JFK

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:Eqatb.2325$Dw6.16807@attbi_s02...
Not only that, but many people are honest, have integrity, and believe in
morality and still have affairs. Many people would never stand up to the
scrutiny that they impose on others. The Republicans found that out during
the Clinton impeachment as Bob Livingston, Bob Barr, Dan Burton, Helen
Chenoweth all revealed they had affairs. Newt Gingrich was rumored to have
resigned under the same cloud.

But they didn't commit perjury to cover it and offer high paying government
jobs to keep it quiet. Also, Chenoweth didn;t have an "affair" (IMS) as she
was unmarried at the time as was her sexual partner.


The point is, all of these politicians, Republican and Democrat, are quite
likely honest people who will do a good job representing the people who
elected them. Once they started throwing stones, however, the glass houses
cumbled.

Once again, their marraiges, sex life or other personal issues are none of
our damn business.

Of course, the same could be said for people in the private sector, but the
same behavior cost several people millions, jail time, and forced retirement
in the case of the military.

Notice how quickly NOW shut up then and haven't opened their yaps since
regarding "Sexual Harassment"?

"Jay Honeck" wrote in message
news:mRatb.2399$Dw6.17579@attbi_s02...
Not only that, but many people are honest, have integrity, and believe
in
morality and still have affairs.

Evidently your definitions of "honesty", "integrity", and "morality"
conflict with mine. I'd be interested (though probably not on an
aviation
newsgroup) to hear how someone can possess those attributes while at the
same time cheating on their spouse.

The mental gymnastics it would take to bring those two diametrically
opposed
moral positions into balance would be fun to watch, if nothing else.

We'll define "if" nothing else.

Jay

I thought I was high man with the foot in the mouth gig?

Lately it seems like I'm shooting the gun before I cock it.

Big John

On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 13:54:10 GMT, "Jay Honeck"
wrote:

I've only been reading this group for a few months, so I have to ask -
is
this the first time Pete's been mistaken?


No.

Well, more accurately he thought he was wrong once, but was then proved to
be incorrect.

"Newps" wrote in message
news:w5ctb.152015$9E1.760542@attbi_s52...


Jay Honeck wrote:



End result: JFK may have had some good traits as a leader -- and I don't
think he wasn't in office long enough to prove that assertion -- but he
was
not an admirable man.

He was in office for nearly three years. If your leadership can't be
proved in that amount of time then you don't have it.

And at the time he was shot, his approval rating was below 30% and it was
looking like he would not be re-elected. There's a good case that LBJ was
involved in the assassination because he wanted the office and being dumped
with JFK would have precluded him from being elected later on his own.

Like FDR, there's a lot of scholarship showing that JFK was a disaster as a
president.

"Dan Luke" wrote in message
...
My choice for a "best" leader would be Abe Lincoln, who lead his country
through a war and a difficult moral struggle with honesty and dignity --
and he wasn't bad in the gift of gab department, either.

That "Abe" was honest is questionable. That he set this country on the path
to an overarching state is beyond doubt.

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Bob Noel wrote:

In most courses/seminars about leadership, surveyed people
consistently believe that honesty, integrity, morality are highly
valued characteristics of the best leaders.

Actually, I don't want politicians who are leaders. Hitler's title was
"the
leader". Mussolini's title was "the leader". Whatever happened to the idea
that
the president and Congreass are *servants* of the people?

Collectives need leaders; individuals need self-leadership.

"Michael 182" wrote in message
news:%lgtb.150479$mZ5.1024722@attbi_s54...
You missed the point. I'm not arguing whether he was a good or bad
president. I'm just saying that his infidelity has nothing to do with his
political successes or failures. You make some good points regarding his
failures, and those are appropriate to measure hs career by, not his
personal life.

Actually, it ( his infidelity) did.

He was forced to cover his indiscressions and it cost him (and more
particularly the country) several times. Not to mention banging a Soviet spy
and other boneheaded moves...

"Big John" wrote in message
...
This started OT as I was flying when it happened but sure got off
thread rapidly. Interesting subject to see how history has treated
those involved (facts, innuendo's etc.)


Big John


Well, John, is it innuendo that he was shot on Nov. 22nd, not Nov.14th ??
:~)

"Mike Rhodes" wrote in message
...
What the U.S. gained was LBJ managing of JFK's Asian commitments.
But I think congress was more committed to Asia than even LBJ, who
seemed a bit indecisive on the matter. (I'm guessing here. We were
committed, and warned against that.) I think he had good reason to be
indecisive.

Since LBJ's wife was a major shareholder in the transportation company
(marine shipping) that had virtually a monopoly contract to ship war
material to Vietnam...well, you can guess the rest.

"Steve DeMoss" wrote in message
ink.net...
I was in 6th grade. However, since the assassination of JFK occurred on
11/22/63, I still had a full day of school and went home to a regular
weekend. You're a week early, John.

I also find it interesting that we get all of these little subthreads
about
Kennedy and his family and ideology and politics, and yet *nobody* noticed
that the date mentioned was in error. Does this mean that we'll have to
redo
this thread next week?


Read the entire thread: about six or seven people noticed that date snafu.