^_^

what is amazing is that not only did this happen in nebraska but it was a woman judge. if anything i would expect a woman to be tougher in this situation.

http://www.thekitchenoflove.com/kitchen/index.asp

FCC refuses to investigate NSA collection of phone records By Colin Gibbs May 24, 2006 WASHINGTON?The Federal Communications Commission said it will not investigate whether telephone companies violated consumer-privacy laws by reportedly releasing millions of phone records to a U.S. spy agency. In a letter released Tuesday, FCC Chairman Kevin Martin said an inability to obtain classified material would prevent the agency from looking into a newspaper report that AT&T Inc., Verizon Communications Inc. and BellSouth Corp. handed over call records to the National Security Agency. continued below ?The classified nature of the NSA?s activities makes us unable to investigate the alleged violations,? Martin said. ?The commission has no power to order the production of classified information.? Martin?s letter came in response to a request from Rep. Edward Markey, (D-Mass.), to look into a USA Today report that the three telecom companies handed over call records to the spy agency. Verizon and BellSouth denied turning over the records, and BellSouth has demanded the newspaper retract the story. The FCC can fine phone companies more than $1 million for violating the 1934 Communications Act, which requires carriers to protect customer confidentiality unless the disclosure is in response to a court order or is approved by the consumer. Earlier this year, the FCC proposed fining AT&T and Alltel Corp. $100,000 each after private companies were found to be selling phone records over the Internet. Martin?s refusal drew a pointed rebuke from Markey, who called for congressional intervention. ?The FCC? has taken a pass at investigating what is estimated to be the nation?s largest violation of consumer privacy ever to occur,? Markey said in a prepared statement. ?If the FCC initiates an investigation and gets blocked by the White House, then the White House is stonewalling. But if the FCC refuses to even demand answers, then the White House never has to block the enforcement agency from getting to the bottom of this.? http://www.rcrrews.com/news.cms?newsId=26437

for people watching the game and get WGN be advised the WGN feed is a good 3-4 seconds ahead of the FSN feed.

Angry lawmakers demand FBI return seized documents Search of congressman's office unconstitutional, they say Wednesday, May 24, 2006; Posted: 1:16 p.m. EDT (17:16 GMT) WASHINGTON (AP) -- House Speaker Dennis Hastert demanded Wednesday that the FBI surrender documents and other items agents seized on Capitol Hill in what lawmakers said was an unconstitutional raid. "I think those materials ought to be returned," said Hastert, adding that the FBI agents involved "ought to be frozen out of that (case) for the sake of the Constitution." The Saturday night search of Rep. William Jefferson's office on Capitol Hill brought Democrats and Republicans together in rare election-year accord, with both parties protesting agency conduct they said violated the Constitution's separation of powers doctrine. (Watch how the FBI constructed its case against the congressman -- 1:28) "Not anyone here is above the law," Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said Tuesday. But, she added, "I think you've seen abuse of power of the executive branch over this weekend." A day earlier, Hastert, R-Illinois, complained personally to President Bush about raid. Other House officials have predicted that the case would bring all three branches together at the Supreme Court for a constitutional showdown. (Raid raises constitutional issues -- 2:57) But while most leaders of both parties stand together in opposition to an executive branch raid of a legislative branch office, party leaders are acting on different political agendas. Democrats, hoping to exploit Republican scandals on Capitol Hill and regain control of Congress, are asking Jefferson, of Louisiana, to resign his seat on the House's most prestigious panel, the tax-writing Ways and Means Committee. Pelosi sent a letter Wednesday to Jefferson asking him to step down from the committee. "In the interest of upholding the high ethical standard of the House Democratic Caucus, I am writing to request your immediate resignation from the Ways and Means Committee," the letter said. For his part, Jefferson, who has denied wrongdoing, remains defiant. "I will not give up a committee assignment that is so vital to New Orleans at this crucial time for any uncertain, long-term political strategy," Jefferson said Tuesday. "If asked, I would respectfully decline." His spokeswoman, Melanie Roussell, added that Jefferson will not resign from Congress. Lawmakers predict a long dispute over the FBI's search of Jefferson's office last weekend. Historians say it was the first raid of a representative's quarters in Congress' 219 years. FBI agents searched Jefferson's office in pursuit of evidence in a bribery investigation. The search warrant, signed by U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Hogan, was based on an affidavit that said agents found $90,000 in cash wrapped and stashed in the freezer of Jefferson's home. Jefferson has not been indicted and has denied wrongdoing. "My opinion is that they took the wrong path," Hastert said of the FBI, after meeting with Bush in the White House. "They need to back up, and we need to go from there." White House officials said they did not learn of the search until after it happened. They pledged to work with the Justice Department to soothe lawmakers. "We are hoping that there's a way to balance the constitutional concerns of the House of Representatives with the law enforcement obligations of the executive branch," White House press secretary Tony Snow said. "Obviously we are taking note of Speaker Hastert's statements." Attorney General Alberto Gonzales tried to strike a conciliatory tone, saying, "We have a great deal of respect for the Congress as a coequal branch of government." But he also defended the search: "We have an obligation to the American people to pursue the evidence where it exists." Justice Department officials said the decision to search Jefferson's office was made in part because he refused to comply with a subpoena for documents last summer. Jefferson reported the subpoena to the House on September 15, 2005. Copyright 2006 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/05/24/rai...s.ap/index.html

