JFK, Monster

[Chuck Schuyler]

A Timothy Noah article in The New Republic reassessing JFK in light of
the recent Mimi Alford allegations.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/timothy-noah/100566/jfk-monster

The original Hope and Change President was, on a personal level, a
sort of monster to those around him.

[slats]

Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote in news:1107a3bb-9554-450e-bc0c-
2387d0...@t5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:

You know you're in trouble when a far-left wingnut like Noah is bailing on
you.

[Anthony Marsh]

Just the same old Holier-than-thou posturing.

[bigdog]

On Feb 10, 8:22 pm, slats <o...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote in news:1107a3bb-9554-450e-bc0c-

> 2387d0b3f...@t5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:

>
> > A Timothy Noah article in The New Republic reassessing JFK in light of
> > the recent Mimi Alford allegations.
>
> >http://www.tnr.com/blog/timothy-noah/100566/jfk-monster
>
> > The original Hope and Change President was, on a personal level, a
> > sort of monster to those around him.
>
> You know you're in trouble when a far-left wingnut like Noah is bailing on
> you.

Even JFK's admirers have no choice to admit that he engaged in the
same kind of personal conduct for which Tiger Woods was villified and
that cost him most of his annual $100 million endorsement deals. The
only difference between the two is that Jackie didn't bash JFK in the
mouth with a 9-iron.

[Anthony Marsh]

Typical JFK haters on alt.assassination.character.jfk.

[slats]

Anthony Marsh <anthon...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:4f35e3aa$1...@mcadams.posc.mu.edu:

Everyone is holier than JFK (thanks for setting the bar so low, Jack), so
it's not just posturing.

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Feb 10, 9:54 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 2/10/2012 8:22 PM, slats wrote:
>
> > Chuck Schuyler<chu...@am-mtg.com>  wrote in news:1107a3bb-9554-450e-bc0c-

> > 2387d0b3f...@t5g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:

>
> >> A Timothy Noah article in The New Republic reassessing JFK in light of
> >> the recent Mimi Alford allegations.
>
> >>http://www.tnr.com/blog/timothy-noah/100566/jfk-monster
>
> >> The original Hope and Change President was, on a personal level, a
> >> sort of monster to those around him.
>
> > You know you're in trouble when a far-left wingnut like Noah is bailing on
> > you.
>
> Just the same old Holier-than-thou posturing.

Irony alert.

[Ace Kefford]

Not sure what your last sentence is trying to say. Does not seem
particularly relevant to the column that you posted.

The Noah piece is a very good one. He emphasizes how much creepier,
sicker, meaner, and more abusive it was for JFK to ask his young teen
mistress to perform oral sex on Dave Powers, who himself was not
particularly desirous of it, while JFK watched.

I am definitely someone who is overall positive on President Kennedy,
but this incident if true (and I strongly suspect it is) would lower
most anyone's opinion of him as a person and emphasize even more the
psychological problems that he had.

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Feb 11, 8:55 am, Ace Kefford <bglobe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 10, 4:50 pm, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
> > A Timothy Noah article in The New Republic reassessing JFK in light of
> > the recent Mimi Alford allegations.
>
> >http://www.tnr.com/blog/timothy-noah/100566/jfk-monster
>
> > The original Hope and Change President was, on a personal level, a
> > sort of monster to those around him.
>
> Not sure what your last sentence is trying to say.  Does not seem
> particularly relevant to the column that you posted.

I was joking around. Kennedy was sort of the 60's version of Obama and the
"Hope and Change" thing people bought into. The analogy stops there, as
from all accounts (if they can be believed), Obama is a pretty good
husband and father.

>
> The Noah piece is a very good one.  He emphasizes how much creepier,
> sicker, meaner, and more abusive it was for JFK to ask his young teen
> mistress to perform oral sex on Dave Powers, who himself was not
> particularly desirous of it, while JFK watched.
>
> I am definitely someone who is overall positive on President Kennedy,
> but this incident if true (and I strongly suspect it is) would lower
> most anyone's opinion of him as a person and emphasize even more the
> psychological problems that he had.

