JFK and RFK were opportunistic scumbags.

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

By today's standards they would not have been placed on such a pedestal. They were both womanizers, they stabbed people in the back, including almost getting Frank Sinatra killed after he went to the the Union (cough cough) bosses and got their support. It was John F Kennedy who committed troops to Vietnam. So where does this idiotic hero worship come from?

Certainly don't wish they got shot, but like many icons (John Lennon) they are more myth than anything.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

Certainly don't wish they got shot,

Why not? Your hatred of them seems pretty vibrant.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

Why not? Your hatred of them seems pretty vibrant.

I neither hate or like the Kennedy's. They are irrelevant too me.
I guess that's a good way to avoid an obvious question though. Accuse me of hating them. That will shut me down. LOL

 

[WLDB]

The first "advisors" went into Vietnam while Eisenhower was in office. Kennedy expanded it, Johnson started shooting.

As for their personal lives, I could care less. I dont care about any politicians personal life unless it involves a criminal record.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

The first "advisors" went into Vietnam while Eisenhower was in office. Kennedy expanded it, Johnson started shooting.

As for their personal lives, I could care less. I dont care about any politicians personal life unless it involves a criminal record.

LOL How selective of you.

Advisors. That was some decent spin doctoring.

 

[BaalsTears]

What did JFK and RFK have in common? Marilyn Monroe.

 

[WLDB]

LOL How selective of you.

Not particularly. As far as I can remember Ive never criticized any politician for what they do in their personal lives. I know there are others who only apply that to politicians they agree with but im not one of them.

Looks like I missed the question. They died fairly young. If they had both lived to a ripe old age they probably would not have been mythologized the way they are now. Then again there are those who almost worship Reagan. These two died before they could make any major mistakes in office. Because of that people can look at them idealistically and say "If only they had lived they could have fixed X, Y and Z." If Obama had died in his first year or so in office I imagine he would have been mythologized as well. He has lasted long enough to disappoint (to put it mildly) a lot of his supporters. The Kennedy's didnt. Well, aside from Ted.

Advisors. That was some decent spin doctoring.

Thats what they called them, not me.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

Thats what they called them, not me.

Fair enough, come to think of it Chretien called the Afghanistan commitment a Peacekeeping mission.

 

[darkbeaver]

I neither hate or like the Kennedy's. They are irrelevant too me.
I guess that's a good way to avoid an obvious question though. Accuse me of hating them. That will shut me down. LOL

Why post about people irrelevant to you and therefore invite irrelevant comment?

Other people did not like them either and almost made them irrelevant. I say almost because soon the beans get spilled and their relevance will become plain.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

I neither hate or like the Kennedy's. They are irrelevant too me.
I guess that's a good way to avoid an obvious question though. Accuse me of hating them. That will shut me down. LOL

They're relevant enough to you for you to call them scumbags. Sure don't sound like they're irrelevant to you.

I do admire the way you cherry-picked the things they did that you dislike, and completely left out their positive accomplishments.

But, nice to know they're irrelevant to you. Irrelevant enough to start a thread on.

As to your question, I got no idea. People hero-worship all kind of folk. I don't play that game because I don't understand it. I hear it's called the "halo effect." Somebody did something you like, so you insist that he's a great guy in everything. Or the opposite, the so-called "anti-halo effect," which you're demonstrating here. You've decided you don't like somebody, so you focus exclusively on what you don't like about him, and ignore any postives he has.

Don't make much sense to me. People are complicated, and "scumbag" or "wonderful guy" seems to me to be a mite simplistic. My mind don't work that way.

 

[Christianna]

I was taught as a child not to speak ill of the dead. They are all dead now except Caroline and Ethel , and you can bet they miss their families.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

They're relevant enough to you for you to call them scumbags. Sure don't sound like they're irrelevant to you.

I do admire the way you cherry-picked the things they did that you dislike, and completely left out their positive accomplishments.

Admire. Why thank you.. I'm sure Charlie Manson did a nice thig or two in his life, wrote a few songs, would I be cherry picking if I brought up that whole Tate LaBianca episode.

