Vote all you want. The secret government won’t change

[Big Sleazy]

http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/20...-won-change/jVSkXrENQlu8vNcBfMn9sL/story.html

And this from the Boston Globe no less. That would be the equivalent of publishing on the front page of the Globe And Mail.

BS

 

[onthebottom]

That should reduce some of the anxiety my liberal friends are experiencing at the moment.

 

[Titalian]

http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/20...-won-change/jVSkXrENQlu8vNcBfMn9sL/story.html

And this from the Boston Globe no less. That would be the equivalent of publishing on the front page of the Globe And Mail.

BS

Interesting article, I've always believed this, and believe this is what motivated JFK's assassination when he wanted to make changes within certain depts. ie CIA/FBI. But those who believe this, are labeled Conspiracy Theorists
Let us not forget Eisenhower speech on this matter.

 

[GPIDEAL]

Yes Titalian, Ike said beware unwarranted influence by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC).

Here's JFK's speech against Secret Societies to the Press:

 

[jazzpig]

Yes Titalian, Ike said beware unwarranted influence by the Military Industrial Complex (MIC).

Here's JFK's speech against Secret Societies to the Press:

This speech was a call to arms for the American press and media in the effort to combat the Soviet Union in the cold war.
The speech has been misrepresented to suggest that Kennedy was trying to expose the secret societies that control American society.
If you listen from 11:00 I think it's pretty clear.
Having said that, I agree totally with the OP.

 

[Aardvark154]

The Boston Globe quoting a Professor of Political Science at Tufts University. We of course all know the Arts and Humanities side of Tufts as a bastion of conservatism.

 

[jazzpig]

The Boston Globe quoting a Professor of Political Science at Tufts University. We of course all know the Arts and Humanities side of Tufts as a bastion of conservatism.

Which means what?

 

[SchlongConery]

The Boston Globe quoting a Professor of Political Science at Tufts University. We of course all know the Arts and Humanities side of Tufts as a bastion of conservatism.

So aside from your attempt to discredit the school and professor, what exactly do you factually disagree with?

 

[OriginalGStar]

it all comes down to bloodlines

 

[Aardvark154]

Which means what?

That it is the same old, same old liberal conspiracy theory claptrap.

 

[SchlongConery]

That it is the same old, same old liberal conspiracy theory claptrap.

Thank you for weighing in with your considered opinion. You add substance to the discussion. :thumb:

 

[Aardvark154]

Thank you for weighing in with your considered opinion. You add substance to the discussion. :thumb:

And the rest of the posts are thoughtful analysis?

 

[GPIDEAL]

This speech was a call to arms for the American press and media in the effort to combat the Soviet Union in the cold war.
The speech has been misrepresented to suggest that Kennedy was trying to expose the secret societies that control American society.
If you listen from 11:00 I think it's pretty clear.
Having said that, I agree totally with the OP.

That's a misrepresentation too. It wasn't just about guarding against exposure of national security secrets in the face of the Soviet Cold War threat.

Apart from his general denouncement of secret societies and the dangers of too much censorship or restriction of openness, look at the text of that speech here, under Part II, where he talks about keeping the public informed for the sake of democracy.

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/...ewspaper-Publishers-Association_19610427.aspx


To quote Jim Garrison who said it best:

I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security.

 

[SchlongConery]

And the rest of the posts are thoughtful analysis?

Argument by comparison?

The others don't hold themselves out to the standard you do.

 

[jazzpig]

That's a misrepresentation too. It wasn't just about guarding against exposure of national security secrets in the face of the Soviet Cold War threat.

Apart from his general denouncement of secret societies and the dangers of too much censorship or restriction of openness, look at the text of that speech here, under Part II, where he talks about keeping the public informed for the sake of democracy.

http://www.jfklibrary.org/Research/...ewspaper-Publishers-Association_19610427.aspx


To quote Jim Garrison who said it best:

I'm afraid, based on my own experience, that fascism will come to America in the name of national security.

I mentioned that I agree with the OP, and I also agree with Jim Garrison.
I still think your wrong about this speech.
Yes, he talks about keeping the public informed, but appealing for the adherence to responsible journalistic standards,
is not even close to suggesting the existence of secret societies at home that are undermining democracy.
I don't know how you can say that I'm misrepresenting a speech that does not overtly assert anything you're suggesting,
other than your own biased interpretation of it.
The Kennedy's regardless of what anybody thinks of them, were and are part of the power structure.
They may have been Irish Catholic outsiders, but you won't convince me they were on a crusade to protect the masses from the ruling elite.
When you say he talks about keeping the public informed, what does that mean?
Informed of the complete truth, or informed of what was necessary to galvanize public opinion for the ends of the administration and the success
in winning the cold war? He could have been arguing in favour of, the very thing you believe he was arguing against.
You don't know, and there's nothing in that speech that confirms your viewpoint.

 

[jazzpig]

 

[danmand]

Compare this president to all that followed him. How sad that we have not seen any of his talents and wit since.

 

[rld]

Compare this president to all that followed him. How sad that we have not seen any of his talents and wit since.

LBJ gave us civil rights and many other great programs. And I would stack his wit up against any post war President.

Overall I think with two notable exceptions I think the US has been blessed with pretty good executive leadership post WWII.

 

[rld]

http://www.bostonglobe.com/ideas/20...-won-change/jVSkXrENQlu8vNcBfMn9sL/story.html

And this from the Boston Globe no less. That would be the equivalent of publishing on the front page of the Globe And Mail.

BS

Do you agree BS that this "secret government" is run by "smart, hard-working, public-spirited people acting in good faith"?

 

[GPIDEAL]

I mentioned that I agree with the OP, and I also agree with Jim Garrison.
I still think your wrong about this speech.
Yes, he talks about keeping the public informed, but appealing for the adherence to responsible journalistic standards,
is not even close to suggesting the existence of secret societies at home that are undermining democracy.
I don't know how you can say that I'm misrepresenting a speech that does not overtly assert anything you're suggesting,
other than your own biased interpretation of it.
The Kennedy's regardless of what anybody thinks of them, were and are part of the power structure.
They may have been Irish Catholic outsiders, but you won't convince me they were on a crusade to protect the masses from the ruling elite.
When you say he talks about keeping the public informed, what does that mean?
Informed of the complete truth, or informed of what was necessary to galvanize public opinion for the ends of the administration and the success
in winning the cold war? He could have been arguing in favour of, the very thing you believe he was arguing against.
You don't know, and there's nothing in that speech that confirms your viewpoint.

JP, it's so obvious that there are two viewpoints in this speech.

JFK was lied to by the CIA about the Bay of Pigs. I can give you the link to the declassified reports. He learned a lot about that experience - the hard way.

He even hedged his position (just like in this speech) - appear as a Cold Warrior to appease the hardliners and look committed to the Communists, but on many occasions chose the option of peace instead of risking all out war.