JFK would have a hard time getting elected today with all of the health
concerns, and personal baggage he carried. All of that stuff is fair play
for the press nowadays, and you can be sure some staffer, ex-mistress,
etc. would step forward and offer these stories up (for a nice payday, of
course) and help sink his candidacy.

JFK had dozens and dozens of affairs----even if you only believe a
fraction of the stroies to be true. Some of the affairs were explosive
(Ellen Rometsch), if brought to the attention of the public. He was also
hiding some pretty notable health issues and dabbled with drugs. All of
that stuff seeps out into the public today, and a 1960s America would've
been far less forgiving.

This kind of dirt on JFK helps rule out anything as stupid as an open air,
multi gunmen "hit," replete with umbrella wielding signalmen, spotters,
storm drain insurance shooters, mobsters to take out the "patsy" etc. The
plotters would've simply leaked these stories and watched him battle for
his political life in 1964. JFK may have resigned or been impeached. The
plotters could've quietly approached him and told him he isn't running for
a second term or all of this stuff is coming forward. He may have agreed
not to run. Who knows?

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/11/2012 9:55 AM, Ace Kefford wrote:
> On Feb 10, 4:50 pm, Chuck Schuyler<chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>> A Timothy Noah article in The New Republic reassessing JFK in light of
>> the recent Mimi Alford allegations.
>>
>> http://www.tnr.com/blog/timothy-noah/100566/jfk-monster
>>
>> The original Hope and Change President was, on a personal level, a
>> sort of monster to those around him.
>
> Not sure what your last sentence is trying to say. Does not seem
> particularly relevant to the column that you posted.
>
> The Noah piece is a very good one. He emphasizes how much creepier,
> sicker, meaner, and more abusive it was for JFK to ask his young teen
> mistress to perform oral sex on Dave Powers, who himself was not
> particularly desirous of it, while JFK watched.
>

Only if you are naive enough to believe it. She realized she could not
live on just Social Security.

[Anthony Marsh]

Jackie knew all about the affairs and lived with it. Many wives do.
Prove that Tiger Woods bashed him in the mouth with a 9-iron.
Jackie got her revenge. She married that slug Onassis.

[bigdog]

On Feb 11, 2:13 pm, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
> On Feb 11, 8:55 am, Ace Kefford <bglobe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 10, 4:50 pm, Chuck Schuyler <chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>
> > > A Timothy Noah article in The New Republic reassessing JFK in light of
> > > the recent Mimi Alford allegations.
>
> > >http://www.tnr.com/blog/timothy-noah/100566/jfk-monster
>
> > > The original Hope and Change President was, on a personal level, a
> > > sort of monster to those around him.
>
> > Not sure what your last sentence is trying to say.  Does not seem
> > particularly relevant to the column that you posted.
>
> I was joking around. Kennedy was sort of the 60's version of Obama and the
> "Hope and Change" thing people bought into. The analogy stops there, as
> from all accounts (if they can be believed), Obama is a pretty good
> husband and father.
>
>
>
> > The Noah piece is a very good one.  He emphasizes how much creepier,
> > sicker, meaner, and more abusive it was for JFK to ask his young teen
> > mistress to perform oral sex on Dave Powers, who himself was not
> > particularly desirous of it, while JFK watched.
>
> > I am definitely someone who is overall positive on President Kennedy,
> > but this incident if true (and I strongly suspect it is) would lower
> > most anyone's opinion of him as a person and emphasize even more the
> > psychological problems that he had.
>
> JFK would have a hard time getting elected today with all of the health
> concerns, and personal baggage he carried.

I wonder if he would have stonewalled releasing his tax returns the
way Romney did?

> All of that stuff is fair play
> for the press nowadays, and you can be sure some staffer, ex-mistress,
> etc. would step forward and offer these stories up (for a nice payday, of
> course) and help sink his candidacy.
>

I'll bet he wouldn't pull a Gary Hart and invite newsmen to follow him
around.