NFL representative approached president's brother Posted: Wednesday May 24, 2006 10:26AM; Updated: Wednesday May 24, 2006 12:25PM TALLAHASSEE, Fla. (AP) -- Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said he was privately approached about his interest in becoming the NFL's next commissioner. Bush said Tuesday the issue was discussed at a recent meeting with Patrick Rooney Sr., according to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel. Rooney's brother is Dan Rooney, owner of Super Bowl champion Pittsburgh Steelers and co-chair of the search committee looking to replace the retiring Paul Tagliabue. "I met with Mr. Rooney and I said, 'I'm doing my job until I'm finished and then I'm going to consider other things,"' Bush told the newspaper. Bush has said he will not run for president in 2008. His final term as governor ends in January, although he doesn't believe NFL officials will hold the position open until then. Tagliabue, who has been commissioner since 1989, announced in March his decision to retire. Although he originally set a July 31 deadline to be out of the job, he has indicated his willingness to stay on longer. Copyright 2006 Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed. http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/foot...ex.html?cnn=yes

Candidate suggests rival might die in office SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - A candidate for the California state assembly says vote for me, not my rival because the opponent, a heart transplant recipient, could die in office. "Can you imagine the costs to taxpayers for a special election when poor health renders him unable to fulfil the duties of office?" former Modesto City Councilman Bill Conrad wrote in a mailing to voters. "Republicans deserve a strong candidate . . ." Conrad faces Tom Berryhill in the Republican primary for the 25th Assembly District. The primary is June 6. The mailer says in bold red letters, "Tom Berryhill doesn't have the HEART for State Assembly," and suggests that he might not survive the two-year term if elected because he had a heart transplant five years ago. Berryhill, the son of a former state legislator, said his health is fine. He described the mailing as one of the harshest things he's seen in 40 years of politics. "I think the voters are going to reflect that (fact) come June 6," he said in a telephone interview. "I think they are going to send a great big, old loud message that it just doesn't work here." Conrad's flier said the average life span of a heart transplant recipient is seven years, anti-rejection drugs taken by recipients weaken their immune systems and severe stress shortens their life expectancy. Berryhill, 52, said his heart problems stemmed from exposure to pesticides and herbicides while working on his family's farm, resulting in a heart valve replacement when he was 21 and a heart transplant in 2001. "What (Conrad) failed to tell you is if you live through three years without any rejection, you have a normal life span," he said. Conrad, 48, said he raised the health question as a way to draw attention to other issues in the race. "It's not about his heart; it's about his qualifications," he said. "Hopefully, they will look at my qualifications, too." He also defended the fairness of the mailing. "The bottom line is the voters will decide. At least they have a choice," Conrad said. http://cnews.canoe.ca/CNEWS/WeirdNews/2006...1594048-ap.html

http://www.400monkeys.com/God/

come spend the weekend with me Ms Lilly, & I'll call you fat & ugly all you want. the hobbit has dibs. maybe she doesn't like hobbits? :mischief

