# President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal.



## Dante

*President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)*

I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:

"What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean..._*someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties*_...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]

- Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

---

"Tonight *we salute George Meany* as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight *we salute Adlai Stevenson* as an eloquent spokesman..."

- A Liberal Definition by JFK

---

as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted. 

What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?

They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.

If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.


----------



## Liberty

so of you simply "care" about someone, you have to provide them with whatever that is?

That's fucked up.

How can you be so brain dead to not understand that it is better to teach a man to fish than to just give him fish.

People like you are a cancer.


----------



## Truthmatters

Jesus you are stupid "Liberty".


----------



## Liberty

So people who can read and comprehend the English language is stupid to you?

Can't say I am surprised. You live under a rock.


----------



## Revere

Kennedy would be a pariah in the Democrat party today like Joe Lieberman is.


----------



## daveman

I submit today's liberals care about people as Democrat voting blocs.  They don't care too much about individuals.


----------



## Liberty

The more I study the more I grow impatient with socialist welfare morons....

...THEY ARE NEVER LONG TERM.

look at:
france
greece
and now the UK

just for some recent examples.

Is that what you want? Rioting? Violence?

The liberals of today are nothing more than confused, insolent, and lazy people who want something for nothing, or openly want theft and violence committed against their fellow citizen at the threat of government force. And when you don't get your way? You attack the government. It is the liberals who are violent, the people who would rather earn nothing but have everything rather than earn everything themselves.

Makes me want to throw up my oatmeal to be honest. Get a fucking life.


----------



## Dante

JFK thought the Federal government had a responsibility in the areas of health, housing, schools, jobs, as well as civil rights.

JFK also praised ..._omg._..... union Bosses!!!


----------



## daveman

Dante said:


> JFK thought the Federal government had a responsibility in the areas of health, housing, schools, jobs, as well as civil rights.


He was right about civil rights.


Dante said:


> JFK also praised ..._omg._..... union Bosses!!!


Unions have become that which they were created to protect against:  Organizations that exploit workers for money and power.  

They also protect the lazy and incompetent.


----------



## Dante

daveman said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> JFK thought the Federal government had a responsibility in the areas of health, housing, schools, jobs, as well as civil rights.
> 
> 
> 
> He was right about civil rights.
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> JFK also praised ..._omg._..... union Bosses!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unions have become that which they were created to protect against:  Organizations that exploit workers for money and power.
> 
> They also protect the lazy and incompetent.
Click to expand...


That is an unfair opinion but it is a popular one. Depending on what union people look at and at what actions, unions can be a godsend. Many places I worked at as I traveled around had dumb union rules. Many were well meaning protections that ended up getting abused.

Unions pay out retirement benefits. Many companies like Polaroid stole people's retirement benefits.  Many previously good companies became just as bad or worse, than the worst unions. *What changed?*

Corporate raiders. The investors, the wealthy, the private wealth firms cannibalized good companies and not only threw people out of work, they killed companies and stole the pension plans of generations.

Go to Massachusetts and meet people who worked for Polaroid.


----------



## Sallow

Funny how many Liberals the right is trying to own..


----------



## Dante

daveman said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> JFK thought the Federal government had a responsibility in the areas of health, housing, schools, jobs, as well as civil rights.
> 
> 
> 
> He was right about civil rights.
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> JFK also praised ..._omg._..... union Bosses!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unions have become that which they were created to protect against:  Organizations that exploit workers for money and power.
> 
> They also protect the lazy and incompetent.
Click to expand...


I campaigned for the Kennedy family. Most all held true to the memories and values of JFK. They were all mostly liberal to moderate depending n the issue. Some were more conservative than others on how fiscal issues.

I've always believed oversight and regulation of government programs, as well as business practices, should minimize the abuse that follows human nature.


----------



## daveman

Dante said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> JFK thought the Federal government had a responsibility in the areas of health, housing, schools, jobs, as well as civil rights.
> 
> 
> 
> He was right about civil rights.
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> JFK also praised ..._omg._..... union Bosses!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unions have become that which they were created to protect against:  Organizations that exploit workers for money and power.
> 
> They also protect the lazy and incompetent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is an unfair opinion but it is a popular one. Depending on what union people look at and at what actions, unions can be a godsend. Many places I worked at as I traveled around had dumb union rules. Many were well meaning protections that ended up getting abused.
> 
> Unions pay out retirement benefits. Many companies like Polaroid stole people's retirement benefits.  Many previously good companies became just as bad or worse, than the worst unions. *What changed?*
> 
> Corporate raiders. The investors, the wealthy, the private wealth firms cannibalized good companies and not only threw people out of work, they killed companies and stole the pension plans of generations.
> 
> Go to Massachusetts and meet people who worked for Polaroid.
Click to expand...

Sure, there have been some corporate abuses.  There have also been union abuses.  

Unions have become the enforcement arm of the Democratic Party.  Do you suppose that represents conservative union members?


----------



## daveman

Sallow said:


> Funny how many Liberals the right is trying to own..



About as funny as the left claiming that the Founding Fathers would be Democrats today.


----------



## daveman

Dante said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> JFK thought the Federal government had a responsibility in the areas of health, housing, schools, jobs, as well as civil rights.
> 
> 
> 
> He was right about civil rights.
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> JFK also praised ..._omg._..... union Bosses!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unions have become that which they were created to protect against:  Organizations that exploit workers for money and power.
> 
> They also protect the lazy and incompetent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I campaigned for the Kennedy family. Most all held true to the memories and values of JFK. They were all mostly liberal to moderate depending n the issue. Some were more conservative than others on how fiscal issues.
> 
> I've always believed oversight and regulation of government programs, as well as business practices, should minimize the abuse that follows human nature.
Click to expand...

Kennedy was further right than today's Democrats.


----------



## Sallow

daveman said:


> Unions have become the enforcement arm of the Democratic Party.  Do you suppose that represents conservative union members?



Enforcement arm?

That's rich.

What do they do? "Send a coupla knuckle busters to ya house.."?

"Some guy named Vinny"?


----------



## Dante

daveman said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was right about civil rights.
> 
> Unions have become that which they were created to protect against:  Organizations that exploit workers for money and power.
> 
> They also protect the lazy and incompetent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I campaigned for the Kennedy family. Most all held true to the memories and values of JFK. They were all mostly liberal to moderate depending n the issue. Some were more conservative than others on how fiscal issues.
> 
> I've always believed oversight and regulation of government programs, as well as business practices, should minimize the abuse that follows human nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Kennedy was further right than today's Democrats.
Click to expand...


Kennedy was not further right than the Democratic party, he was further right than the left wing fringe, of today and yesterday. Liberals are NOT left wing. They are n the left of conservatism.

I posted a link to JFK's speech on what a liberal is in his eyes.

I see no one on the right ever attack or debate what JFK ever said about being a liberal. I see the types of arguments you are trying to make. 

Now, I believe JFK was more of a moderate than many of the Democrats people like to attack for being leftists, but like Clinton and the DCL, Kennedy was a common sense liberal. 

but we digress, JFK's values would be anathema to the GOP of today. JFK's family (that uphold his values and beliefs) have stayed in the Democratic party and have not been thrown out or become unwelcome.


----------



## daveman

Sallow said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unions have become the enforcement arm of the Democratic Party.  Do you suppose that represents conservative union members?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Enforcement arm?
> 
> That's rich.
> 
> What do they do? "Send a coupla knuckle busters to ya house.."?
> 
> "Some guy named Vinny"?
Click to expand...

SEIU Thugs Beat Up Town Hall Protester | Sweetness & Light

Union Thugs Break Law, Helped by DC, MD Cops - LFTC - Letter From The Capitol

 Shocking! Bat-wielding Union Thugs Attack Non-union Workers - Big Government

Michelle Malkin  UNION THUGS UNHINGED


----------



## daveman

Dante said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> I campaigned for the Kennedy family. Most all held true to the memories and values of JFK. They were all mostly liberal to moderate depending n the issue. Some were more conservative than others on how fiscal issues.
> 
> I've always believed oversight and regulation of government programs, as well as business practices, should minimize the abuse that follows human nature.
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy was further right than today's Democrats.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kennedy was not further right than the Democratic party, he was further right than the left wing fringe, of today and yesterday. Liberals are NOT left wing. They are n the left of conservatism.
> 
> I posted a link to JFK's speech on what a liberal is in his eyes.
> 
> I see no one on the right ever attack or debate what JFK ever said about being a liberal. I see the types of arguments you are trying to make.
> 
> Now, I believe JFK was more of a moderate than many of the Democrats people like to attack for being leftists, but like Clinton and the DCL, Kennedy was a common sense liberal.
> 
> but we digress, JFK's values would be anathema to the GOP of today. JFK's family (that uphold his values and beliefs) have stayed in the Democratic party and have not been thrown out or become unwelcome.
Click to expand...

I disagree.


----------



## Dante

daveman said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was right about civil rights.
> 
> Unions have become that which they were created to protect against:  Organizations that exploit workers for money and power.
> 
> They also protect the lazy and incompetent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is an unfair opinion but it is a popular one. Depending on what union people look at and at what actions, unions can be a godsend. Many places I worked at as I traveled around had dumb union rules. Many were well meaning protections that ended up getting abused.
> 
> Unions pay out retirement benefits. Many companies like Polaroid stole people's retirement benefits.  Many previously good companies became just as bad or worse, than the worst unions. *What changed?*
> 
> Corporate raiders. The investors, the wealthy, the private wealth firms cannibalized good companies and not only threw people out of work, they killed companies and stole the pension plans of generations.
> 
> Go to Massachusetts and meet people who worked for Polaroid.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sure, there have been some corporate abuses.  There have also been union abuses.
> 
> Unions have become the enforcement arm of the Democratic Party.  Do you suppose that represents conservative union members?
Click to expand...


A union cannot represent every individual or group view. There are unions that are conservative in membership that keep liberal members out on the outside -- Teamsters and Police unions. 

Most unions back the Democrats because Democrats are friendly to labor. Labor vs corporations.  Pointing out the flaws in unions is no argument for getting rid of unions. 