[Bud]

On Feb 11, 5:42 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 2/11/2012 9:55 AM, Ace Kefford wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 10, 4:50 pm, Chuck Schuyler<chu...@am-mtg.com>  wrote:
> >> A Timothy Noah article in The New Republic reassessing JFK in light of
> >> the recent Mimi Alford allegations.
>
> >>http://www.tnr.com/blog/timothy-noah/100566/jfk-monster
>
> >> The original Hope and Change President was, on a personal level, a
> >> sort of monster to those around him.
>
> > Not sure what your last sentence is trying to say.  Does not seem
> > particularly relevant to the column that you posted.
>
> > The Noah piece is a very good one.  He emphasizes how much creepier,
> > sicker, meaner, and more abusive it was for JFK to ask his young teen
> > mistress to perform oral sex on Dave Powers, who himself was not
> > particularly desirous of it, while JFK watched.
>
> Only if you are naive enough to believe it.

You`d have to be naive not to.

> She realized she could not
> live on just Social Security.

Small compensation for Kennedy using his position of power against
vulnerable women.

[cdddraftsman]

On Feb 11, 6:55 am, Ace Kefford <bglobe...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> more abusive it was for JFK to ask his young teen
> mistress to perform oral sex on Dave Powers, who himself was not
> particularly desirous of it, while JFK watched.
>
>

Maybe he was gearing up for his meeting with Uncle Niki .... Without being
too explicite .... I think that Ruski would be easier to negnotiate with
if he had some "young teen mistress" occasionally .... So to speak ....

Pound your shoe on your keypad if you agree

tl

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/11/2012 9:31 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Feb 11, 5:42 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 2/11/2012 9:55 AM, Ace Kefford wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 10, 4:50 pm, Chuck Schuyler<chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>>>> A Timothy Noah article in The New Republic reassessing JFK in light of
>>>> the recent Mimi Alford allegations.
>>
>>>> http://www.tnr.com/blog/timothy-noah/100566/jfk-monster
>>
>>>> The original Hope and Change President was, on a personal level, a
>>>> sort of monster to those around him.
>>
>>> Not sure what your last sentence is trying to say. Does not seem
>>> particularly relevant to the column that you posted.
>>
>>> The Noah piece is a very good one. He emphasizes how much creepier,
>>> sicker, meaner, and more abusive it was for JFK to ask his young teen
>>> mistress to perform oral sex on Dave Powers, who himself was not
>>> particularly desirous of it, while JFK watched.
>>
>> Only if you are naive enough to believe it.
>
> You`d have to be naive not to.
>

You'll believe anything as long as it is anti-Kennedy.

>> She realized she could not
>> live on just Social Security.
>
> Small compensation for Kennedy using his position of power against
> vulnerable women.
>

You probably think Monica Lewinsky was an innocent victim.
Google Monica Lewinsky presidential knee pads.
You seem to have this Victorian notion that women are incapable of being
interested in sex.

[Anthony Marsh]

Fun to guess, isn't it? Not so easy to look up the facts.
JFK did not release his taxes.

http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/web/presidentialtaxreturns

>> All of that stuff is fair play
>> for the press nowadays, and you can be sure some staffer, ex-mistress,
>> etc. would step forward and offer these stories up (for a nice payday, of
>> course) and help sink his candidacy.
>>
>
> I'll bet he wouldn't pull a Gary Hart and invite newsmen to follow him
> around.
>

What are you babbling about? Ben Bradlee was in the pool with him
sharing the prostitutes.