Great hockey, yes, but is anyone watching? By Darren Rovell ESPN.com Archive In case the NHL isn't already reeling enough from its low regular-season television ratings, the numbers from the Stanley Cup playoff broadcasts could really stagger the league. The four teams still playing in the conference finals are a quintessential small-market assemblage: Anaheim, Buffalo, Carolina and Edmonton. The last time the Stanley Cup finals were played, when small-market titans Tampa Bay and Calgary battled in the Cup finals in June 2004, ABC recorded its lowest ratings for the season-ending series since it began airing the NHL in 2000. Now this. Edmonton is already up 2-0 on the Mighty Ducks in the Western Conference finals, which hurts appeal in American markets. Even north of the border, Edmonton is the smallest Canadian city that has an NHL franchise. The Raleigh-Durham area, home to the Hurricanes, is only the 29th-rated television market in the United States. Buffalo ranks 49th on that list. And in Anaheim, which is part of the greater Los Angeles population base, 51 percent of the market doesn't have access to the Outdoor Life Network, one of the league's two current television partners, on its cable system. Regular-season broadcasts on OLN this year drew an average of only 117,000 households, according to Nielsen, compared with the 416,000 homes that watched hockey broadcasts on ESPN and the 209,000 homes that watched games on ESPN2 in 2003-04. Last year's season and playoffs were canceled because of a work stoppage. "We need to grow the ratings. The NHL knows that, and we know that," OLN president Gavin Harvey said. "We think that's something that needs to be judged over a couple of years." To put those numbers in perspective, more people watched the 13 WNBA broadcasts on ESPN2 last year than the NHL on OLN this year. And NBC's poker series, which preceded the network's NHL playoff coverage two weeks ago, easily outdrew the hockey by more than 200,000 viewers. Still, the playoffs have been and are expected to continue to be very competitive, so the NHL is staying optimistic about the remaining Stanley Cup matchups. "We don't think having small market teams necessarily equates to bad ratings," league spokeswoman Bernadette Mansur said. "Viewership is also about the quality of the game, and the game is in great shape." One of the issues, though, for the ratings is the star power, or lack of it, on the teams still alive. It's hard to imagine any combination of Teemu Selanne, Michael Peca, Chris Drury and Eric Staal being embraced overwhelmingly during the Stanley Cup finals by NBC viewers used to watching "Deal or No Deal." If there ever was a year in which the league needed a little luck with large-market success stories or teams with great traditions -- such as Detroit and Montreal -- this is it. In the wake of the first yearlong work stoppage in pro sports history, two new broadcast partners (OLN and NBC) are airing the NHL; and neither has been able to generate anything in the way of big ratings. "The ratings comparisons are not an accurate barometer of how many NHL fans we have," Mansur said. "The younger 12-to-18-year-old male demographic isn't necessarily watching the games on television as much as they are following them on the Internet or using other technology to find out about their favorite teams." The deal with OLN, which will bring the league at least $65 million for each of the first two seasons, has been the most criticized. From a financial perspective, it seemed like a no-brainer when the deal was struck. ESPN, which had broadcast NHL games regularly since 1992, declined its one-year, $60 million option after the canceled season, when replacement programming such as "Bowling Night" and "Stump The Schwab" drew ratings that were at least comparable to its hockey broadcasts of a year earlier. "It wasn't as if ESPN didn't want us at all," Mansur said. "It was just a question of how much they were willing to pay." From a long-term future outlook, league officials rationalized that OLN -- famous for Tour de France and bull-riding broadcasts -- would market the league better than ESPN did because the new partner, unlike ESPN, would make the league's broadcast the cornerstone of its property. OLN has done that, as its prime-time broadcasting during the playoffs essentially has turned it into the hockey channel. Although the network has expanded to 69 million homes -- an increase of 6 million -- during the season, that number is still 21 million short of ESPN's reach. Critics also noted from the outset that putting hockey games on OLN would make broadcasts of the NHL appointment television only. Few people seem to stumble on to OLN the way they seem to come across ESPN on their cable dial. So far, the playoffs haven't generated any additional interest for NBC, either. In fact, the ratings are down. The network's regular-season games were watched in 1.09 million households, according to Nielsen data, and playoff games have been watched by 1.02 million households "Given that there was no play last year, the ratings are within the ballpark of what we expected," NBC spokesman Brian Walker said. "From a business standpoint, we expected to be profitable in Year 1, and we will be." That was going to be a more attainable goal for NBC than for OLN, as NBC's deal with the NHL was a revenue-sharing arrangement rather than a rights-fee contract. On the positive side, the NHL's hard-core fan base has returned to the game and boosted in-house attendance, as many league officials predicted would happen. The NHL is the only league that has averaged more fans in the stands after a work stoppage, and it has managed that feat twice. After a lockout shortened the 1994-95 season to 48 games, the NHL averaged 50 fans more per game than it did in the 1993-94 season. This year was even better. League attendance was up by 2.4 percent as arenas across the league were filled to 91.7 percent capacity. The average per-game attendance of 16,955 is an all-time record for the NHL. "It wasn't like we didn't expect things to be affected," Mansur said. "We did lose an entire season." Darren Rovell, who covers sports business for ESPN.com, can be reached at [email protected]. http://sports.espn.go.com/nhl/playoffs2006...ht&lid=tab2pos2