Saying unions mostly back Democrats says more about what Democrats believe in and do than it says about unions.There are unions that have backed Republicans. But reality says that since the implementation of unions in the USA, the GOP has been hostile to every union demand. Why would unions back the GOP?


note: gotta run...pick up later


----------



## Dante

daveman said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy was further right than today's Democrats.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy was not further right than the Democratic party, he was further right than the left wing fringe, of today and yesterday. Liberals are NOT left wing. They are n the left of conservatism.
> 
> I posted a link to JFK's speech on what a liberal is in his eyes.
> 
> I see no one on the right ever attack or debate what JFK ever said about being a liberal. I see the types of arguments you are trying to make.
> 
> Now, I believe JFK was more of a moderate than many of the Democrats people like to attack for being leftists, but like Clinton and the DCL, Kennedy was a common sense liberal.
> 
> but we digress, JFK's values would be anathema to the GOP of today. JFK's family (that uphold his values and beliefs) have stayed in the Democratic party and have not been thrown out or become unwelcome.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I disagree.
Click to expand...


about what? everything? 


ltr


----------



## Bfgrn

Dante said:


> *President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)*
> 
> I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:
> 
> "What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean..._*someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties*_...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]
> 
> - Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum
> 
> ---
> 
> "Tonight *we salute George Meany* as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight *we salute Adlai Stevenson* as an eloquent spokesman..."
> 
> - A Liberal Definition by JFK
> 
> ---
> 
> as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.
> 
> What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?
> 
> They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.
> 
> If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.



Jack Kennedy's best friend from his days a Choate was Lem Billings, a gay male. They remained best friends until November 22, 1963. While Jack was president, Lem even had his own room at the White House and was there most weekends. And JFK never walked away from his friend, even though it would have been politically wise, especially back in the 60's.

To me it shows just how secure, confident and comfortable in his own skin our 35th President was. It was those same strong traits that allowed him to say NO, and stand up to all the joint chiefs, cabinet and personal advisers, and Senate and Congressional leaders who told him to invade Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis. As we know now, the Soviet missiles WERE armed with nuclear war heads, and Soviet military personnel were cleared to fire them on US cities if the US attack Cuba.

After President Kennedy's assassination, Lem remained close to the family. The Kennedy family was an inclusive rather than exclusive family.

The author paints a profile of a richly textured friendship set against the backdrop of some of the most remarkable events of the twentieth century, a time of unparalleled idealism but also of rampant homophobia.   The book concludes with a chapter on Lem's life after Dallas when he admitted he had loved John Kennedy deeply.  "Jack made a big difference in my life," he said.  "Because of him, I was never lonely.  He may have been the reason I never got married."  Crushed by the assassination, Lem became a much-diminished man in his final years. 

Jack & Lem: The Untold Story of an Extraordinary Friendship, John F. Kennedy and Lem Billings
by David Pitts

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RPTRsqS30g"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RPTRsqS30g[/ame]

After Robert Kennedys assassination, Billings became a surrogate father to Bobby Jr. and other Kennedy boys, several of whom have spoken of Billings with great affection. His leadership helped establish the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and the John F. Kennedy Library. Senator Ted Kennedy described the friendship between his brother and Billings as a bond of perfect trust and understanding that served them all their lives. Eunice Kennedy Shriver is quoted as saying that President Kennedy was a completely liberated man when he was with Lem. Another friend remarks of the two mens relationship, it was love, and not all love has to be consummated.


Lem Billings: John F. Kennedys Best Friend: History of the 1960s

Lem Billings died in his sleep following a heart attack on May 28, 1981. Lem's dying wish was for the young Kennedy men to carry his coffin, but when the Kennedy men arrived at the cemetery, the casket was already in place, ready to be lowered. The young Kennedys retrieved the coffin from its position and carried it around the gravesite before returning it to the burial plot.

"War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."
President John F. Kennedy


----------



## daveman

Dante said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is an unfair opinion but it is a popular one. Depending on what union people look at and at what actions, unions can be a godsend. Many places I worked at as I traveled around had dumb union rules. Many were well meaning protections that ended up getting abused.
> 
> Unions pay out retirement benefits. Many companies like Polaroid stole people's retirement benefits.  Many previously good companies became just as bad or worse, than the worst unions. *What changed?*
> 
> Corporate raiders. The investors, the wealthy, the private wealth firms cannibalized good companies and not only threw people out of work, they killed companies and stole the pension plans of generations.
> 
> Go to Massachusetts and meet people who worked for Polaroid.
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, there have been some corporate abuses.  There have also been union abuses.
> 
> Unions have become the enforcement arm of the Democratic Party.  Do you suppose that represents conservative union members?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A union cannot represent every individual or group view. There are unions that are conservative in membership that keep liberal members out on the outside -- Teamsters and Police unions.
> 
> Most unions back the Democrats because Democrats are friendly to labor. Labor vs corporations.  Pointing out the flaws in unions is no argument for getting rid of unions.
> 
> Saying unions mostly back Democrats says more about what Democrats believe in and do than it says about unions.There are unions that have backed Republicans. But reality says that since the implementation of unions in the USA, the GOP has been hostile to every union demand. Why would unions back the GOP?
> 
> 
> note: gotta run...pick up later
Click to expand...

Actually, most unions back Dems because the Dems give them payback, like this bit of horseshit.


----------



## daveman

Dante said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy was not further right than the Democratic party, he was further right than the left wing fringe, of today and yesterday. Liberals are NOT left wing. They are n the left of conservatism.
> 
> I posted a link to JFK's speech on what a liberal is in his eyes.
> 
> I see no one on the right ever attack or debate what JFK ever said about being a liberal. I see the types of arguments you are trying to make.
> 
> Now, I believe JFK was more of a moderate than many of the Democrats people like to attack for being leftists, but like Clinton and the DCL, Kennedy was a common sense liberal.
> 
> but we digress, JFK's values would be anathema to the GOP of today. JFK's family (that uphold his values and beliefs) have stayed in the Democratic party and have not been thrown out or become unwelcome.
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> about what? everything?
> 
> 
> ltr
Click to expand...

Yeah, everything in your post.


----------



## Dante

daveman said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> I disagree.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> about what? everything?
> 
> 
> ltr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah, everything in your post.
Click to expand...


lol


----------



## Dante

daveman said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sure, there have been some corporate abuses.  There have also been union abuses.
> 
> Unions have become the enforcement arm of the Democratic Party.  Do you suppose that represents conservative union members?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A union cannot represent every individual or group view. There are unions that are conservative in membership that keep liberal members out on the outside -- Teamsters and Police unions.
> 
> Most unions back the Democrats because Democrats are friendly to labor. Labor vs corporations.  Pointing out the flaws in unions is no argument for getting rid of unions.
> 
> Saying unions mostly back Democrats says more about what Democrats believe in and do than it says about unions.There are unions that have backed Republicans. But reality says that since the implementation of unions in the USA, the GOP has been hostile to every union demand. Why would unions back the GOP?
> 
> 
> note: gotta run...pick up later
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, most unions back Dems because the Dems give them payback, like this bit of horseshit.
Click to expand...


Looking out for the union working man? what is wrong with that? candidates and the elected officials promis_*e pay back to veterans*_ for their votes? what's wrong with that?

the GOP will be paying back the US Chamber of Commerce? what is wrong with that? Oh, you'll see...what is good for American Corporations is NOT always good for the American people -- the American worker. Everyone will get screwed, but union people will get screwed the least -- they have the Democrats to run interference for them when business attacks the middle class..


----------



## Dante

Bfgrn said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)*
> 
> I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:
> 
> "What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean..._*someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties*_...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]
> 
> - Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum
> 
> ---
> 
> "Tonight *we salute George Meany* as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight *we salute Adlai Stevenson* as an eloquent spokesman..."
> 
> - A Liberal Definition by JFK
> 
> ---
> 
> as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.
> 
> What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?
> 
> They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.
> 
> If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Jack Kennedy's best friend from his days a Choate was Lem Billings, a gay male*. They remained best friends until November 22, 1963. While Jack was president, Lem even had his own room at the White House and was there most weekends. *And JFK never walked away from his friend, even though it would have been politically wise, especially back in the 60's.*
> *
> To me it shows just how secure, confident and comfortable in his own skin our 35th President was.* It was those same strong traits that allowed him to say NO, and stand up to all the joint chiefs, cabinet and personal advisers, and Senate and Congressional leaders who told him to invade Cuba during the Cuban Missile Crisis. As we know now, the Soviet missiles WERE armed with nuclear war heads, and Soviet military personnel were cleared to fire them on US cities if the US attack Cuba.
> 
> After President Kennedy's assassination, Lem remained close to the family. *The Kennedy family was an inclusive rather than exclusive family.*
> 
> The author paints a profile of a richly textured friendship set against the backdrop of some of the most remarkable events of the twentieth century, a time of unparalleled idealism but also of rampant homophobia.   The book concludes with a chapter on Lem's life after Dallas when he admitted he had loved John Kennedy deeply.  "Jack made a big difference in my life," he said.  "Because of him, I was never lonely.  He may have been the reason I never got married."  Crushed by the assassination, Lem became a much-diminished man in his final years.
> 
> Jack & Lem: The Untold Story of an Extraordinary Friendship, John F. Kennedy and Lem Billings
> by David Pitts
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RPTRsqS30g"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6RPTRsqS30g[/ame]
> 
> After Robert Kennedys assassination, Billings became a surrogate father to Bobby Jr. and other Kennedy boys, several of whom have spoken of Billings with great affection. His leadership helped establish the Kennedy Center for the Performing Arts and the John F. Kennedy Library. Senator Ted Kennedy described the friendship between his brother and Billings as a bond of perfect trust and understanding that served them all their lives. Eunice Kennedy Shriver is quoted as saying that President Kennedy was a completely liberated man when he was with Lem. Another friend remarks of the two mens relationship, it was love, and not all love has to be consummated.
> 
> 
> Lem Billings: John F. Kennedys Best Friend: History of the 1960s
> 
> Lem Billings died in his sleep following a heart attack on May 28, 1981. Lem's dying wish was for the young Kennedy men to carry his coffin, but when the Kennedy men arrived at the cemetery, the casket was already in place, ready to be lowered. The young Kennedys retrieved the coffin from its position and carried it around the gravesite before returning it to the burial plot.
> 
> "War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."
> President John F. Kennedy
Click to expand...

great liberal Americans those Kennedys.


----------



## AllieBaba

Liberal = Progressive.

Kennedy was liberal, but he used his brother to carry out the more extreme activities of his socialist agenda.


