Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Since Oswald was just a patsy, I don't see why people "hate" him. I'd hate the anti-Castro sniper behind the Grassy Knoll, though. :-)
Don't forget about Chicago Oufit mobster Johnny Roselli who shot Kennedy from a storm drain on Elm Street and E. Howard Hunt, Frank Sturgis, and Woody Harrelson's father who shot from another location and were the "three tramps" in Dealy Plaza--along with the mysterious Corsican hitman who delivered the final shot---and of course, New Orleans mafioso Carlos Marcello and Guy Bannister who engineered the whole thing with the partnership of the CIA and Cuban exiles with the approval of LBJ.
You think people would just hate all those folks instead of Oswald...
Personally, it is my opinion that JFK was the most dangerous man to ever become president, and if he had served two full terms, he might have set in motion the near-destruction of civilization. His foreign policy was hair-trigger, and he possessed all the necessary charisma to become another Hitler, but without a holocaust. As well as a highly exaggerated sense of his own historical destiny. I suspect this was recognized by those who motivated Oswald.
As for Booth, there was nothing left for Lincoln to do in his administration, and the fact of his assassination might very well have lubricated the nation's resolve to carry out what he envisioned.
So in those respects, both Oswald and Booth were heroes in their own way.
Personally, it is my opinion that JFK was the most dangerous man to ever become president, and if he had served two full terms, he might have set in motion the near-destruction of civilization. His foreign policy was hair-trigger, and he possessed all the necessary charisma to become another Hitler, but without a holocaust. I suspect this was recognized by those who motivated Oswald.
As for Booth, there was nothing left for Lincoln to do in his administration, and the fact of his assassination might very well have lubricated the nation's resolve to carry out what he envisioned.
So in that respect, both Oswald and Booth were heroes in their own way.
So, if someone murders someone that you do not like, that advances the killer to heroic status?
By logical extension, all murderers could be heroes. JFK was bad and Oswald killed him to become a jtur hero. Then Ruby killed Oswald so he became a hero to all those who disliked Oswald. Had Soandso then killed Ruby, Soandso becomes heroic to those who didn't care for Ruby...and then some folks didn't like Soandso, so....and on and on.
You have delivered up a formula for a society based on serial homicide.
And.....
Quote:
nothing left for Lincoln to do in his administration
Really? Reconstruction was nothing by your interpretation? Such an inconsequential thing that President Lincoln could have devoted his final four years to fishing and square dancing, no particular leadership of any sort was required?
I think, history has so many lies in it, so much cover ups, painting particular people in dark colors and as monsters, for political reasons, that judging anyone based on history is simply immature. And the farther back history goes, the better it is buried in lies. Not saying the facts of those killings are fake. Just saying - it is not wise to judge. I am aware of at least one historical "monster" that, actually, if you listen to the right historians, can be easily cleared of many monstrosities hung on him. No surprise, that show I suddenly disappeared from TV.
"hate" and "love" have been reduced to mild everyday emotions about just about everything. There's nothing wrong with having (and using) a larger vocabulary.
If you say "hate" or "love"as a usual emotion in speech all the time, what do you say when you really feel strongly about someone?
You LOVE that new dress, you love the new hairdo, you love ice cream, you love your husband, wife, mother, baby. All the same emotion, right?
I agree that the words are over-used, but c'mon, we're not allowed to hate the killer of a great President? Would "I don't have a favorable emotional attachment to Oswald and Booth" be politically correct enough?
Poor President McKinley and President Garfield... No one even remembers them enough to hate Leon Czolgosz or Charles Guiteau...
Czolgosz and Guiteau made the mistake of not becoming known by three names, instantly dumping them into the second tier of assassins. If they had no middle names, they could have gone with nicknames and that would have served the purpose. We may forget Charles Guiteau or Leon Czolgosz, but I bet we would have remembered Charles "Too Tall" Guiteau or Leon "Night Train" Czolgosz. Maybe if Guiteau had gone with "G-Toe."
Czolgosz also suffers for having an eye chart style last name, no one remembers how it is pronounced or spelled...you don't have to look up "Booth" or "Oswald" to check on the spelling before mentioning them.
Kennedy was the most dangerous president?? Have you forgotten about the Bushes???
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