Evangeline Lilly on the Cover of Elle Magazine by James Poling Poor little Evangeline Lilly. Sure she's a star on a hit television show on ABC. Sure the show films in Hawaii which means for half the year she gets paid to live in a tropical paradise. But really, none of us can imagine how hard it is to be poor little Evangeline. I'm sure she would trade places with anyone of us to get out of that living hell she calls a life. "The notion of 'aloha' is really nice when you are a visitor walking on the sidewalk and everyone's cool and going, 'Yay! Aloha!' But when you are on the road running late for work and everyone's f**king 'Yay! Aloha!' you want to snap! "No one understands that there is a passing lane, no one understands there is a speed limit you can exceed." I for one, thank god everyday that I don't live in a hell hole like that. Thankfully I live in a city where people knock you down to get to where they're going, every lane is a passing lane and a speed limit? Fuhgettaboutit. And instead of saying, "Yay! Aloha!" they all say, "get the f*** out of my way a**hole!". I can't imagine the nightmare Evangeline Lilly is living through in Hawaii. But her trauma doesn't end there. No, she's way more cursed than most people. "What curse is that?" you ask. The curse of beauty. She finally has the nerve to confront it in her Elle Magazine interview. "I used to cry myself to sleep wishing I was ugly because of the way men leered at and disrespected me." I think all of us ugly people can be glad that we're blessed to be ugly enough not to be leered at and disrespected. I never really knew how tough Evangeline Lilly had it. Who could have guessed how traumatic living in a laid back tropical paradise and being beautiful could be? http://www.blognyc.net/news/evangeline-lil...le-magazine.php

Unless you're a kid or a girl... good luck. At the Panthers Cookout, Luongo was there but not signing autographs for ANYONE. Then this absolutely gorgeous blond walks up to him with a hundred things, a stack of like 10 pucks, a dozen pictures, and a ton of other stuff and he gladly signed all of them :lol . I actually think there is a picture of it on the Panthers website, i'll try and find it. EDIT: Found the pic.... :lol hey he ain't dumb man :shifty

nice to know you do PhishPhan okay?

LBJ was already on this issue in 1957 and really already in 1954 with Brown V Board of Education. Thanks, and I had already referenced Johnson's work in the 50s so its not like its something new I'm talking about, I have been asking you about this for about 4 posts now, you just have selective reading. good for johnson. 100%. but he did not get the civil right's movement ball rolling, nor did jfk. countless people did, of both races. jfk however was the first president and first politician who got policies to really be enforced. brown v BoE was nice on paper and all but not much changed until the next decade. i'll honor the guy who actually got stuff done, talking about something and then not seeing it through is not something to honor. and jfk was the first person with the power to get things done and he did. things actually began to change under him. and you don't know if he morally agreed with what he did :lol :lol :lol