----------



## Dante

AllieBaba said:


> Liberal = Progressive.



Liberal does not = Progressive.


goodbye


----------



## Dante

AllieBaba said:


> Kennedy...used his brother...



people like you killed the Kennedys


----------



## Bfgrn

When President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, his brother Ted was already a Senator (Jack's old seat). Jack was Ted's idol. He dedicated his public life to fulfill the aspirations his brothers had for America. So if JFK and Bobby were not liberals., than neither was Ted.







  Robert Frost said:

               Two roads diverged in a wood, and I--
               I took the one less traveled by,
               And that has made all the difference.

     I hope that road will not be the less traveled by, and I hope your commitment to the Great Republic's interest in the years to come will be worthy of your long inheritance since your beginning.

     This day devoted to the memory of Robert Frost offers an opportunity for reflection which is prized by politicians as well as by others, and even by poets, for Robert Frost was one of the granite figures of our time in America. He was supremely two things: an artist and an American. A nation reveals itself not only by the men it produces but also by the men it honors, the men it remembers.

     In America, our heroes have customarily run to men of large accomplishments. But today this college and country honors a man whose contribution was not to our size but to our spirit, not to our political beliefs but to our insight, not to our self-esteem, but to our self- comprehension. In honoring Robert Frost, we therefore can pay honor to the deepest sources of our national strength. That strength takes many forms, and the most obvious forms are not always the most significant. The men who create power make an indispensable contribution to the Nation's greatness, but the men who question power make a contribution just as indispensable, especially when that questioning is disinterested, for they determine whether we use power or power uses us.

     Our national strength matters, but the spirit which informs and controls our strength matters just as much. This was the special significance of Robert Frost. He brought an unsparing instinct for reality to bear on the platitudes and pieties of society. His sense of the human tragedy fortified him against self-deception and easy consolation. "I have been" he wrote, "one acquainted with the night." And because he knew the midnight as well as the high noon, because he understood the ordeal as well as the triumph of the human spirit, he gave his age strength with which to overcome despair. At bottom, he held a deep faith in the spirit of man, and it is hardly an accident that Robert Frost coupled poetry and power, for he saw poetry as the means of saving power from itself. When power leads men towards arrogance, poetry reminds him of his limitations. When power narrows the areas of man's concern, poetry reminds him of the richness and diversity of his existence. When power corrupts, poetry cleanses. For art establishes the basic human truth which must serve as the touchstone of our judgment.

     The artist, however faithful to his personal vision of reality, becomes the last champion of the individual mind and sensibility against an intrusive society and an officious state. The great artist is thus a solitary figure. He has, as Frost said, a lover's quarrel with the world. In pursuing his perceptions of reality, he must often sail against the currents of his time. This is not a popular role. If Robert Frost was much honored in his lifetime, it was because a good many preferred to ignore his darker truths. Yet in retrospect, we see how the artist's fidelity has strengthened the fibre of our national life.

     If sometimes our great artist have been the most critical of our society, it is because their sensitivity and their concern for justice, which must motivate any true artist, makes him aware that our Nation falls short of its highest potential. I see little of more importance to the future of our country and our civilization than full recognition of the place of the artist.

     If art is to nourish the roots of our culture, society must set the artist free to follow his vision wherever it takes him. We must never forget that art is not a form of propaganda; it is a form of truth. And as Mr. MacLeish once remarked of poets, there is nothing worse for our trade than to be in style. In free society art is not a weapon and it does not belong to the spheres of polemic and ideology. Artists are not engineers of the soul. It may be different elsewhere. But democratic society--in it, the highest duty of the writer, the composer, the artist is to remain true to himself and to let the chips fall where they may. In serving his vision of the truth, the artist best serves his nation. And the nation which disdains the mission of art invites the fate of Robert Frost's hired man, the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope."

     I look forward to a great future for America, a future in which our country will match its military strength with our moral restraint, its wealth with our wisdom, its power with our purpose. I look forward to an America which will not be afraid of grace and beauty, which will protect the beauty of our natural environment, which will preserve the great old American houses and squares and parks of our national past, and which will build handsome and balanced cities for our future.

     I look forward to an America which will reward achievement in the arts as we reward achievement in business or statecraft. I look forward to an America which will steadily raise the standards of artistic accomplishment and which will steadily enlarge cultural opportunities for all of our citizens. And I look forward to an America which commands respect throughout the world not only for its strength but for its civilization as well. And I look forward to a world which will be safe not only for democracy and diversity but also for personal distinction.

     Robert Frost was often skeptical about projects for human improvement, yet I do not think he would disdain this hope. As he wrote during the uncertain days of the Second War:

               Take human nature altogether since time
               began . . .
               And it must be a little more in favor of
               man,
               Say a fraction of one percent at the very
               least . . .
               Our hold on this planet wouldn't have so
               increased.


Because of Mr. Frost's life and work, because of the life and work of this college, our hold on this planet has increased.

Remarks at Amherst College

*President John F. Kennedy*
Amherst, Massachusetts
October 26, 1963

audio Listen to this speech


----------



## daveman

Dante said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> A union cannot represent every individual or group view. There are unions that are conservative in membership that keep liberal members out on the outside -- Teamsters and Police unions.
> 
> Most unions back the Democrats because Democrats are friendly to labor. Labor vs corporations.  Pointing out the flaws in unions is no argument for getting rid of unions.
> 
> Saying unions mostly back Democrats says more about what Democrats believe in and do than it says about unions.There are unions that have backed Republicans. But reality says that since the implementation of unions in the USA, the GOP has been hostile to every union demand. Why would unions back the GOP?
> 
> 
> note: gotta run...pick up later
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, most unions back Dems because the Dems give them payback, like this bit of horseshit.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Looking out for the union working man? what is wrong with that? candidates and the elected officials promis_*e pay back to veterans*_ for their votes? what's wrong with that?
> 
> the GOP will be paying back the US Chamber of Commerce? what is wrong with that? Oh, you'll see...what is good for American Corporations is NOT always good for the American people -- the American worker. Everyone will get screwed, but union people will get screwed the least -- they have the Democrats to run interference for them when business attacks the middle class..
Click to expand...

Democrats don't abuse government power to support the working man; they abuse government power to pay back supporting organizations like unions who make big donations and guarantee Dem votes.  

And FTR, I oppose _any_ party doing that.  The purpose of government is (supposed to be) fulfilling Constitutional mandates, not ensuring the party currently in power stays in power.


----------



## The Infidel

Truthmatters said:


> Jesus you are stupid "Liberty".



Coming from a true dumbass


----------



## The Infidel

Dante said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy...used his brother...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> people like you killed the Kennedys
Click to expand...


and one Kennedy in particular killed a lady


----------



## The Infidel




----------



## daveman

The Infidel said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy...used his brother...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> people like you killed the Kennedys
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and one Kennedy in particular killed a lady
Click to expand...


----------



## Dante

Bfgrn said:


> When President Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, his brother Ted was already a Senator (Jack's old seat). Jack was Ted's idol. He dedicated his public life to fulfill the aspirations his brothers had for America. So if JFK and Bobby were not liberals., than neither was Ted.


----------



## Dante

The Infidel said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy...used his brother...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> people like you killed the Kennedys
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> and one Kennedy in particular killed a lady
Click to expand...


a car accident? laura bush killed somebody in a car accident too. 


fuck off troll


----------



## daveman

Dante said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> people like you killed the Kennedys
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and one Kennedy in particular killed a lady
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a car accident? laura bush killed somebody in a car accident too.
> 
> 
> fuck off troll
Click to expand...

Laura Bush wasn't a politician elected and re-elected after her accident.


----------



## Dante

daveman said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, most unions back Dems because the Dems give them payback, like this bit of horseshit.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Looking out for the union working man? what is wrong with that? candidates and the elected officials promis_*e pay back to veterans*_ for their votes? what's wrong with that?
> 
> the GOP will be paying back the US Chamber of Commerce? what is wrong with that? Oh, you'll see...what is good for American Corporations is NOT always good for the American people -- the American worker. Everyone will get screwed, but union people will get screwed the least -- they have the Democrats to run interference for them when business attacks the middle class..
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Democrats don't abuse government power to support the working man; they abuse government power to pay back supporting organizations like unions who make big donations and guarantee Dem votes.
> 
> And FTR, I oppose _any_ party doing that.  The purpose of government is (supposed to be) fulfilling Constitutional mandates, not ensuring the party currently in power stays in power.
Click to expand...


Unions represent working men and women. Fact.

The purpose of government is to do what the people want it to do. Constitutional mandates?


----------



## Dante

Dante said:


> *President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)*
> 
> I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:
> 
> "What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean..._*someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties*_...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]
> 
> - Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum
> 
> ---
> 
> "Tonight *we salute George Meany* as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight *we salute Adlai Stevenson* as an eloquent spokesman..."
> 
> - A Liberal Definition by JFK
> 
> ---
> 
> as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.
> 
> What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?
> 
> They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.
> 
> If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.



John Fitzgerald Kennedy had something to say about JFK and liberalism.


----------



## The Infidel

Dante said:


> The Infidel said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> people like you killed the Kennedys
> 
> 
> 
> 
> and one Kennedy in particular killed a lady
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> a car accident? laura bush killed somebody in a car accident too.
> 
> 
> fuck off troll
Click to expand...



No you FUK OFF....

SHE WAS'NT DRUNK 


You dumbass!


----------



## daveman

Dante said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looking out for the union working man? what is wrong with that? candidates and the elected officials promis_*e pay back to veterans*_ for their votes? what's wrong with that?
> 
> the GOP will be paying back the US Chamber of Commerce? what is wrong with that? Oh, you'll see...what is good for American Corporations is NOT always good for the American people -- the American worker. Everyone will get screwed, but union people will get screwed the least -- they have the Democrats to run interference for them when business attacks the middle class..
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats don't abuse government power to support the working man; they abuse government power to pay back supporting organizations like unions who make big donations and guarantee Dem votes.
> 
> And FTR, I oppose _any_ party doing that.  The purpose of government is (supposed to be) fulfilling Constitutional mandates, not ensuring the party currently in power stays in power.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unions represent working men and women. Fact.
Click to expand...

70 years ago, maybe.  Not so much any more.


Dante said:


> The purpose of government is to do what the people want it to do. Constitutional mandates?


You know, the Constitution?  The piece of paper that says what our government can and can't do?