[Bud]

On Feb 12, 5:34 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On 2/11/2012 9:31 PM, Bud wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Feb 11, 5:42 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net>  wrote:
> >> On 2/11/2012 9:55 AM, Ace Kefford wrote:
>
> >>> On Feb 10, 4:50 pm, Chuck Schuyler<chu...@am-mtg.com>    wrote:
> >>>> A Timothy Noah article in The New Republic reassessing JFK in light of
> >>>> the recent Mimi Alford allegations.
>
> >>>>http://www.tnr.com/blog/timothy-noah/100566/jfk-monster
>
> >>>> The original Hope and Change President was, on a personal level, a
> >>>> sort of monster to those around him.
>
> >>> Not sure what your last sentence is trying to say.  Does not seem
> >>> particularly relevant to the column that you posted.
>
> >>> The Noah piece is a very good one.  He emphasizes how much creepier,
> >>> sicker, meaner, and more abusive it was for JFK to ask his young teen
> >>> mistress to perform oral sex on Dave Powers, who himself was not
> >>> particularly desirous of it, while JFK watched.
>
> >> Only if you are naive enough to believe it.
>
> >    You`d have to be naive not to.
>
> You'll believe anything as long as it is anti-Kennedy.

I thought it was well known that Kennedy was a womanizer. How could
Kennedy indulge in activities that are anti-Kennedy?

> >> She realized she could not
> >> live on just Social Security.
>
> >    Small compensation for Kennedy using his position of power against
> > vulnerable women.
>
> You probably think Monica Lewinsky was an innocent victim.

You probably naive enough to believe she was lying.

> Google Monica Lewinsky presidential knee pads.
> You seem to have this Victorian notion that women are incapable of being
> interested in sex.

You have this idolized idea of Kennedy that doesn`t accept that he
was a sexual predator who preyed on young women.

[Pamela Brown]

Not relevant. JFK did not take a salary as president. He gave it to
charity, I think.

[Bill Clarke]

In article <cc39a573-3bf9-4703...@w9g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,
Pamela Brown says...

>
>On Feb 12, 6:19=A0pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 2/11/2012 9:29 PM, bigdog wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>> > On Feb 11, 2:13 pm, Chuck Schuyler<chu...@am-mtg.com> =A0wrote:
>> >> On Feb 11, 8:55 am, Ace Kefford<bglobe...@yahoo.com> =A0wrote:
>>
>> >>> On Feb 10, 4:50 pm, Chuck Schuyler<chu...@am-mtg.com> =A0wrote:
>>
>> >>>> A Timothy Noah article in The New Republic reassessing JFK in light =

>of
>> >>>> the recent Mimi Alford allegations.
>>
>> >>>>http://www.tnr.com/blog/timothy-noah/100566/jfk-monster
>>
>> >>>> The original Hope and Change President was, on a personal level, a
>> >>>> sort of monster to those around him.
>>

>> >>> Not sure what your last sentence is trying to say. =A0Does not seem

>> >>> particularly relevant to the column that you posted.
>>

>> >> I was joking around. Kennedy was sort of the 60's version of Obama and=
> the
>> >> "Hope and Change" thing people bought into. The analogy stops there, a=

>s
>> >> from all accounts (if they can be believed), Obama is a pretty good
>> >> husband and father.
>>

>> >>> The Noah piece is a very good one. =A0He emphasizes how much creepier=

>,
>> >>> sicker, meaner, and more abusive it was for JFK to ask his young teen
>> >>> mistress to perform oral sex on Dave Powers, who himself was not
>> >>> particularly desirous of it, while JFK watched.
>>
>> >>> I am definitely someone who is overall positive on President Kennedy,
>> >>> but this incident if true (and I strongly suspect it is) would lower
>> >>> most anyone's opinion of him as a person and emphasize even more the
>> >>> psychological problems that he had.
>>

>> >> JFK would have a hard time getting elected today with all of the healt=

>h
>> >> concerns, and personal baggage he carried.
>>
>> > I wonder if he would have stonewalled releasing his tax returns the
>> > way Romney did?
>>
>> Fun to guess, isn't it? Not so easy to look up the facts.
>> JFK did not release his taxes.
>
>Not relevant. JFK did not take a salary as president. He gave it to
>charity, I think.

What is it about trust fund babies that you don?t understand?
Bill Clarke

[Anthony Marsh]

Apples and oranges. This whole controversy came up because of Romney.
And he does have a salary either. Yet he is far richer than Kennedy was.

[Anthony Marsh]

This started as a comparison to Romney releasing his taxes. Romney does
not work for a salary either.