and yet nothing from the 1950s. now about the 1950s all of a sudden? what happened with before his presidency? quit trolling and give it up and go read and learn something. I dont know if Kennedy ever did make that moral commitement to Civil Rights Johnson urged Kennedy to take a moral stance for civil rights, never happening due to Kennedy being assassinated. :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol In order to implement this pledge and assure prompt action I have asked Senator Clark and Congressman Celler to constitute a committee to prepare a comprehensive civil rights bill, embodying our platform commitments, for introduction at the beginning of the next session. We will seek the enactment of this bill early in that Congress. Further, I give my assurance that in whatever position I hold in public office I will support and take every step necessary to protect the full constitutional right of every American. Next week I shall ask the Congress of the United States to act, to make a commitment it has not fully made in this century to the proposition that race has no place in American life or law. The Federal judiciary has upheld that proposition in a series of forthright cases. The Executive Branch has adopted that proposition in the conduct of its affairs, including the employment of Federal personnel, the use of Federal facilities, and the sale of federally financed housing. But there are other necessary measures which only the Congress can provide, and they must be provided at this session. The old code of equity law under which we live commands for every wrong a remedy, but in too many communities, in too many parts of the country, wrongs are inflicted on Negro citizens and there are no remedies at law. Unless the Congress acts, their only remedy is the street. I am, therefore, asking the Congress to enact legislation giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public -- hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments. This seems to me to be an elementary right. Its denial is an arbitrary indignity that no American in 1963 should have to endure, but many do. I have recently met with scores of business leaders urging them to take voluntary action to end this discrimination, and I have been encouraged by their response, and in the last two weeks over 75 cities have seen progress made in desegregating these kinds of facilities. But many are unwilling to act alone, and for this reason, nationwide legislation is needed if we are to move this problem from the streets to the courts. I'm also asking the Congress to authorize the Federal Government to participate more fully in lawsuits designed to end segregation in public education. We have succeeded in persuading many districts to desegregate voluntarily. Dozens have admitted Negroes without violence. Today, a Negro is attending a State-supported institution in every one of our 50 States, but the pace is very slow. Too many Negro children entering segregated grade schools at the time of the Supreme Court's decision nine years ago will enter segregated high schools this fall, having suffered a loss which can never be restored. The lack of an adequate education denies the Negro a chance to get a decent job. in 1962, a whole year before you say lbj really started grilling him he send 400 federal marshals and 4000 troops so james meredith could sign up for classes at u. of miss. in 1961 he began to protect freedom riders in 1960 during the campaign, before he was prez. or lbj was his veep, he had numerous conversations with coretta scott king in support of her husband. :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol for someone torn about an issue and for someone who didn't know where he stood on an issue he seemed to have pretty solid footing on it.

batter's box seats, the only way to go you just need connections to score those as in suck Loria's **** becuase thats not worth it. my dad's company has two seats there and i've gotten to go that route 3 times in like 4 years. i've actually shaken hand's with loria but i think i regret that now. it is definately an awesome experience though. once in a while i see they auction the seats for charity on the marlin's homepage. next time you guys see that seriously try and do that. before the game you are taken under the stadium and walk by the locker rooms. and they have players come out and sign stuff and take pictures with you. and of course the view is awesome.

batter's box seats, the only way to go :mischief you just need connections to score those