Any of that ring a bell?


----------



## Bfgrn

daveman said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats don't abuse government power to support the working man; they abuse government power to pay back supporting organizations like unions who make big donations and guarantee Dem votes.
> 
> And FTR, I oppose _any_ party doing that.  The purpose of government is (supposed to be) fulfilling Constitutional mandates, not ensuring the party currently in power stays in power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unions represent working men and women. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 70 years ago, maybe.  Not so much any more.
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> The purpose of government is to do what the people want it to do. Constitutional mandates?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know, the Constitution?  The piece of paper that says what our government can and can't do?
> 
> Any of that ring a bell?
Click to expand...


The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.

"The equal rights of man, and the happiness of every individual, are now acknowledged to be the only legitimate objects of government. Modern times have the signal advantage, too, of having discovered the only device by which these rights can be secured, to wit: government by the people, acting not in person, but by representatives chosen by themselves, that is to say, by every man of ripe years and sane mind, who contributes either by his purse or person to the support of his country." --Thomas Jefferson to A. Coray, 1823. ME 15:482 

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29


----------



## Tom Clancy

Dante said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal = Progressive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liberal does not = Progressive.
> 
> 
> goodbye
Click to expand...


Ahhhyup.


----------



## Dante

daveman said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> Democrats don't abuse government power to support the working man; they abuse government power to pay back supporting organizations like unions who make big donations and guarantee Dem votes.
> 
> And FTR, I oppose _any_ party doing that.  The purpose of government is (supposed to be) fulfilling Constitutional mandates, not ensuring the party currently in power stays in power.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unions represent working men and women. Fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 70 years ago, maybe.  Not so much any more.
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> The purpose of government is to do what the people want it to do. Constitutional mandates?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know, the Constitution?  The piece of paper that says what our government can and can't do?
> 
> Any of that ring a bell?
Click to expand...


I'm not a scholar, but I'm pretty well read on the Colonists, the Constitution, what the revolutionary colonists read and what they thought of a future society.

It amazes me how little even I know with all that reading. It horrifies me what most other people do not know -- especially when they expound on things they only know from uninformed readings and pronouncements they repeat from ideologues and partisan demagogues. 

The first few decades of the US after the Us Constitution saw battles over just what the Constitution meant. It's not only disingenuous, but hilariously stupid for people today to say they know exactly what the constitution says just by a reading of it. 

there are strict constitutionalists, strict textualists, and many others with view points on what the Constitution says and means.


----------



## crpravens

Dante said:


> AllieBaba said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy...used his brother...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> people like you killed the Kennedys
Click to expand...


Wrong, leftists killed the Kennedy's


----------



## crpravens

Dante said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> JFK thought the Federal government had a responsibility in the areas of health, housing, schools, jobs, as well as civil rights.
> 
> 
> 
> He was right about civil rights.
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> JFK also praised ..._omg._..... union Bosses!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unions have become that which they were created to protect against:  Organizations that exploit workers for money and power.
> 
> They also protect the lazy and incompetent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I campaigned for the Kennedy family. Most all held true to the memories and *values of JFK*. They were all mostly liberal to moderate depending n the issue. Some were more conservative than others on how fiscal issues.
> 
> I've always believed oversight and regulation of government programs, as well as business practices, should minimize the abuse that follows human nature.
Click to expand...


What values? 

Values like screwing hundreds of women behind your wife back. Those type of values?


----------



## Dante

crpravens said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> He was right about civil rights.
> 
> Unions have become that which they were created to protect against:  Organizations that exploit workers for money and power.
> 
> They also protect the lazy and incompetent.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I campaigned for the Kennedy family. Most all held true to the memories and *values of JFK*. They were all mostly liberal to moderate depending n the issue. Some were more conservative than others on how fiscal issues.
> 
> I've always believed oversight and regulation of government programs, as well as business practices, should minimize the abuse that follows human nature.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What values?
> 
> Values like screwing hundreds of women behind your wife back. Those type of values?
Click to expand...


not talking about personal morality and marriage vows. In America we all know conservatives lead more moral personal lives than liberals. Reagan and Newt Gingrich come to mind. Then there are the conservative Christian preachers who used to raise funds from dipshits like you.


----------



## mdn2000

Liberty said:


> The more I study the more I grow impatient with socialist welfare morons....
> 
> ...THEY ARE NEVER LONG TERM.
> 
> look at:
> france
> greece
> and now the UK
> 
> just for some recent examples.
> 
> Is that what you want? Rioting? Violence?
> 
> The liberals of today are nothing more than confused, insolent, and lazy people who want something for nothing, or openly want theft and violence committed against their fellow citizen at the threat of government force. And when you don't get your way? You attack the government. It is the liberals who are violent, the people who would rather earn nothing but have everything rather than earn everything themselves.
> 
> Makes me want to throw up my oatmeal to be honest. Get a fucking life.



I was able to copy the democrat party wagon, thats funny because there is truth in it.


----------



## mdn2000

Dante said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unions represent working men and women. Fact.
> 
> 
> 
> 70 years ago, maybe.  Not so much any more.
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> The purpose of government is to do what the people want it to do. Constitutional mandates?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You know, the Constitution?  The piece of paper that says what our government can and can't do?
> 
> Any of that ring a bell?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not a scholar, but I'm pretty well read on the Colonists, the Constitution, what the revolutionary colonists read and what they thought of a future society.
> 
> It amazes me how little even I know with all that reading. It horrifies me what most other people do not know -- especially when they expound on things they only know from uninformed readings and pronouncements they repeat from ideologues and partisan demagogues.
> 
> The first few decades of the US after the Us Constitution saw battles over just what the Constitution meant. It's not only disingenuous, but hilariously stupid for people today to say they know exactly what the constitution says just by a reading of it.
> 
> there are strict constitutionalists, strict textualists, and many others with view points on what the Constitution says and means.
Click to expand...


It doesnt amaze us how little you know after all that reading.

Kennedy is like the Republicans, Kennedy was the first president to sell weapons to Israel.

Name a liberal that is advocating selling weapons to Israel. 


The 1968 Sale of Phantom Jets to Israel



> The 1968 Sale of Phantom Jets to Israel
> 
> By Mitchell G. Bard
> 
> The United States and Israel are joined in a de facto alliance, with each nation sharing intelligence with the other, and both cooperating in joint military exercises. In Fiscal 1997, Israel received from the United States more economic aid  $1.2 billion  than any other nation, and more military assistance  $1.8 billion  than any other non-NATO nation.
> 
> Contrary to conventional wisdom, the relationship has not always been so close. For most of Israels first two decades of independence, the United States was not a close ally and did not provide Israel with significant amounts of either financial or military aid. All that changed, however, with President Lyndon Johnson's decision to sell Phantom jets to Israel in 1968.
> 
> The U.S. Keeps Its Distance
> 
> Harry Truman is given much of the credit for the creation of Israel, but his unwillingness to supply arms to the Jews fighting for independence undermined the diplomatic support he gave to the UN-sponsored partition of Palestine. The United States continued its arms embargo, despite persistent pressure from Israel and her supporters, until the Kennedy Administration.
> 
> United States policy for denying American arms to Israel was based on the following arguments: 1) the country was strong enough to defend itself without U.S. arms; this belief was reinforced by Israel's success during the Suez campaign; 2) Israel had access to arms from other sources; 3) the United States did not want to appear to be starting an arms race in the Middle East; 4) the U.S. sales of arms to Israel would lead the Arabs to ask the Russians and Chinese for arms; 5) the U.S. did not want to risk a Middle East confrontation with the Soviet Union; and 6) U.S. military aid to Israel would alienate the Arabs.
> 
> Not until 1962 did Israel receive its first major weapons system from the United States when Kennedy agreed to sell HAWK anti-aircraft missiles to Israel. That sale was opposed by the State Department, but Kennedy felt justified in ordering its execution after he failed to dissuade Egyptian President Nasser from escalating the arms race and after he learned that the Soviet Union had supplied Nasser with long-range bombers. The HAWK sale was significant not only because it was the first major direct arms transfer to Israel but also because that system required that Israeli soldiers be given extensive training in the United States and that spare parts be supplied to Israel. These were the first steps on a path which made Israel increasingly dependent on U.S. arms


----------



## mdn2000

Kennedy was a catholic, how many liberals are proud to be catholic


----------



## Bfgrn

mdn2000 said:


> Kennedy was a catholic, how many liberals are proud to be catholic



Kennedy died in 1963, how could he sell anything to anyone in 1968?

Many liberals are proud Catholics. WHO had a problem with Kennedy being a Catholic in the 1960 election? Here's a hint: conservatives.


----------



## code1211

Dante said:


> *President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)*
> 
> I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:
> 
> "What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean..._*someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties*_...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]
> 
> - Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum
> 
> ---
> 
> "Tonight *we salute George Meany* as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight *we salute Adlai Stevenson* as an eloquent spokesman..."
> 
> - A Liberal Definition by JFK
> 
> ---
> 
> as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.
> 
> What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?
> 
> They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.
> 
> If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.





With respect, you have chosen two quotes from addresses to first the parisan hacks at the convention and second to the union boss at a fund raiser.

If this is all he had ever said, he would be swept aside as summarily as the Big 0 is about to be.  Ad men are forgotten long before their products leave the shelves.

When he challenged the American people to do great things like land a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth and to "Ask NOT what your county can do for you.  Ask what you can do for your country", these captured the imagination and reflected the spirit of the times and the public consciousness.

That you find the two quotes you present to be reflective of his memory says far more about your inability to recognize greatness than it does about the actual greatness of this man and his vision for America.

As a follow up question to yours, what Liberal politician today proposes a cut in taxes saying that a rising tide lifts all boats?  The trouble with taking things out of context, in this case the context of his life of service, sacrifice and dutiful responsibility, is that the context remains and only mind numbed fools bereft of any inteligence are fooled by this kind of deciet.


----------



## Bfgrn

If Kennedy is 'like the Republicans', then tell me how much you support his statements in this speech given a month before his assassination, or show me one Republican that talks this way:

Many years ago, Woodrow Wilson said, what good is a political party unless it is serving a great national purpose? And what good is a private college or university unless it is serving a great national purpose? The Library being constructed today, this college, itself--all of this, of course, was not done merely to give this school's graduates an advantage, an economic advantage, in the life struggle. It does do that. But in return for that, in return for the great opportunity which society gives the graduates of this and related schools, it seems to me incumbent upon this and other schools' graduates to recognize their responsibility to the public interest.