But, nice to know they're irrelevant to you. Irrelevant enough to start a thread on.

They are irrelevant in that I hold no feelings one way or the other. The title of the thread is (admittedly) provocative.

As to your question, I got no idea. People hero-worship all kind of folk. I don't play that game because I don't understand it. I hear it's called the "halo effect." Somebody did something you like, so you insist that he's a great guy in everything. Or the opposite, the so-called "anti-halo effect," which you're demonstrating here. You've decided you don't like somebody, so you focus exclusively on what you don't like about him, and ignore any postives he has.

Don't make much sense to me. People are complicated, and "scumbag" or "wonderful guy" seems to me to be a mite simplistic. My mind don't work that way.

Actually, my mother was a huge fan of JFK and RFK and as an impressionable young man I believed that they were as some depict them. Much like Ted Kennedy being remembered as a long serving senator, humaniatrian, activist, I'm really trying not to be negative and focus on that whole Chappaquid**** thingy.

So brushing away the mythology and talking about the real person is the anti-halo effect?

I was taught as a child not to speak ill of the dead. They are all dead now except Caroline and Ethel , and you can bet they miss their families.

On that thought, wasn't that Hitler an awesome guy. He built an entire railroad system in Europe that is still being used today. And let's not forget the Volkswagon.

Just so I'm not misquoted later. I think Hitler was an A-Hole.

 

[darkbeaver]

They're relevant enough to you for you to call them scumbags. Sure don't sound like they're irrelevant to you.

I do admire the way you cherry-picked the things they did that you dislike, and completely left out their positive accomplishments.

But, nice to know they're irrelevant to you. Irrelevant enough to start a thread on.

As to your question, I got no idea. People hero-worship all kind of folk. I don't play that game because I don't understand it. I hear it's called the "halo effect." Somebody did something you like, so you insist that he's a great guy in everything. Or the opposite, the so-called "anti-halo effect," which you're demonstrating here. You've decided you don't like somebody, so you focus exclusively on what you don't like about him, and ignore any postives he has.

Don't make much sense to me. People are complicated, and "scumbag" or "wonderful guy" seems to me to be a mite simplistic. My mind don't work that way.

I beat you by a minute, means nothing to me it's irrelvevant, but I think I should get a thumbs up anyway.

 

[Tecumsehsbones]

So brushing away the mythology and talking about the real person is the anti-halo effect?

That's not what I said. I'll try again. Maybe it'll get through this time.

Focussing only on what you don't like about the person, and ignoring his good traits, accomplishments, and characteristics is the anti-halo effect. Leads a body to a one-word summing up like "scumbag." Just like focussing only on those things you like, and ignoring the things you don't, and summing up the person as "hero" is the halo effect.

The Kennedys also took significant steps to clean up corrupt unions. JFK started the Peace Corps. RFK opened a conversation with Martin Luther King, and the Kennedys moved the Federal government significantly further along the road to support of civil rights. JFK massively accelerated the space program, which has produced orders of magnitude more value in technological advances than it cost, whether or not you value the basic research and advancement of knowledge it also produced. JFK also forced the Soviets to back down on nuclear missiles in Cuba. They were also inspirational to a lot of people, among other things.

On the other hand, as you say, JFK accelerated our involvement in Vietnam, didn't have a sexual morality many folks would admire, and engineered the Bay of Pigs disaster, and massively accelerated the nuclear arms race, among other things.

That's a balanced, rational, reasonably complex view of the Kennedys. It's the view I hold.

Make of it what you will.

 

[darkbeaver]

JFK did all that by his self? No pesky bankers. I don believe it. I think he was just in the chair in the office for most of that. Civil rights, now that'll get you killed, treasury printed real constitutional currency, that'll get you killed, denying Israhell nukes, that'll get you killed. Sleeping arround that\ll just get you sticky.

 

[Retired_Can_Soldier]

That's not what I said. I'll try again. Maybe it'll get through this time.

Focussing only on what you don't like about the person, and ignoring his good traits, accomplishments, and characteristics is the anti-halo effect. Leads a body to a one-word summing up like "scumbag." Just like focussing only on those things you like, and ignoring the things you don't, and summing up the person as "hero" is the halo effect.