Again LBJ was getting into the Civil Rights movement politically in the 50s, that comes before the Kennedy administration in case you cant follow things chronologically. but there were more people than just lbj in that. so why don't you credit them all? also if they did such a good job why did they wait until 1964 to get stuff done? :mischief I know what LBJ did, but regardless, most of the ideas of the Civil Rights movement came about due in large to Johnson's work as VP. wait a white man veep came up with the idea of a civil rights movement? and for me to think black people came up with the idea of getting freedom for themselves, i guess we've all had it wrong all along. naacp, who are they? lbj and other democrats laid the ground work, jfk is the first to get real action done and forced the issue and then lbj came in and finished things off in jfk's memory I never said Kennedy wasnt for Civil Rights, just that Johnson was the bigger influence on the Civil Rights act. then why did he use jfk's ghost to try and pass it? lbj begged politicians to pass the CR acts to honor JFK. if he thought it was his idea he wouldn't have done it. I dont know if Kennedy ever did make that moral commitement to Civil Rights, I can tell you that Johnson had been urging him to do so early in 1963 before he was shot. That's right Johnson was urging him to do so. just because someone urged him to do it doesn't mean he didn't already think it. Show me where Kennedy was doing stuff for the Civil Rights movement prior to his Presidency. show me where anyone started sending us marshals to protect black protestors and try to end segregation before him. in 1962, a whole year before you say lbj really started grilling him he send 400 federal marshals and 4000 troops so james meredith could sign up for classes at u. of miss. in 1961 he began to protect freedom riders in 1960 during the campaign, before he was prez. or lbj was his veep, he had numerous conversations with coretta scott king in support of her husband. yes it sounds to me he really had no idea where he stood on the civil rights issue before he died and like he really needed grilling from lbj. :plain and here is a nice little snippet of jfk even before he was president that shows his stance on the CR issues, even before he really had lbj at his side since this was 2 months before the election: STATEMENT ON CIVIL RIGHTS LEGISLATION SEPTEMBER 1, 1960. The following 23 Senators, who with Senator Kennedy and a few others (including 5 Republicans) supported each of the key civil rights measures this session, joined Senator Kennedy in the attached joint statement. E. L. Bartlett, Alaska John A. Carroll, Colorado Joseph S. Clark, Pennsylvania Clair Engle, California Ernest Gruening, Alaska Philip A. Hart, Michigan Vance Hartke, Indiana Thomas C. Hennings, Jr., Missouri Hubert H. Humphrey, Minnesota Henry M. Jackson, Washington John F. Kennedy, Massachusetts Warren G. Magnuson, Washington Eugene J. McCarthy, Minnesota Pat McNamara, Michigan Wayne Morse, Oregon Frank E. Moss, Utah James E. Murray, Montana Edmund S. Muskie, Maine John O. Pastore, Rhode Island William Proxmire, Wisconsin Jennings W. Randolph, West Virginia Stuart Symington, Missouri Harrison A. Williams, Jr., New Jersey Stephen M. Young, Ohio [From the Office of Senator John F. Kennedy, Room 362, Senate Office Bldg., Sept. 1, l960] STATEMENT The time has come to set the record straight on civil rights legislation in this windup session of Congress. All the Senators joining me in this statement, as well as many others sharing these views, support effective civil rights legislation. We have not tried to match the 11th hour Republican tactic of substituting staged political maneuvering for effective legislation. Rather than yield to their efforts to play politics with a great moral question, we will take this issue to the American people. The Republican leadership of the Senate knows full well that under the parliamentary situation of these final crowded weeks - and in the political atmosphere of rancor that developed - no significant civil rights measure could have passed. This same political atmosphere has also prevented action on a farm bill and on adequate minimum wage, housing, health care for the aged, and education bills. But progressive legislation has not been the aim of the Republican leadership. Their aim has been: (1) To block the minimum wage bill (which in its first year of operation would have raised the wages of an estimated 1 million Negro workers), the aged health care, housing, and education bills (which also would have meant major advances in the rights of our lower income and minority group members). A majority of Republicans voted against the minimum wage bill, all but one voted against social security health care for the aged and not one Republican on the House Rules Committee was ready to let adequate education and housing bills come up for final action. (2) To embarrass the Democratic Party, which can point with pride not only to a more meaningful platform but to the only record of legislative achievement in this field in over three-quarters of a century. (3) To conceal their own empty, negative record. If the majority of Republicans were sincere about the two token proposals they now press, they would not have supplied the votes that defeated them this spring, when, led by the minority leader, they proposed by a 2-1 margin the very bills he now advances. If the Republican administration were sincere about its pleas for civil rights, it would take executive action now - executive action to end inequality in all Federal housing programs as the Civil Rights Commission unanimously proposed nearly a year ago and which the President could do by a stroke of his pen - and executive action to make effective the Government Contracts Committee, which for 7 years of Mr. Nixon's chairmanship has taken no enforcement action aside from one or two threats in the District of Columbia. Such Presidential action, not legislation, is what is required to enforce the covenants against racial discrimination in all Government contracts. And if the Republican administration were sincere in advancing civil rights it would make more effective use of the new powers to protect the right to vote granted by Congress after 9 weeks of debate earlier this session. We challenge the Republican leadership's sincerity - and we think the American people will challenge it. We believe our credentials are clear. On each of the key votes this session - the votes for cloture, for title III authorization of civil rights suits by the Attorney General and for the strengthening of the proposed machinery to protect the right to vote as well as for the two measures which were belatedly pressed - a majority of the Republicans voted against civil rights, while we were supporting civil rights. Only five Republican Senators had a similar record in support of civil rights on these five key issues this session - and they did not have the support of the Republican administration at any critical point. This past record, including the record of these recent weeks, indicates that no action on the great fronts of social legislation, including civil rights, will be possible until there is a new President strongly supporting such action and a new Congress with a mandate from the people. Therefore, we pledge action to obtain consideration of a civil rights bill by the Senate early next session that will implement the pledges of the Democratic platform. Our purpose will be to assure to each American his full constitutional rights and to "make equal opportunity a living reality for all Americans." SEPARATE STATEMENT BY SENATOR KENNEDY In order to implement this pledge and assure prompt action I have asked Senator Clark and Congressman Celler to constitute a committee to prepare a comprehensive civil rights bill, embodying our platform commitments, for introduction at the beginning of the next session. We will seek the enactment of this bill early in that Congress. Further, I give my assurance that in whatever position I hold in public office I will support and take every step necessary to protect the full constitutional right of every American. http://www.jfklink.com/speeches/jfk/sept60...0960_civil.html