     Privilege is here, and with privilege goes responsibility. And I think, as your president said, that it must be a source of satisfaction to you that this school's graduates have recognized it. I hope that the students who are here now will also recognize it in the future. Although Amherst has been in the forefront of extending aid to needy and talented students, private colleges, taken as a whole, draw 50 percent of their students from the wealthiest 10 percent of our Nation. And even State universities and other public institutions derive 25 percent of their students from this group. In March 1962, persons of 18 years or older who had not completed high school made up 46 percent of the total labor force, and such persons comprised 64 percent of those who were unemployed. And in 1958, the lowest fifth of the families in the United States had 4 1/2 percent of the total personal income, the highest fifth, 44 1/2 percent. There is inherited wealth in this country and also inherited poverty. And unless the graduates of this college and other colleges like it who are given a running start in life--unless they are willing to put back into our society, those talents, the broad sympathy, the understanding, the compassion--unless they are willing to put those qualities back into the service of the Great Republic, then obviously the presuppositions upon which our democracy are based are bound to be fallible.

     The problems which this country now faces are staggering, both at home and abroad. We need the service, in the great sense, of every educated man or woman to find 10 million jobs in the next 2 1/2 years, to govern our relations--a country which lived in isolation for 150 years, and is now suddenly the leader of the free world--to govern our relations with over 100 countries, to govern those relations with success so that the balance of power remains strong on the side of freedom, to make it possible for Americans of all different races and creeds to live together in harmony, to make it possible for a world to exist in diversity and freedom. All this requires the best of all of us.

     Therefore, I am proud to come to this college, whose graduates have recognized this obligation and to say to those who are now here that the need is endless, and I am confident that you will respond.

Remarks at Amherst College

President John F. Kennedy
Amherst, Massachusetts
October 26, 1963


----------



## Bfgrn

code1211 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)*
> 
> I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:
> 
> "What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean..._*someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties*_...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]
> 
> - Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum
> 
> ---
> 
> "Tonight *we salute George Meany* as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight *we salute Adlai Stevenson* as an eloquent spokesman..."
> 
> - A Liberal Definition by JFK
> 
> ---
> 
> as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.
> 
> What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?
> 
> They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.
> 
> If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With respect, you have chosen two quotes from addresses to first the parisan hacks at the convention and second to the union boss at a fund raiser.
> 
> If this is all he had ever said, he would be swept aside as summarily as the Big 0 is about to be.  Ad men are forgotten long before their products leave the shelves.
> 
> When he challenged the American people to do great things like land a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth and to "Ask NOT what your county can do for you.  Ask what you can do for your country", these captured the imagination and reflected the spirit of the times and the public consciousness.
> 
> That you find the two quotes you present to be reflective of his memory says far more about your inability to recognize greatness than it does about the actual greatness of this man and his vision for America.
> 
> As a follow up question to yours,* what Liberal politician today proposes a cut in taxes saying that a rising tide lifts all boats?*  The trouble with taking things out of context, in this case the context of his life of service, sacrifice and dutiful responsibility, is that the context remains and only mind numbed fools bereft of any inteligence are fooled by this kind of deciet.
Click to expand...


President Obama. He cut taxes for 95% of the American public. Not the top 5% Republicans cater to. The ones that took the money for a decade and drained the swamp.

Kennedy's tax cut was not based on supply side, it was based on demand side. It was exactly what Obama just did.


----------



## mdn2000

Bfgrn said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy was a catholic, how many liberals are proud to be catholic
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy died in 1963, how could he sell anything to anyone in 1968?
> 
> Many liberals are proud Catholics. WHO had a problem with Kennedy being a Catholic in the 1960 election? Here's a hint: conservatives.
Click to expand...


Read to the bottom, last paragraph, I guess I should of cut/paste just a little, the Arms deal was in 1962, delivered during the Johnson administration.

Kennedy supported Israel, Kennedy never even considered a partition or two state solution.

I did not say somebody had a problem with Kennedy being what today they call the "christian right". 

Who are the Liberals who state they are Christians? Kennedy had no problems with the Ten Commandments in a court house. 

Is that a definition of a Liberal


----------



## mdn2000

Bfgrn said:


> If Kennedy is 'like the Republicans', then tell me how much you support his statements in this speech given a month before his assassination, or show me one Republican that talks this way:
> 
> The problems which this country now faces are staggering, both at home and abroad. We need the service, in the great sense, of every educated man or woman to find 10 million jobs in the next 2 1/2 years, to govern our relations--a country which lived in isolation for 150 years, and is now suddenly the leader of the free world--to govern our relations with over 100 countries, to govern those relations with success so that the balance of power remains strong on the side of freedom, to make it possible for Americans of all different races and creeds to live together in harmony, to make it possible for a world to exist in diversity and freedom. All this requires the best of all of us.
> .[/SIZE][/FONT]
> 
> Remarks at Amherst College
> 
> President John F. Kennedy
> Amherst, Massachusetts
> October 26, 1963



Reagan, Reagan fulfilled the dreams of Kennedy

Ronald Reagan... Farewell Address to the Nation



> The fact is, from Grenada to the Washington and Moscow summits, from the recession of '81 to '82, to the expansion that began in late '82 and continues to this day, we've made a difference. They way I see it, there were two great triumphs, two things that I'm proudest of. One is the economic recovery, in which the people of America created - and filled - 19 million new jobs. The other is the recovery of our morale. America is respected again in the world and looked to for leadership.


----------



## mdn2000

Kennedy's view on tax cuts are the same as Reagan, 

John F. Kennedy on taxes



> "It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
> 
> &#8211; John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference
> 
> "Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased &#8211; not a reduced &#8211; flow of revenues to the federal government."
> 
> &#8211; John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964


----------



## Bfgrn

mdn2000 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Kennedy is 'like the Republicans', then tell me how much you support his statements in this speech given a month before his assassination, or show me one Republican that talks this way:
> 
> The problems which this country now faces are staggering, both at home and abroad. We need the service, in the great sense, of every educated man or woman to find 10 million jobs in the next 2 1/2 years, to govern our relations--a country which lived in isolation for 150 years, and is now suddenly the leader of the free world--to govern our relations with over 100 countries, to govern those relations with success so that the balance of power remains strong on the side of freedom, to make it possible for Americans of all different races and creeds to live together in harmony, to make it possible for a world to exist in diversity and freedom. All this requires the best of all of us.
> .[/SIZE][/FONT]
> 
> Remarks at Amherst College
> 
> President John F. Kennedy
> Amherst, Massachusetts
> October 26, 1963
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan, Reagan fulfilled the dreams of Kennedy
> 
> Ronald Reagan... Farewell Address to the Nation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, from Grenada to the Washington and Moscow summits, from the recession of '81 to '82, to the expansion that began in late '82 and continues to this day, we've made a difference. They way I see it, there were two great triumphs, two things that I'm proudest of. One is the economic recovery, in which the people of America created - and filled - 19 million new jobs. The other is the recovery of our morale. America is respected again in the world and looked to for leadership.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


WTF did you cut out President Kennedy's words? There are NO Republicans that talk about 'inherited wealth and inherited poverty in this country', 'a responsibility of the privileged to give back and put forth service to the Great Republic'.

You are being disingenuous and deceitful.   

"Privilege is here, and with privilege goes responsibility. And I think, as your president said, that it must be a source of satisfaction to you that this school's graduates have recognized it. I hope that the students who are here now will also recognize it in the future. 

"There is inherited wealth in this country and also inherited poverty. And unless the graduates of this college and other colleges like it who are given a running start in life--unless they are willing to put back into our society, those talents, the broad sympathy, the understanding, the compassion--unless they are willing to put those qualities back into the service of the Great Republic, then obviously the presuppositions upon which our democracy are based are bound to be fallible."


----------



## Bfgrn

mdn2000 said:


> Kennedy's view on tax cuts are the same as Reagan,
> 
> John F. Kennedy on taxes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
> 
>  John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference
> 
> "Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased  not a reduced  flow of revenues to the federal government."
> 
>  John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964
Click to expand...


JFK lowered taxes, but supply-siders wrongly claim he's their patron saint.

Since the drive to pass Ronald Reagan's tax cuts in the 1980s, Republicans have often invoked John F. Kennedy as the patron saint of supply-side economics. For several years now, conservative groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers and the Club for Growththe supply-side group whose name sounds like a hair-replacement outfithave used JFK's name and words to depict Republican tax cuts skewed toward the rich as part of a grand bipartisan tradition. (In 1997 in Slate, Democratic strategist Bob Shrum dissected one of these ads.) Now the Club for Growth's Stephen Moore is enlisting JFK to take a swipe at Howard Dean's economic vision in the Wall Street Journal, declaring it anti-growth, burdensome to the middle-class, and in an oh-so-painful concluding slap, final proof that the Democrats "no longer believe a word of John F. Kennedy's message of 40 years ago."

So, was Kennedy really a forerunner to Reagan and Bush? Or are supply-siders just cynically appropriating his aura? The Republicans are right, up to a point. Kennedy did push tax cuts, and his plan, which passed in February 1964, three months after his death, did help spur economic growth. But they're wrong to see the tax reduction as a supply-side cut, like Reagan's and Bush's; it was a demand-side cut. "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.

This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.

When Kennedy ran for president in 1960 amid a sluggish economy, he vowed to "get the country moving again." After his election, his advisers, led by chief economist Walter Heller, urged a classically Keynesian solution: running a deficit to stimulate growth. (The $10 billion deficit Heller recommended, bold at the time, seems laughably small by today's standards.) In Keynesian theory, a tax cut aimed at consumers would have a "multiplier" effect, since each dollar that a taxpayer spent would go to another taxpayer, who would in effect spend it againmeaning the deficit would be short-lived.

At first Kennedy balked at Heller's Keynesianism. He even proposed a balanced budget in his first State of the Union address. But Heller and his team won over the president. By mid-1962 Kennedy had seen the Keynesian light, and in January 1963 he declared that "the enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic issues in this Congress."

The plan Kennedy's team drafted had many elements, including the closing of loopholes (the "tax reform" Kennedy spoke of). Ultimately, in the form that Lyndon Johnson signed into law, it reduced tax withholding rates, initiated a new standard deduction, and boosted the top deduction for child care expenses, among other provisions. It did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point than anything we've seen in recent years: 91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.

