the effectiveness of wiretaps under the PA when there are no statistics, only the govt. saying "Trust us". Sorry, but I don't.
It is amazing to me to find that MLK - often linked with the Kennedy icons - was being targetted by them.
Why? The Kennedy's were the Hillary Clintons of their day (albeit a lot more charismatic), connected, wealthy, and doing whatever was politically expedient. That said, J. Edgar was a force unto himself, doing pretty much whatever he wanted with no accountability because of his ability to blackmail.
-
Of course, I read here often enough that I know where you stand on a lot of things Pooch. I apologize for not clarifying my dry humor.
No need at all. I keep forgetting that the medium does not allow for body language and tone without use of emoticons - which I am often too lazy to use. My mistake, not yours.
I don't agree with the domestic wiretaps in either case. The communist threat as stated by J. Edgar was largely overstated (though not non-existent), and I think that arguments along the same line could be made about wiretapping under the PA. It's hard to judge the effectiveness of wiretaps under the PA when there are no statistics, only the govt. saying "Trust us". Sorry, but I don't.
I completely understand this attitude, and I can't blame you. But I have a different perspective on it. Since I did seven years in MI, I know the gummint can do some flaky things, but I also know why. I am not afraid of the government wiretapping me because I am not a terrorist. If they happen to listen in when I have an intimate call with my wife, well, as long as it doesn't show up on youtube what do I care? Should I be inclined to plan a drug deal, robbery or suicide bombing I hope they catch me and save the innocent folks I might otherwise hurt. But as I am not so inclined, I don't get too worried about the government listening in. I'm used to it anyway, as I worked on military bases for much of my life and calls from military phones are always subject to monitoring. The other side of the coin, however, is that should someone else decide to engage in such behaviors and I happen to be among those innocents affected, I have a similar desire to see the government stop them. I recognize the potential for Orwellian abuses in such activities but I think the benefits likely outweigh the risks. Or perhaps a better way to word that is that I fear the risks of not monitoring calls from suspected terrorists are greater than the risks of monitoring non-terrorists.
Why? The Kennedy's were the Hillary Clintons of their day (albeit a lot more charismatic), connected, wealthy, and doing whatever was politically expedient. That said, J. Edgar was a force unto himself, doing pretty much whatever he wanted with no accountability because of his ability to blackmail.
I know that - and I am old enough that nothing politicians do or did surprises me much. But this goes to what Cornel West calls the "Santa-Clausification" of Martin Luther King (and it applies equally to JFK, RFK and others along those lines). If there were a liberal Mount Rushmore, these three guys and John Lennon (or maybe that other "Lenin") would probably be on it. With the exception of Lennon, death was a good career move for those guys. Had even they lived to Ted Kennedy's age, the Kennedy brothers would be subjected to the kind of scouring other politicians get these days. Even the great Dr, King would be getting the Jesse Jackson/Al Sharpton treatment (though he would likely not deserve it as much as the Rev Sharpton does). Dr, King was destined to be revered anyway, but his legendary status was enhanced by the brutal manner of his death. The Kennedys may well have been footnotes in history (as Ted Kennedy will be) had they not taken the dirt nap early. We forget that these people were real people, politicians and powerful men. The deified icons couldn't be suspected of doing the same things the vilified Bush (who, after all, would have died a hero had he been killed shortly after yelling "We hear you!" to those firefighters in New York) has done. In fact, bugging a civil rights leader is far worse than bugging potential terrorists. But the motivation in both cases was very likely similar.