I'm not sure how many people remember that Kennedy was criticised for being a Catholic during the 1960 presidential campaign.
That said: check out this poster.
About 5,000 copies of this flyer were distributed around Dallas in the days before President Kennedy’s November 22, 1963 visit, accused Kennedy of a range of offenses, from being “lax” on Communism, to “appointing anti-Christians to Federal office,” to lying to the American people about his personal life.
The poster was designed by General Edwin A. Walker, a Texan who served in World War II and the Korean War, who had resigned from the Army in 1961 after a Kennedy-ordered investigation found that he had violated the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from engaging in political activity on the job, by distributing John Birch Society literature to his troops. Walker then moved to Dallas and became a leader of right-wing activity in the city.
Look familiar?
See also:
Some might be serious,
ReplyDeletehttps://confederateshop.com/shop/lincoln-wanted-poster-2/
And some are simply political speech,
http://graphicgraffitiroom.blogspot.com/2008/06/wanted-george-bush-nail-his-ass-with.html
http://www.dethronethebanksters.com/impeach-obama-now/
So, who gets to say which political speech is acceptable, and which is not?
The Supreme Court
DeleteGood answer Anon. So if its all right to do it with Bush, its ok with any other President.
DeleteYep, at least I answer questions.
DeleteWhat, Laci? No mention of the fact that Kennedy's commie-loving assassin is widely thought to have also taken a crack at Walker? A rather glaring omission on your part, doncha think, and rather strong evidence that Walker's pamphleteering had nothing to do with Kennedy's assassination?
ReplyDeleteOh--that's right--you're idiotic, subhuman filth, so of course you wouldn't bring that up. Sorry--my mistake.
"is widely thought to have," is the liar's way of giving credence to fringe theories that are believed by almost no one.
DeleteKurt, I'd like to remind you to tone down the name calling a tiny bit, if you don't mind.
Umm, Mikeb, do you consider the Warren Commission to be purveyors of "fringe theories that are believed by almost no one"? If not, you're looking a bit sillier than usual--that's pretty impressive.
DeleteFrom the Warren Commission report--care to comment, Mikeb?
DeleteConclusion.--Based on (1) the contents of the note which Oswald left for his wife on April 10, 1963, (2) the photographs found among Oswald's possessions, (3) the testimony of firearms identification experts, and (4) the testimony of Marina Oswald, the Commission has concluded that Lee Harvey Oswald attempted to take the life of Maj. Gen. Edwin A. Walker (Resigned, U.S. Army) on April 10, 1963. The finding that Lee Harvey Oswald attempted to murder a public figure in April 1963 was considered of probative value in this investigation, although the Commission's conclusion concerning the identity of the assassin was based on evidence independent of the finding that Oswald attempted to kill General Walker.
Going to stick to your original story--that I, a "liar," said "is widely thought to have" in an attempt to give "credence to fringe theories that are believed by almost no one," or are you man enough (Ha!) to admit that I used that wording in perhaps an excess of caution, because although the evidence of Oswald's guilt in the Walker assassination attempt is both compelling and fairly extensive, it is circumstantial, and because when it comes to anything even remotely related to the Kennedy assassination, nothing is universally accepted?
Alternatively, I suppose you could accuse me of fabricating my own, phony Warren Commission report, out of some obsessive desire to embarrass you and Laci (as if you two need my help to embarrass yourselves), but hopefully, even you will eventually have to admit that populating the entire internet with only my phony version of the report is a bit beyond my abilities, even if I were so crazily inclined. If, however, you want to play the poor, pitiful, persecuted "gun control" zealot, always victimized by gun rights advocates' vast, elaborate conspiracies, I suppose I couldn't accuse you of failing to be consistent.
An apology for the false accusation of "liar" would be appreciated, and entirely unexpected from someone of your character.
Sorry, you've repeatedly earned the title of liar. Of course, yours are usually so convoluted and tricky that at a superficial glance they might not seem so, but I've got your number, wink, wink.
DeleteA perfect example is the way you twisted my brief comment above into some kind of acceptance of the Warren Report and then challenged me with " If not, you're looking a bit sillier than usual."
No, Kurt, you're a glib, lying, gun-rights fanatic, plain and simple.
Nah, Mikeb--I'll leave the lying to you. Not because you're good at it--you lack the wit to lie convincingly, but because lying ain't my game, and because lies are all you have. The truth sure ain't doing you any favors, so you have to scrape by on transparent lies.
DeleteBetter you than me.
Well, this is a very interesting article.
ReplyDeleteIndeed a very interesting post, highly reminiscent of recent lunatic rantings which are always supported and disseminated by people like Kurt Hofmann.
ReplyDeleteHa ha! Good one!
Delete"Umm, Mikeb, do you consider the Warren Commission to be purveyors of "fringe theories that are believed by almost no one"? "
ReplyDeletehttp://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/03/jfk-assassination-conspiracy_n_4208374.html
"A clear majority of Americans still suspect there was a conspiracy behind President John F. Kennedy's assassination, but the percentage who believe accused shooter Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone is at its highest level since the mid-1960s, according to an Associated Press-GfK poll.