Yet the Kennedy-Johnson team saw the supply-side effects of the bill as secondary, if not incidental, to its main goal of prodding near-term growth. "The tax cut is good for long-run growth," said James Tobin, another economist on JFK's team, "only in the general sense that prosperity is good for investment." The immediate boost to the economy was the main goal. In fact, Nixon's economic adviser Herb Stein noted that the 1964 plan led to a diminished output-per-person-employeda fact that could argue against the supply-side tenet that lower marginal rates would unleash the productivity of workers deterred from working harder because of overtaxation.

Whole article


----------



## editec

Dante said:


> *President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)*
> 
> I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:
> 
> "What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean..._*someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties*_...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]
> 
> - Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum
> 
> ---
> 
> "Tonight *we salute George Meany* as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight *we salute Adlai Stevenson* as an eloquent spokesman..."
> 
> - A Liberal Definition by JFK
> 
> ---
> 
> as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.
> 
> What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?
> 
> They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.
> 
> If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.


 

The day I let LIMO LIBERALS define what liberalism is is the day I'll give up _any_ interest in politics.

There is NO GROUP of political partisans  who need some sense knocked into them more than that arrogant bunch.

They KILLED the Democratic Party as far as I'm concerned.

And while many of them are terribly nice people, they're enabled the Republican LITE party (read the DNC) to become not part of the solution, but co-conspirators of the desctruction of the American middle class.

A pox on their Chablis and Brie politics.


----------



## mdn2000

Bfgrn said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> If Kennedy is 'like the Republicans', then tell me how much you support his statements in this speech given a month before his assassination, or show me one Republican that talks this way:
> 
> The problems which this country now faces are staggering, both at home and abroad. We need the service, in the great sense, of every educated man or woman to find 10 million jobs in the next 2 1/2 years, to govern our relations--a country which lived in isolation for 150 years, and is now suddenly the leader of the free world--to govern our relations with over 100 countries, to govern those relations with success so that the balance of power remains strong on the side of freedom, to make it possible for Americans of all different races and creeds to live together in harmony, to make it possible for a world to exist in diversity and freedom. All this requires the best of all of us.
> .[/SIZE][/FONT]
> 
> Remarks at Amherst College
> 
> President John F. Kennedy
> Amherst, Massachusetts
> October 26, 1963
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Reagan, Reagan fulfilled the dreams of Kennedy
> 
> Ronald Reagan... Farewell Address to the Nation
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The fact is, from Grenada to the Washington and Moscow summits, from the recession of '81 to '82, to the expansion that began in late '82 and continues to this day, we've made a difference. They way I see it, there were two great triumphs, two things that I'm proudest of. One is the economic recovery, in which the people of America created - and filled - 19 million new jobs. The other is the recovery of our morale. America is respected again in the world and looked to for leadership.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> WTF did you cut out President Kennedy's words? There are NO Republicans that talk about 'inherited wealth and inherited poverty in this country', 'a responsibility of the privileged to give back and put forth service to the Great Republic'.
> 
> You are being disingenuous and deceitful.
> 
> "Privilege is here, and with privilege goes responsibility. And I think, as your president said, that it must be a source of satisfaction to you that this school's graduates have recognized it. I hope that the students who are here now will also recognize it in the future.
> 
> "There is inherited wealth in this country and also inherited poverty. And unless the graduates of this college and other colleges like it who are given a running start in life--unless they are willing to put back into our society, those talents, the broad sympathy, the understanding, the compassion--unless they are willing to put those qualities back into the service of the Great Republic, then obviously the presuppositions upon which our democracy are based are bound to be fallible."
Click to expand...


Kennedy said a lot of things, think this is the only example that Kennedy sounds like Reagan.


----------



## mdn2000

Bfgrn said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Kennedy's view on tax cuts are the same as Reagan,
> 
> John F. Kennedy on taxes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
> 
> &#8211; John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference
> 
> "Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased &#8211; not a reduced &#8211; flow of revenues to the federal government."
> 
> &#8211; John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> JFK lowered taxes, but supply-siders wrongly claim he's their patron saint.
> 
> Since the drive to pass Ronald Reagan's tax cuts in the 1980s, Republicans have often invoked John F. Kennedy as the patron saint of supply-side economics. For several years now, conservative groups such as the National Association of Manufacturers and the Club for Growth&#8212;the supply-side group whose name sounds like a hair-replacement outfit&#8212;have used JFK's name and words to depict Republican tax cuts skewed toward the rich as part of a grand bipartisan tradition. (In 1997 in Slate, Democratic strategist Bob Shrum dissected one of these ads.) Now the Club for Growth's Stephen Moore is enlisting JFK to take a swipe at Howard Dean's economic vision in the Wall Street Journal, declaring it anti-growth, burdensome to the middle-class, and in an oh-so-painful concluding slap, final proof that the Democrats "no longer believe a word of John F. Kennedy's message of 40 years ago."
> 
> So, was Kennedy really a forerunner to Reagan and Bush? Or are supply-siders just cynically appropriating his aura? The Republicans are right, up to a point. Kennedy did push tax cuts, and his plan, which passed in February 1964, three months after his death, did help spur economic growth. But they're wrong to see the tax reduction as a supply-side cut, like Reagan's and Bush's; it was a demand-side cut. "The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.
> 
> This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.
> 
> When Kennedy ran for president in 1960 amid a sluggish economy, he vowed to "get the country moving again." After his election, his advisers, led by chief economist Walter Heller, urged a classically Keynesian solution: running a deficit to stimulate growth. (The $10 billion deficit Heller recommended, bold at the time, seems laughably small by today's standards.) In Keynesian theory, a tax cut aimed at consumers would have a "multiplier" effect, since each dollar that a taxpayer spent would go to another taxpayer, who would in effect spend it again&#8212;meaning the deficit would be short-lived.
> 
> At first Kennedy balked at Heller's Keynesianism. He even proposed a balanced budget in his first State of the Union address. But Heller and his team won over the president. By mid-1962 Kennedy had seen the Keynesian light, and in January 1963 he declared that "the enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic issues in this Congress."
> 
> The plan Kennedy's team drafted had many elements, including the closing of loopholes (the "tax reform" Kennedy spoke of). Ultimately, in the form that Lyndon Johnson signed into law, it reduced tax withholding rates, initiated a new standard deduction, and boosted the top deduction for child care expenses, among other provisions. It did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point than anything we've seen in recent years: 91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.
> 
> Yet the Kennedy-Johnson team saw the supply-side effects of the bill as secondary, if not incidental, to its main goal of prodding near-term growth. "The tax cut is good for long-run growth," said James Tobin, another economist on JFK's team, "only in the general sense that prosperity is good for investment." The immediate boost to the economy was the main goal. In fact, Nixon's economic adviser Herb Stein noted that the 1964 plan led to a diminished output-per-person-employed&#8212;a fact that could argue against the supply-side tenet that lower marginal rates would unleash the productivity of workers deterred from working harder because of overtaxation.
> 
> Whole article
Click to expand...


I am not saying he is a patron saint, I just posted what Kennedy said and what Reagan said, pretty conservative. Maybe we should not stereotype politicians just because they are Democrat or Republican


----------



## code1211

Bfgrn said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)*
> 
> I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:
> 
> "What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean..._*someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties*_...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]
> 
> - Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum
> 
> ---
> 
> "Tonight *we salute George Meany* as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight *we salute Adlai Stevenson* as an eloquent spokesman..."
> 
> - A Liberal Definition by JFK
> 
> ---
> 
> as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.
> 
> What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?
> 
> They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.
> 
> If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> With respect, you have chosen two quotes from addresses to first the parisan hacks at the convention and second to the union boss at a fund raiser.
> 
> If this is all he had ever said, he would be swept aside as summarily as the Big 0 is about to be.  Ad men are forgotten long before their products leave the shelves.
> 
> When he challenged the American people to do great things like land a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth and to "Ask NOT what your county can do for you.  Ask what you can do for your country", these captured the imagination and reflected the spirit of the times and the public consciousness.
> 
> That you find the two quotes you present to be reflective of his memory says far more about your inability to recognize greatness than it does about the actual greatness of this man and his vision for America.
> 
> As a follow up question to yours,* what Liberal politician today proposes a cut in taxes saying that a rising tide lifts all boats?*  The trouble with taking things out of context, in this case the context of his life of service, sacrifice and dutiful responsibility, is that the context remains and only mind numbed fools bereft of any inteligence are fooled by this kind of deciet.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> President Obama. He cut taxes for 95% of the American public. Not the top 5% Republicans cater to. The ones that took the money for a decade and drained the swamp.
> 
> Kennedy's tax cut was not based on supply side, it was based on demand side. It was exactly what Obama just did.
Click to expand...



That's an interesting view since only about 50% of the American public pays Federal income tax if you are figuring family units.  Far less, of course, if you are talking individuals.

If taxes are cut for _all _private citizens who pay income tax, what is the distinction that makes it either "supply side" or "demand side"?

As i understand it, Conservatives, forget about the party labels, will cut the taxes of those who pay taxes and cut the spending on all of the programs that waste those collected taxes.

How will we be able to tell who the Conservatives, regardless of party labels, are?  They will be the ones that are re-elected in 2012.


----------



## Trajan

Dante said:


> *President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)*
> 
> I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:
> 
> "What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean..._*someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties*_...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]
> 
> - Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum
> 
> ---
> 
> "Tonight *we salute George Meany* as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight *we salute Adlai Stevenson* as an eloquent spokesman..."
> 
> - A Liberal Definition by JFK
> 
> ---
> 
> as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.
> 
> What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?
> 
> They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.
> 
> If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.





> What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?



if you read what Kennedy said in detail on this matter you would discover his mantra was;" a hand UP, not a hand OUT". 

and cons do care about these issues, the difference is they don't see what we have done as efficient or helpful in many of those areas in the long term. 

You and others like you,  equate that with;' they want to eat the babies of mothers who live in housing projects ' or  they ' wants da little chillen to goes hungrys'.....give me a break, please. 

and schools? who are the proponents of charter schools and vouchers? Who is owned by the AFT and NEA?......yea, thought so.