The Kennedys also took significant steps to clean up corrupt unions. JFK started the Peace Corps. RFK opened a conversation with Martin Luther King, and the Kennedys moved the Federal government significantly further along the road to support of civil rights. JFK massively accelerated the space program, which has produced orders of magnitude more value in technological advances than it cost, whether or not you value the basic research and advancement of knowledge it also produced. JFK also forced the Soviets to back down on nuclear missiles in Cuba. They were also inspirational to a lot of people, among other things.

On the other hand, as you say, JFK accelerated our involvement in Vietnam, didn't have a sexual morality many folks would admire, and engineered the Bay of Pigs disaster, and massively accelerated the nuclear arms race, among other things.

That's a balanced, rational, reasonably complex view of the Kennedys. It's the view I hold.

Make of it what you will.

So by that standard we should give everyone a balanced report card to avoid being labelled as hating them. You see, from my point of view it's like this. When you do things like stab people in the back, involve yourself in corruption, you cancel out the good things you did. Our crazy Rob Ford is a shiny example of that. He hasn't ripped off the tax payers, he's fiscally responsible, but he lied to the voters and has involved himself in illicit behavior. That cancels out the good.

 

[darkbeaver]

Hitlerian mustaches are coming back into style now that the wars over. Tidy easy to maintain spiffy no good for me though the grey and tobacco stain ruins it I think.

 

[lone wolf]

By today's standards they would not have been placed on such a pedestal. They were both womanizers, they stabbed people in the back, including almost getting Frank Sinatra killed after he went to the the Union (cough cough) bosses and got their support. It was John F Kennedy who committed troops to Vietnam. So where does this idiotic hero worship come from?

Certainly don't wish they got shot, but like many icons (John Lennon) they are more myth than anything.

Truman and Eisenhower committed people in advisory capacities. Kennedy only added more. Johnson's Aug 10/64 Tonkin Gulf Resolution put them on a war footing

 

[damngrumpy]

I liked the Kennedys both of them. Also tonight Robert Jr made the comment
Kennedy sent advisors to Vietnam not soldiers as Ike did. He also signed a
document that would have brought some troops home before Christmas in 63
and most removal by later in 64 or 65 I missed the year. Johnson expanded
to troop increase.
Yes they were womanizers and so be it, had nothing to do with the job they did
in world affairs. There was so much intrigue in the administration anyway. It is
sometimes said J Edward Hoover was gay and in the sixties that was no small
thing. Womanizing was however within a decade it won't likely raise an eyebrow.
God knows in another twenty years Mayor Ford will have appeared to be normal.

Shooters have had a field day, three Republicans and a Democrat shot to death
in office. Some say all victims of Tecumseh's curse. That happened when one of
the elected Presidents gave a speech far too long and became ill and died Don't
quote me but I think it was Harrison. he had been a war hero and defeated the
afor mentioned in one of their periodic wars can't remember off hand which one.
Anyway it became the curse that a President elected in a year ending in 0 would
be shot, Even Reagan was subjected to that having been elected in 1980
Those Shot dead all but Kennedy were Republicans.
That is at least as best I remember my history I might be wrong about some but
I think I am close.

 

[BornRuff]

By today's standards they would not have been placed on such a pedestal. They were both womanizers, they stabbed people in the back, including almost getting Frank Sinatra killed after he went to the the Union (cough cough) bosses and got their support. It was John F Kennedy who committed troops to Vietnam. So where does this idiotic hero worship come from?

Certainly don't wish they got shot, but like many icons (John Lennon) they are more myth than anything.

I don't know how much difference it would have made on the Vietnam War if anyone else had been in power at that time. He pretty much continued the same policy as Eisenhower, and it was Johnson who actually put troops in a combat role on the ground. Was there anyone else that the US would have elected who would have opted for less involvement in Vietnam than Kennedy chose?

If you are wondering about why he is so lionized, you kind of answer your own question when comparing him to John Lennon. Dying young can be really good for your image in pulp culture.