According to the AP-GfK survey, conducted in mid-April, 59 percent of Americans think multiple people were involved in a conspiracy to kill the president, while 24 percent think Oswald acted alone, and 16 percent are unsure. A 2003 Gallup poll found that 75 percent of Americans felt there was a conspiracy.
As the 50th anniversary of Kennedy's death approaches, the number of Americans who believe Oswald acted alone is at its highest since the period three years after the Nov. 22, 1963, assassination, when 36 percent said one man was responsible."
I should of course know better, Jade, than to ask if you have a point (first time for everything, I suppose) here, but help me out--what am I supposed to take from this? That lots of people think Oswald was not acting alone, and therefore, the Warren Commission's conclusion that Oswald tried to kill Gen. Walker is, as Mikeb called it, one of the "fringe theories that are believed by almost no one"?
DeleteThe point couldn't be clearer. Only a small minority of Americans have confidence the Warren Report's findings are accurate. Far more believe it wasn't or don't know/care.
ReplyDeleteMany of the JFK theories are looneytunes spread by people who do shoddy research or are out to make a buck or both.
The evidence is pretty slim LHO tried to kill Walker. In fact, Walker, himself, believed the assassination attempt involved more people than Oswald. And let's face the fact, Walker was just as crazy as any NRA board member.
The "point" is ludicrous. Yes--many people believe there was far more to the assassination than the Warren Commission concluded. That falls a rather long way short of rendering the Commission's findings "fringe theories that are believed by almost no one," and even further short of implicating me as a liar for claiming that Oswald "is widely thought to have" taken a shot at Walker.
DeleteAlso, if you want Walker's suspicions that Oswald was also not acting alone in trying to kill him (which even if true, does nothing to weaken the conclusion that Oswald did make such an attempt, even if it wasn't alone) taken seriously, you're not exactly strengthening your position with the observation that Walker was crazy (an assertion I don't dispute).
Thank you for playing--very amusing.
Kurt: "Widely thought" is weasel term. It is "widely thought" the President was born in Kenya and it's "widely thought" 9/11 was an inside job, etc.
DeleteI really don't have to imply you're a liar--I;ll just let your comments speak to that.
So because I used language that openly admitted that although the official government position is that Oswald took a typically left-wing incompetent shot at Walker, there is room for doubt about that conclusion, I am using a "weasel term" to advance bonehead conspiracy theories?
DeleteJames Brady and Gabrielle Giffords suffer from severe brain damage stemming from having been shot in the head. What's your excuse for your slobbering idiocy?
Really? So, LHO was a "left-wing incompetent shot" who managed to miss a stationary Walker from close range but was capable of hitting JFK, at a greater distance, in a moving motorcade with several shots? Is that your story, Kurt?
ReplyDeleteI'd not be too hard on either Brady or Giffords, Kurt, considering they still have much more going for them than you.
Really? So, LHO was a "left-wing incompetent shot" who managed to miss a stationary Walker from close range but was capable of hitting JFK, at a greater distance, in a moving motorcade with several shots? Is that your story, Kurt?
DeletePretty much. Even a typically incompetent left-wing shooter can get atypically lucky on occasion. Or, for that matter, maybe one of the conspiracy theories is right, and there was a second shooter that day in Dallas.
As for Brady and Giffords, I don't think I was being "too hard on" them--I was excusing their idiotic evil to some extent, because of their severe brain damage. It was you for whom I see no excuse. And yeah, I suppose it could be said that "they still have much more going for them than" I do, or at least that would make sense if I wanted to mobilize a bunch of low-information voters to voluntarily surrender their own liberties.
The thing is, that's not a goal of mine.
I don't think it could be said they have much more going for them than you; the hard fact is they do. They;re loved, respected and have made great contributions to society.
DeleteYou have not. And the sad thing is, you never will.
What little affirmation you get is completely dependent on holding fast to an extremist viewpoint shared by a few. You're a novelty--no different than a cheap CrackerJack prize; useful to some but largely ignored by the vast majority.
Fact is, Kurt--and I'm not telling you anything you don't already know--is without your extremist views, you don't exist. You aren't loved. you certainly aren't respected or admired. Your only thread to humanity is an appeal to the small fringe.
Think about that when you attempt to denigrate a Jim or Gabby Giffords. In your mind--damaged as it is--the love, respect and courage they embody only amplify your own shortcomings--as a man and as a human.
Actually, Jade, if I needed affirmation (and I don't), I would get plenty from, well . . . you.
DeleteThere is as much nobility in being despised by the despicable as in being admired by the admirable. Your contempt and loathing are a badge of honor, and for that, you have my sincere thanks.
Kurt, you know that affirmation is all you have. You can't point to any personal or professional accomplishments; all you have is the novelty you offer to an extreme few.
DeleteIt's a pretty slender thread on which to base a life.
I'd suggest you think about it but I'm certain you do all the time.