----------



## Bfgrn

code1211 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> With respect, you have chosen two quotes from addresses to first the parisan hacks at the convention and second to the union boss at a fund raiser.
> 
> If this is all he had ever said, he would be swept aside as summarily as the Big 0 is about to be.  Ad men are forgotten long before their products leave the shelves.
> 
> When he challenged the American people to do great things like land a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth and to "Ask NOT what your county can do for you.  Ask what you can do for your country", these captured the imagination and reflected the spirit of the times and the public consciousness.
> 
> That you find the two quotes you present to be reflective of his memory says far more about your inability to recognize greatness than it does about the actual greatness of this man and his vision for America.
> 
> As a follow up question to yours,* what Liberal politician today proposes a cut in taxes saying that a rising tide lifts all boats?*  The trouble with taking things out of context, in this case the context of his life of service, sacrifice and dutiful responsibility, is that the context remains and only mind numbed fools bereft of any inteligence are fooled by this kind of deciet.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President Obama. He cut taxes for 95% of the American public. Not the top 5% Republicans cater to. The ones that took the money for a decade and drained the swamp.
> 
> Kennedy's tax cut was not based on supply side, it was based on demand side. It was exactly what Obama just did.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That's an interesting view since only about 50% of the American public pays Federal income tax if you are figuring family units.  Far less, of course, if you are talking individuals.
> 
> If taxes are cut for _all _private citizens who pay income tax, what is the distinction that makes it either "supply side" or "demand side"?
> 
> As i understand it, Conservatives, forget about the party labels, will cut the taxes of those who pay taxes and cut the spending on all of the programs that waste those collected taxes.
> 
> How will we be able to tell who the Conservatives, regardless of party labels, are?  They will be the ones that are re-elected in 2012.
Click to expand...


It's easy to tell conservatives from liberals. The liberal era from the New Deal through the Great Society was America's finest moment. It was an era with huge economic growth and shared wealth, fantastic successes in technology, vast expansion of citizen freedoms and liberties and the growth of a middle class that defined this country and made America the 'city on the hill', the envy of the world.

That era ended at the end of the 1960's and the conservative era began. It has continued ever since. It has been a negative mirror image of the liberal era. We now lead the world only in the dubious like incarcerating human beings, killing innocent people and launching Hirohito sneak attacks on sovereign nations.

30 years of conservative policies and tax cut that benefited the wealthy has created a disparity of wealth that America had during the Gilded age. Between the Civil War and the years prior to the Great Depression, we tried unregulated banks, corporations, and industry...it was a CATASTROPHE for the little guy and the environment and a boon for the Robber barons. 

Today's conservatives and Republicans want to deal the final blow to the middle class. We now have socialism and welfare for corporations, and a FEE market for the middle class and poor.

We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
President John F. Kennedy


----------



## Liberty

Bfgrn said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> President Obama. He cut taxes for 95% of the American public. Not the top 5% Republicans cater to. The ones that took the money for a decade and drained the swamp.
> 
> Kennedy's tax cut was not based on supply side, it was based on demand side. It was exactly what Obama just did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an interesting view since only about 50% of the American public pays Federal income tax if you are figuring family units.  Far less, of course, if you are talking individuals.
> 
> If taxes are cut for _all _private citizens who pay income tax, what is the distinction that makes it either "supply side" or "demand side"?
> 
> As i understand it, Conservatives, forget about the party labels, will cut the taxes of those who pay taxes and cut the spending on all of the programs that waste those collected taxes.
> 
> How will we be able to tell who the Conservatives, regardless of party labels, are?  They will be the ones that are re-elected in 2012.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's easy to tell conservatives from liberals. The liberal era from the New Deal through the Great Society was America's finest moment.
Click to expand...


Yep, definitely a troll.


----------



## Bfgrn

Liberty said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's an interesting view since only about 50% of the American public pays Federal income tax if you are figuring family units.  Far less, of course, if you are talking individuals.
> 
> If taxes are cut for _all _private citizens who pay income tax, what is the distinction that makes it either "supply side" or "demand side"?
> 
> As i understand it, Conservatives, forget about the party labels, will cut the taxes of those who pay taxes and cut the spending on all of the programs that waste those collected taxes.
> 
> How will we be able to tell who the Conservatives, regardless of party labels, are?  They will be the ones that are re-elected in 2012.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's easy to tell conservatives from liberals. The liberal era from the New Deal through the Great Society was America's finest moment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yep, definitely a troll.
Click to expand...


A 'troll' blurts out little sentences...and hacks up people's posts


----------



## Trajan

Bfgrn said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> President Obama. He cut taxes for 95% of the American public. Not the top 5% Republicans cater to. The ones that took the money for a decade and drained the swamp.
> 
> Kennedy's tax cut was not based on supply side, it was based on demand side. It was exactly what Obama just did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an interesting view since only about 50% of the American public pays Federal income tax if you are figuring family units.  Far less, of course, if you are talking individuals.
> 
> If taxes are cut for _all _private citizens who pay income tax, what is the distinction that makes it either "supply side" or "demand side"?
> 
> As i understand it, Conservatives, forget about the party labels, will cut the taxes of those who pay taxes and cut the spending on all of the programs that waste those collected taxes.
> 
> How will we be able to tell who the Conservatives, regardless of party labels, are?  They will be the ones that are re-elected in 2012.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's easy to tell conservatives from liberals. The liberal era from the New Deal through the Great Society was America's finest moment. It was an era with huge economic growth and shared wealth, fantastic successes in technology, vast expansion of citizen freedoms and liberties and the growth of a middle class that defined this country and made America the 'city on the hill', the envy of the world.
> 
> That era ended at the end of the 1960's and the conservative era began. It has continued ever since. It has been a negative mirror image of the liberal era. We now lead the world only in the dubious like incarcerating human beings, killing innocent people and launching Hirohito sneak attacks on sovereign nations.
> 
> 30 years of conservative policies and tax cut that benefited the wealthy has created a disparity of wealth that America had during the Gilded age. Between the Civil War and the years prior to the Great Depression, we tried unregulated banks, corporations, and industry...it was a CATASTROPHE for the little guy and the environment and a boon for the Robber barons.
> 
> Today's conservatives and Republicans want to deal the final blow to the middle class. We now have socialism and welfare for corporations, and a FEE market for the middle class and poor.
> 
> We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
> President John F. Kennedy
Click to expand...


sounds like a screed to me. you want your post taken seriously, sure, however, you need to post reasonably. 

This post ww2 growth occurred in spite of the new deal  not so much because of it.

what you are seeing now is the new deal state collapsing of its own weight, technology isn't invented by gov. fiat or subsidies, never has never will be. 

IF big bad corps didn't exist you would not have had all that largess to buy votes and keep the dependency  machine going which has resulted in this collapse. 

As gov. added more regs the harder it became to do bus. _which_ drives the money machine ,_ which_ the left feels obliged to purloin oops, help themselves to,  to build the dependent class, creating  a nation where in 40% of the populace contributes no net taxes to the fed gov....who makes that difference up? hummmm, let me think.


----------



## Bfgrn

Trajan said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's an interesting view since only about 50% of the American public pays Federal income tax if you are figuring family units.  Far less, of course, if you are talking individuals.
> 
> If taxes are cut for _all _private citizens who pay income tax, what is the distinction that makes it either "supply side" or "demand side"?
> 
> As i understand it, Conservatives, forget about the party labels, will cut the taxes of those who pay taxes and cut the spending on all of the programs that waste those collected taxes.
> 
> How will we be able to tell who the Conservatives, regardless of party labels, are?  They will be the ones that are re-elected in 2012.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's easy to tell conservatives from liberals. The liberal era from the New Deal through the Great Society was America's finest moment. It was an era with huge economic growth and shared wealth, fantastic successes in technology, vast expansion of citizen freedoms and liberties and the growth of a middle class that defined this country and made America the 'city on the hill', the envy of the world.
> 
> That era ended at the end of the 1960's and the conservative era began. It has continued ever since. It has been a negative mirror image of the liberal era. We now lead the world only in the dubious like incarcerating human beings, killing innocent people and launching Hirohito sneak attacks on sovereign nations.
> 
> 30 years of conservative policies and tax cut that benefited the wealthy has created a disparity of wealth that America had during the Gilded age. Between the Civil War and the years prior to the Great Depression, we tried unregulated banks, corporations, and industry...it was a CATASTROPHE for the little guy and the environment and a boon for the Robber barons.
> 
> Today's conservatives and Republicans want to deal the final blow to the middle class. We now have socialism and welfare for corporations, and a FEE market for the middle class and poor.
> 
> We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> sounds like a screed to me. you want your post taken seriously, sure, however, you need to post reasonably.
> 
> This post ww2 growth occurred in spite of the new deal  not so much because of it.
> 
> what you are seeing now is the new deal state collapsing of its own weight, technology isn't invented by gov. fiat or subsidies, never has never will be.
> 
> IF big bad corps didn't exist you would not have had all that largess to buy votes and keep the dependency  machine going which has resulted in this collapse.
> 
> As gov. added more regs the harder it became to do bus. _which_ drives the money machine ,_ which_ the left feels obliged to purloin oops, help themselves to,  to build the dependent class, creating  a nation where in 40% of the populace contributes no net taxes to the fed gov....who makes that difference up? hummmm, let me think.
Click to expand...


I don't look to people like you for approval of my posts or to concede my knowledge. I lived through much of the liberal era. I witnessed what Nixon started and the Reagan revolution destroyed. So I have a foundation and benchmark to compare our direction and progress to. The New Deal created much more than economic stability. But conservatives never calculate human capital in their equations. It was an era where the rights and liberties of the common man were greatly enhanced. The conservative era that followed built nothing. It has been busy tearing down what our ancestors from both sides of the aisle crafted as ONE nation. Conservatives have replaced words like 'service of the Great Republic' with their 3 priorities; me, myself and I.

It is ludicrous for conservatives to try to claim Jack Kennedy as their own. He was the antithesis of Ronald Reagan. At the time of his death, Ted Kennedy was already a Senator. His brother Jack was his idol. So everything Ted did as a Senator was centered around Jack and Bobby's aspirations for America. Ted dedicated his public life to continue what his brother's started.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


But democratic society--in it, the highest duty of the writer, the composer, the artist is to remain true to himself and to let the chips fall where they may. In serving his vision of the truth, the artist best serves his nation. And the nation which disdains the mission of art invites the fate of Robert Frost's hired man, the fate of having "nothing to look backward to with pride, and nothing to look forward to with hope."