[Anthony Marsh]

On 2/12/2012 9:29 PM, Bud wrote:
> On Feb 12, 5:34 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 2/11/2012 9:31 PM, Bud wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 11, 5:42 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>> On 2/11/2012 9:55 AM, Ace Kefford wrote:
>>
>>>>> On Feb 10, 4:50 pm, Chuck Schuyler<chu...@am-mtg.com> wrote:
>>>>>> A Timothy Noah article in The New Republic reassessing JFK in light of
>>>>>> the recent Mimi Alford allegations.
>>
>>>>>> http://www.tnr.com/blog/timothy-noah/100566/jfk-monster
>>
>>>>>> The original Hope and Change President was, on a personal level, a
>>>>>> sort of monster to those around him.
>>
>>>>> Not sure what your last sentence is trying to say. Does not seem
>>>>> particularly relevant to the column that you posted.
>>
>>>>> The Noah piece is a very good one. He emphasizes how much creepier,
>>>>> sicker, meaner, and more abusive it was for JFK to ask his young teen
>>>>> mistress to perform oral sex on Dave Powers, who himself was not
>>>>> particularly desirous of it, while JFK watched.
>>
>>>> Only if you are naive enough to believe it.
>>
>>> You`d have to be naive not to.
>>
>> You'll believe anything as long as it is anti-Kennedy.
>
> I thought it was well known that Kennedy was a womanizer. How could
> Kennedy indulge in activities that are anti-Kennedy?
>

Huh? I said that you would believe in anything anti-Kennedy. I didn't
say anything about Kennedy being anti-Kennedy.

>>>> She realized she could not
>>>> live on just Social Security.
>>
>>> Small compensation for Kennedy using his position of power against
>>> vulnerable women.
>>
>> You probably think Monica Lewinsky was an innocent victim.
>
> You probably naive enough to believe she was lying.

Of course she was lying about something. But she admitted to the sex.
That's all you guys care about.

>
>> Google Monica Lewinsky presidential knee pads.
>> You seem to have this Victorian notion that women are incapable of being
>> interested in sex.
>
> You have this idolized idea of Kennedy that doesn`t accept that he
> was a sexual predator who preyed on young women.
>

Huh? That is why he was so popular with women voters.

[Chuck Schuyler]

On Feb 12, 4:34 pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:


<snip>

> You probably think Monica Lewinsky was an innocent victim.
> Google Monica Lewinsky presidential knee pads.
> You seem to have this Victorian notion that women are incapable of being
> interested in sex.

You seem to have this Victorian notion that a powerful man---a "One
Percenter," to use today's phraseology per the Occupy Wall Street
movement---can cheat on his spouse with whores and take the virginity of a
girl on his staff young enough to be his daughter.

Because JFK sent a tingle up your leg when you were a teenager with his
press conference witticisms, and because he thrilled you with his wind
blown hair, you Kennedy Cultists will never let go of the idea that he was
some sort of god. You'll never accept that your Camelot fantasies were
ended by a cheap rifle wielded by a dyslexic, balding, wife beating loser.

JFK didn't deserve to die the way he did, with his brains scattered all
over Dealey Plaza, his last moments on earth recorded by a dressmaker who
never would've guessed he had just birthed the ultimate snuff film for
buffs to endlessly pore over in their quixotic search for the real
killers. JFK's memory, now deeply tarnished since the Camelot myth has
crumbled, is further tarnished by the very buffs who claim they care about
him and care about justice. With all of the goofy theories about who
killed JFK, the buff community has turned his abbreviated life into a
cartoon.

[Bud]

It seems to be against Kennedy`s principles not to sleep with every
attractive woman he could. How is it being anti-Kennedy believing when
still another example of this surfaces?

> >>>> She realized she could not
> >>>> live on just Social Security.
>
> >>>     Small compensation for Kennedy using his position of power against
> >>> vulnerable women.
>
> >> You probably think Monica Lewinsky was an innocent victim.
>
> >    You probably naive enough to believe she was lying.
>
> Of course she was lying about something. But she admitted to the sex.
> That's all you guys care about.

