17,394
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 118:
Line 118: + + + + + + + + + + + +
comments continued
As a final note, I would appreciate it (simply from a perspective of readability) if you could type more accurately and with less typos. As it stands now, your typos are frequent and egregious, and it takes me several moments to figure out what you mean. I don't mean this personally, it's just something that I'm struggling with; as a college professor, I'm sure you understand. [[User:ChuckR|ChuckR]] 21:20, 8 November 2009 (EST)
As a final note, I would appreciate it (simply from a perspective of readability) if you could type more accurately and with less typos. As it stands now, your typos are frequent and egregious, and it takes me several moments to figure out what you mean. I don't mean this personally, it's just something that I'm struggling with; as a college professor, I'm sure you understand. [[User:ChuckR|ChuckR]] 21:20, 8 November 2009 (EST)
:::'''Addendum''': Also, it's pretty funny that you said "I you want to propose a paragraph, run it thrugh here first." (Translation: '''If you''' want to propose a paragraph, run it '''through''' here first"). Clearly, you did not do this yourself; you abused your administrator privileges by unilaterally inserting your own edits (with NO prior discussion) and then locking the article when others who dared to disagree with you attempted to edit your contributions. [[User:ChuckR|ChuckR]] 21:26, 8 November 2009 (EST)
:::'''Addendum''': Also, it's pretty funny that you said "I you want to propose a paragraph, run it thrugh here first." (Translation: '''If you''' want to propose a paragraph, run it '''through''' here first"). Clearly, you did not do this yourself; you abused your administrator privileges by unilaterally inserting your own edits (with NO prior discussion) and then locking the article when others who dared to disagree with you attempted to edit your contributions. [[User:ChuckR|ChuckR]] 21:26, 8 November 2009 (EST)
<br> on 1), there is overwhelming proof that Kennedy escalated the commitment in Vietnam by a factor of 20; there is no contrary evidence. Fits hawk position.
<br>2) read a little more.
<br>3) JFK's rhetoric on tax cuts sounds like Milton Friedman. JFK fits "middle of road"
<br>4) read Leuchtenburg
<br>5) most Republicans voted for the Civil Rights Bill--conservatives in the North approved it. for a liberal view look at Humphrey and JFK. JFK fits "middle of road"
<br>6) The Dems controlled Congress and wrote most all the laws. But immigration reform in 1965 was bipartisan. The main opponents were Dems who controlled key committees. Fits "middle of road"
<br>7) JFK followed the very strict Catholic line on these issues--how conservative would you like?
<br> 9) no. he rejected WPA-CCC-FERA model of relief of unemployment instead called for economic growth (esp Appalachia) and retraining as cure for poverty. Conservative here.
<br> 10) Conservatives split in 1940 but at least half opposed Lend Lease. JFK's position is unclear. (His father and brother spoke out against it but he was quiet uin public and privately advised his father to support aid to Britain for political reasons. See O'Brien)
<br> 11) Eleanor Roosevelt was normally a leading liberal but she strongly opposed the ERA, and that put her alongside the conservatives on the issue to which Kennedy appointed her.
<br> 12) on Medicare JFK was on the liberal side and I was wrong to say otherwise. (He failed to get anything passed, however, and was considered a weak advocate.)
<br>the death penalty was not one of his issues. Public housing was still a bipartisan issue (Taft had coauthored the basic law.) he was mildly liberal on Department of Urban Affairs. In all, a mixed domestic record. As for foreign policy, he was strongly on the hawkish side and that included the Peace Corps as an anti-Communist agency. [[User:RJJensen|RJJensen]] 22:18, 8 November 2009 (EST)