7f-
in case you haven't noticed, no one here is getting uptight or upset with what you're posting. they are laughing at you. just what is it you think your "work" amounts to? what is it you hope to prove beyond your obsession with events a half-century past? this is a weed site, we all know what this government is capable of. we all know that there are warring factions within the government that are more than willing to see hundreds, thousands or even millions dead merely to change the balance of power in their favor. it quite obviously has little effect on our willingness to delude ourselves that there is someone we can place in power that we can trust. we are constantly replacing one regime with another, as soon as we realize how thoroughly we have been duped, and we just turn around and rush into the arms of another group of thieves.
look at the man whose assassination you are so obsessed with. born and bred to power, his ascension to the presidency meant little to the people themselves. had he survived and served even two terms, nothing would have changed. the war in viet nam, being an integral part of the cold war, would have proceeded, though it might have ended a few moments sooner. the civil rights movement, spurred on by popular demand, would have proceeded and both its positive and negative results remained unchanged. the tensions between the u.s. and the soviet union would have still existed and its attendant arms race would still have bankrupted the russians and left the world with this glut of useless nuclear hardware. jfk was just another in a long line of would-be kings, groomed for power and destined to abuse it. in truth, his assassination was probably the best thing that could have happened to his legacy. it ended his reign before we had the chance to see that he was little more than another entitled rich kid, guaranteed his place at a table that most of us can never even dream of glimpsing.
the myth is always so much greater than the man. the left holds jfk up as one of its great heroes, but he was conservative when compared to today's batch of liberal elitists. warned of the dangers of the military-industrial complex by his predecessor, he would have been as helpless to stop its progress as his successor. in truth, he would have been just as indebted to the support of the military and its attendant industrial suppliers as have been all other presidents. he would have found no up-side to the concept of reducing the collusion between major industry and the government. he would have seen only the power that such control afforded him to further his own agenda. it was only his charisma that was relevant to the furthering of that agenda. johnson's "great society" mirrored every aspect of kennedy's domestic agenda, replete with entitlement programs and populist rhetoric, and its failure was ensured by the heavy hand of government waste. trillions of taxpayer dollars have been squandered over the years on the same sort of misguided pie-in-sky programs that were kennedy's dream and the only real result is a bloated federal bureaucracy that continues to grow and to suck the people dry.
so why this infatuation with what should be just another footnote in history? i suppose there will always be those who just want to feel as if they know something of which the rest of us are ignorant. even if you could prove beyond a shadow of a doubt all you claim, the game would just keep on being played. kennedy's death doesn't even serve as a cautionary tale, it is merely a small blip on the radar of american political history. it may provide the naive with a mythical figure to pin their dreams upon, but he is only a pale imitation of the destructive figure of fdr.