Not only that. I found it interesting that she kept the tips of his
cigars moist. Why am I supposed to be interested in, her filing?

> >> Google Monica Lewinsky presidential knee pads.
> >> You seem to have this Victorian notion that women are incapable of being
> >> interested in sex.
>
> >    You have this idolized idea of Kennedy that doesn`t accept that he
> > was a sexual predator who preyed on young women.
>
> Huh? That is why he was so popular with women voters.

<snicker> Some politician just kiss babies.

[Anthony Marsh]

Kennedy haters make a big deal out of every example yet never admit that
their side does the same thing.

>>>>>> She realized she could not
>>>>>> live on just Social Security.
>>
>>>>> Small compensation for Kennedy using his position of power against
>>>>> vulnerable women.
>>
>>>> You probably think Monica Lewinsky was an innocent victim.
>>
>>> You probably naive enough to believe she was lying.
>>
>> Of course she was lying about something. But she admitted to the sex.
>> That's all you guys care about.
>
> Not only that. I found it interesting that she kept the tips of his
> cigars moist. Why am I supposed to be interested in, her filing?
>
>>>> Google Monica Lewinsky presidential knee pads.
>>>> You seem to have this Victorian notion that women are incapable of being
>>>> interested in sex.
>>
>>> You have this idolized idea of Kennedy that doesn`t accept that he
>>> was a sexual predator who preyed on young women.
>>
>> Huh? That is why he was so popular with women voters.
>
> <snicker> Some politician just kiss babies.
>

Yeah, yeah. Nixon kissed babies too.

[bigdog]

Well said!!!

[Bud]

Kennedy idolaters are forced to try to misdirect elsewhere to deflect
attention from St. Jack`s sins.

> >>>>>> She realized she could not
> >>>>>> live on just Social Security.
>
> >>>>>      Small compensation for Kennedy using his position of power against
> >>>>> vulnerable women.
>
> >>>> You probably think Monica Lewinsky was an innocent victim.
>
> >>>     You probably naive enough to believe she was lying.
>
> >> Of course she was lying about something. But she admitted to the sex.
> >> That's all you guys care about.
>
> >    Not only that. I found it interesting that she kept the tips of his
> > cigars moist. Why am I supposed to be interested in, her filing?
>
> >>>> Google Monica Lewinsky presidential knee pads.
> >>>> You seem to have this Victorian notion that women are incapable of being
> >>>> interested in sex.
>
> >>>     You have this idolized idea of Kennedy that doesn`t accept that he
> >>> was a sexual predator who preyed on young women.
>
> >> Huh? That is why he was so popular with women voters.
>
> >    <snicker>  Some politician just kiss babies.
>
> Yeah, yeah. Nixon kissed babies too.

You made it sound like Kennedy banged his way into the White House one
housewife at a time.

[bigdog]

You gotta admit its a great way to get votes, although I've read
Jackie confided to a friend that Jack had a fast gun.

[John McAdams]

Apparently, Angie Dickenson described sex with JFK as "the most
memorable 15 seconds of my life."

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/8188789/Mistresses-A-History-of-the-Other-Woman-by-Elizabeth-Abbott-review.html

.John
--------------
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/home.htm

[Bill Clarke]

In article <7229bcac-482a-4f4f...@hb4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
Bud says...

>
>On Feb 13, 4:17=A0pm, Anthony Marsh <anthony.ma...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> On 2/13/2012 11:45 AM, Bud wrote:

St. Jack! Good one Bud.