Johnson urged Kennedy to take a moral stance for civil rights, never happening due to Kennedy being assassinated. so wait despite all of what kennedy did you say he didn't have a moral stance on civil rights? oh man... :lol :lol kennedy got the ball rolling and got things done before lbj did. jfk protected the grass root civil rights movements, and gave speeches, one quoted above, with a clear stance on civil rights. and lbj urged the congress and house to pass what they did in 1964 in memory to what jfk said and did. and you are saying he didn't have a stance on civil rights before his death? :lol :lol :lol

house guest sinbad is just that good. :shifty

johnson was already one of the key political figures behind the civil rights movement in the 50s. but thanks for playing. says the man who has no proof anything but a plane hit the pentagon and still hasn't backed up his plagarized evidence. dare i even ask if you have any evidence of this? i mean the 1964 civil rights agreement is basically all of jfk's talking points where did he steal them from lbj? the entire democratic party at the time liked the idea of freedom, i know that might be a shock. but nothing got done until jfk and even lbj says he just continued what jfk started.

and???? just because kennedy gave the speech on it doesnt mean that johnson wasnt extremely influential in its roots... he might have been influential doesn't mean much. jfk was the president at the time and he did what he wanted to do. and he got the ball really rolling on the civil right's front by supporting grass root organizations and actually doing. johnson was the veep. during before he took office for his fallen boss, not exactly a place of great power to get things done himself. most history books and historians will credit the civil right's movement during the 60s to jfk and for good reason he got things done.

that and the civil rights stuff was largely Johnson's idea. johnson is the one who was in office when it passed after JFK's assassination. jfk was the one who pushed for it from the beginning of his presidency. jfk was the one who had marshals protect freedom riders as well as the one who sent marshals down to u. of 'bama. he gave a televised speech that basically became the 1964 civil rights later on: Next week I shall ask the Congress of the United States to act, to make a commitment it has not fully made in this century to the proposition that race has no place in American life or law. The Federal judiciary has upheld that proposition in a series of forthright cases. The Executive Branch has adopted that proposition in the conduct of its affairs, including the employment of Federal personnel, the use of Federal facilities, and the sale of federally financed housing. But there are other necessary measures which only the Congress can provide, and they must be provided at this session. The old code of equity law under which we live commands for every wrong a remedy, but in too many communities, in too many parts of the country, wrongs are inflicted on Negro citizens and there are no remedies at law. Unless the Congress acts, their only remedy is the street. I am, therefore, asking the Congress to enact legislation giving all Americans the right to be served in facilities which are open to the public -- hotels, restaurants, theaters, retail stores, and similar establishments. This seems to me to be an elementary right. Its denial is an arbitrary indignity that no American in 1963 should have to endure, but many do. I have recently met with scores of business leaders urging them to take voluntary action to end this discrimination, and I have been encouraged by their response, and in the last two weeks over 75 cities have seen progress made in desegregating these kinds of facilities. But many are unwilling to act alone, and for this reason, nationwide legislation is needed if we are to move this problem from the streets to the courts. I'm also asking the Congress to authorize the Federal Government to participate more fully in lawsuits designed to end segregation in public education. We have succeeded in persuading many districts to desegregate voluntarily. Dozens have admitted Negroes without violence. Today, a Negro is attending a State-supported institution in every one of our 50 States, but the pace is very slow. Too many Negro children entering segregated grade schools at the time of the Supreme Court's decision nine years ago will enter segregated high schools this fall, having suffered a loss which can never be restored. The lack of an adequate education denies the Negro a chance to get a decent job. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/j...civilrights.htm

I have to skoff at anyone who thinks any part of the Cuban missile crisis was a success. influences don't have to stem from positive things though i said for better or worse and the dude is an icon for one reason or another.

i don't get the hate for jfk. he poured in a lot of money to make nasa and made it a public entity versus a military one. he pushed the civil right's act of 1964 and for better or worse he dealt with a couple issues in cuba which changed the western world's way of treating them as well as nuclear stand-offs