Bill Clarke


>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Feb 13, 6:46 am, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> =A0wrote:

>> >> On 2/12/2012 9:29 PM, Bud wrote:
>>

>> >>> On Feb 12, 5:34 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> =A0 =A0w=

>rote:
>> >>>> On 2/11/2012 9:31 PM, Bud wrote:
>>

>> >>>>> On Feb 11, 5:42 pm, Anthony Marsh<anthony.ma...@comcast.net> =A0 =
>=A0 =A0wrote:

>> >>>>>> On 2/11/2012 9:55 AM, Ace Kefford wrote:
>>

>> >>>>>>> On Feb 10, 4:50 pm, Chuck Schuyler<chu...@am-mtg.com> =A0 =A0 =A0=
> =A0wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> A Timothy Noah article in The New Republic reassessing JFK in li=

>ght of
>> >>>>>>>> the recent Mimi Alford allegations.
>>
>> >>>>>>>>http://www.tnr.com/blog/timothy-noah/100566/jfk-monster
>>

>> >>>>>>>> The original Hope and Change President was, on a personal level,=

> a
>> >>>>>>>> sort of monster to those around him.
>>

>> >>>>>>> Not sure what your last sentence is trying to say. =A0Does not se=

>em
>> >>>>>>> particularly relevant to the column that you posted.
>>

>> >>>>>>> The Noah piece is a very good one. =A0He emphasizes how much cree=
>pier,
>> >>>>>>> sicker, meaner, and more abusive it was for JFK to ask his young =

>teen
>> >>>>>>> mistress to perform oral sex on Dave Powers, who himself was not
>> >>>>>>> particularly desirous of it, while JFK watched.
>>
>> >>>>>> Only if you are naive enough to believe it.
>>

>> >>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0You`d have to be naive not to.

>>
>> >>>> You'll believe anything as long as it is anti-Kennedy.
>>

>> >>> =A0 =A0 I thought it was well known that Kennedy was a womanizer. How=

> could
>> >>> Kennedy indulge in activities that are anti-Kennedy?
>>
>> >> Huh? I said that you would believe in anything anti-Kennedy. I didn't
>> >> say anything about Kennedy being anti-Kennedy.
>>

>> > =A0 =A0It seems to be against Kennedy`s principles not to sleep with ev=

>ery
>> > attractive woman he could. How is it being anti-Kennedy believing when
>> > still another example of this surfaces?
>>
>> Kennedy haters make a big deal out of every example yet never admit that
>> their side does the same thing.
>
> Kennedy idolaters are forced to try to misdirect elsewhere to deflect
>attention from St. Jack`s sins.
>
>> >>>>>> She realized she could not
>> >>>>>> live on just Social Security.
>>

>> >>>>> =A0 =A0 =A0Small compensation for Kennedy using his position of pow=

>er against
>> >>>>> vulnerable women.
>>
>> >>>> You probably think Monica Lewinsky was an innocent victim.
>>

>> >>> =A0 =A0 You probably naive enough to believe she was lying.

>>
>> >> Of course she was lying about something. But she admitted to the sex.
>> >> That's all you guys care about.
>>

>> > =A0 =A0Not only that. I found it interesting that she kept the tips of =

>his
>> > cigars moist. Why am I supposed to be interested in, her filing?
>>
>> >>>> Google Monica Lewinsky presidential knee pads.

>> >>>> You seem to have this Victorian notion that women are incapable of b=
>eing
>> >>>> interested in sex.
>>
>> >>> =A0 =A0 You have this idolized idea of Kennedy that doesn`t accept th=

>at he
>> >>> was a sexual predator who preyed on young women.
>>
>> >> Huh? That is why he was so popular with women voters.
>>

>> > =A0 =A0<snicker> =A0Some politician just kiss babies.

>>
>> Yeah, yeah. Nixon kissed babies too.
>
> You made it sound like Kennedy banged his way into the White House one
>housewife at a time.
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>

>> >>>>>>> I am definitely someone who is overall positive on President Kenn=
>edy,
>> >>>>>>> but this incident if true (and I strongly suspect it is) would lo=
>wer
>> >>>>>>> most anyone's opinion of him as a person and emphasize even more =

[Pamela Brown]

On Feb 12, 10:16 pm, Bill Clarke <Bill_mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
> In article <cc39a573-3bf9-4703-8bbf-0dbab8a4f...@w9g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,

Tell me...

[Pamela Brown]

Are you saying Romney has stated he would not take a salary if elected
president?

[Anthony Marsh]

No, but he would donate it to the Mormon Church.