     I look forward to a great future for America, a future in which our country will match its military strength with our moral restraint, its wealth with our wisdom, its power with our purpose. I look forward to an America which will not be afraid of grace and beauty, which will protect the beauty of our natural environment, which will preserve the great old American houses and squares and parks of our national past, and which will build handsome and balanced cities for our future.

     I look forward to an America which will reward achievement in the arts as we reward achievement in business or statecraft. I look forward to an America which will steadily raise the standards of artistic accomplishment and which will steadily enlarge cultural opportunities for all of our citizens. And I look forward to an America which commands respect throughout the world not only for its strength but for its civilization as well. And I look forward to a world which will be safe not only for democracy and diversity but also for personal distinction.

     Robert Frost was often skeptical about projects for human improvement, yet I do not think he would disdain this hope. As he wrote during the uncertain days of the Second War:

               Take human nature altogether since time began . . .
               And it must be a little more in favor of man,
               Say a fraction of one percent at the very least . . .
               Our hold on this planet wouldn't have so increased.


Because of Mr. Frost's life and work, because of the life and work of this college, our hold on this planet has increased.

Remarks at Amherst College

President John F. Kennedy
Amherst, Massachusetts
October 26, 1963


----------



## mdn2000

Bfgrn said:


> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> President Obama. He cut taxes for 95% of the American public. Not the top 5% Republicans cater to. The ones that took the money for a decade and drained the swamp.
> 
> Kennedy's tax cut was not based on supply side, it was based on demand side. It was exactly what Obama just did.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's an interesting view since only about 50% of the American public pays Federal income tax if you are figuring family units.  Far less, of course, if you are talking individuals.
> 
> If taxes are cut for _all _private citizens who pay income tax, what is the distinction that makes it either "supply side" or "demand side"?
> 
> As i understand it, Conservatives, forget about the party labels, will cut the taxes of those who pay taxes and cut the spending on all of the programs that waste those collected taxes.
> 
> How will we be able to tell who the Conservatives, regardless of party labels, are?  They will be the ones that are re-elected in 2012.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It's easy to tell conservatives from liberals. The liberal era from the New Deal through the Great Society was America's finest moment. It was an era with huge economic growth and shared wealth, fantastic successes in technology, vast expansion of citizen freedoms and liberties and the growth of a middle class that defined this country and made America the 'city on the hill', the envy of the world.
> 
> That era ended at the end of the 1960's and the conservative era began. It has continued ever since. It has been a negative mirror image of the liberal era. We now lead the world only in the dubious like incarcerating human beings, killing innocent people and launching Hirohito sneak attacks on sovereign nations.
> 
> 30 years of conservative policies and tax cut that benefited the wealthy has created a disparity of wealth that America had during the Gilded age. Between the Civil War and the years prior to the Great Depression, we tried unregulated banks, corporations, and industry...it was a CATASTROPHE for the little guy and the environment and a boon for the Robber barons.
> 
> Today's conservatives and Republicans want to deal the final blow to the middle class. We now have socialism and welfare for corporations, and a FEE market for the middle class and poor.
> 
> We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
> President John F. Kennedy
Click to expand...




> We now lead the world only in the dubious like incarcerating human beings, killing innocent people and launching Hirohito sneak attacks on sovereign nations.



Which "sovereign nation", can't be Iraq we surrounded Saddam literally with the Army and gave him a real Texas warning to get out of town. Not a sneak attack.

Iraq ceased being "sovereign" the minute Abd al-Karim Qasim took over.


----------



## Bfgrn

mdn2000 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> code1211 said:
> 
> 
> 
> That's an interesting view since only about 50% of the American public pays Federal income tax if you are figuring family units.  Far less, of course, if you are talking individuals.
> 
> If taxes are cut for _all _private citizens who pay income tax, what is the distinction that makes it either "supply side" or "demand side"?
> 
> As i understand it, Conservatives, forget about the party labels, will cut the taxes of those who pay taxes and cut the spending on all of the programs that waste those collected taxes.
> 
> How will we be able to tell who the Conservatives, regardless of party labels, are?  They will be the ones that are re-elected in 2012.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> It's easy to tell conservatives from liberals. The liberal era from the New Deal through the Great Society was America's finest moment. It was an era with huge economic growth and shared wealth, fantastic successes in technology, vast expansion of citizen freedoms and liberties and the growth of a middle class that defined this country and made America the 'city on the hill', the envy of the world.
> 
> That era ended at the end of the 1960's and the conservative era began. It has continued ever since. It has been a negative mirror image of the liberal era. We now lead the world only in the dubious like incarcerating human beings, killing innocent people and launching Hirohito sneak attacks on sovereign nations.
> 
> 30 years of conservative policies and tax cut that benefited the wealthy has created a disparity of wealth that America had during the Gilded age. Between the Civil War and the years prior to the Great Depression, we tried unregulated banks, corporations, and industry...it was a CATASTROPHE for the little guy and the environment and a boon for the Robber barons.
> 
> Today's conservatives and Republicans want to deal the final blow to the middle class. We now have socialism and welfare for corporations, and a FEE market for the middle class and poor.
> 
> We have all made mistakes. But Dante tells us that divine justice weighs the sins of the cold-blooded and the sins of the warm-hearted on different scales. Better the occasional faults of a party living in the spirit of charity than the consistent omissions of a party frozen in the ice of its own indifference.
> President John F. Kennedy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> We now lead the world only in the dubious like incarcerating human beings, killing innocent people and launching Hirohito sneak attacks on sovereign nations.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Which "sovereign nation", can't be Iraq we surrounded Saddam literally with the Army and gave him a real Texas warning to get out of town. Not a sneak attack.
> 
> Iraq ceased being "sovereign" the minute Abd al-Karim Qasim took over.
Click to expand...


REALLY!!! Abd al-Karim Qasim, why, because he wanted to nationalize Iraqi's natural resources and have the people of Iraq benefit from the country's riches? Or because he crafted a constitution that proclaimed the equality of all Iraqi citizens under the law and granting them freedom without regard to race, nationality, language or religion? Or because he freed political prisoners and granted amnesty to the Kurds who participated in the 1943 to 1945 Kurdish uprisings and the exiled Kurds returned home and were welcomed by the republican regime? Or, is it because he greatly increased the size of the middle class? Or was it because Qasim oversaw the building of 35,000 residential units to house the poor and lower middle classes. The most notable was the new suburb of Baghdad named Madinat al-Thawra (revolution city), renamed Saddam City under the Baath regime and now widely referred to as Sadr City. Or was it because Qasim rewrote the constitution to encourage womens participation in the society?

OR...WAS IT BECAUSE: Qasim passed law No. 80 which seized 99% of Iraqi land from the British-owned Iraq Petroleum Company???


----------



## Dante

mdn2000 said:


> Kennedy's view on tax cuts are the same as Reagan,
> 
> John F. Kennedy on taxes
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."
> 
> &#8211; John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference
> 
> "Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased &#8211; not a reduced &#8211; flow of revenues to the federal government."
> 
> &#8211; John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964
Click to expand...


Kennedy's tax cuts had to do with tax loop holes. Kennedy said the wealthy were NOT paying their fair share of taxes. JFK closed the loopholes and lowered the rate teh wealthy paid. Kennedy's tax policies increased tax revenue coming in from the wealthy.

_If you're going to start regurgitating Right Wing World Echo Chamber bullshit without understanding context, you will fail every time. _

http://www.slate.com/id/2093947/ JFK lowered taxes, but supply-siders wrongly claim he's their patron saint.

Demand side vs supply side.


----------



## Dante

Trajan said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)*
> 
> I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:
> 
> "What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean..._*someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties*_...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]
> 
> - Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum
> 
> ---
> 
> "Tonight *we salute George Meany* as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight *we salute Adlai Stevenson* as an eloquent spokesman..."
> 
> - A Liberal Definition by JFK
> 
> ---
> 
> as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.
> 
> What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?
> 
> They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.
> 
> If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> if you read what Kennedy said in detail on this matter you would discover his mantra was;" a hand UP, not a hand OUT". *
> 
> and cons do care about these issues, the difference is they don't see what we have done as efficient or helpful in many of those areas in the long term.
> 
> You and others like you,  equate that with;' they want to eat the babies of mothers who live in housing projects ' or  they ' wants da little chillen to goes hungrys'.....give me a break, please.
> 
> and schools? who are the proponents of charter schools and vouchers? Who is owned by the AFT and NEA?......yea, thought so.
Click to expand...


*JFK was not disparaging the poor or needy. He was not name calling and calling people lazy like your heroes often do.[/B

 JFK was talking about a spoiled and greedy attitude. The gimmie girls and boys of the adults, the baby boomers, responded with volunteerism across the world. This volunteerism, community action (Obama? ) took the form of helping the poor, the needy, the less fortunate. The volunteerism was not a mask for greed and accumulation of wealthy.Those with the most toys win .. was not the mantra of the Kennedy days. The volunteerism was a call for liberal action.*


----------



## Dante

editec said:


> The day I let LIMO LIBERALS define what liberalism is is the day I'll give up _any_ interest in politics.





consistency is not always a trait to be proud of.


thank you for adding absolutely nothing to the argument


----------



## Liability

Dante said:


> *President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)*
> 
> I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:
> 
> "What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean..._*someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties*_...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]
> 
> - Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum
> 
> ---
> 
> "Tonight *we salute George Meany* as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight *we salute Adlai Stevenson* as an eloquent spokesman..."
> 
> - A Liberal Definition by JFK
> 
> ---
> 
> as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.
> 
> What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?
> 
> They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.
> 
> If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.



Actually, JFK's quote reveals that he was rhetorically asking if that's what conservatives meant by the use of the term "liberal."

And it was a horseshit definition employed by JFK, anyway.

LOTS of people can be concerned with and concerned about "the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties."

That's never been the actual question.  The question, the thing that has separated libs from conservatives, historically, is the one involving HOW to address those concerns and problems.

An amorphous term like the "welfare" of the people is too ill-defined a concept to have much meaning of use in the discussion.  

Concern for the health of the "people," as we see when we look at that hideous monstrosity we laughingly call "Obamacare" is expressed in a ridiculous and irrational fashion by the liberals who support that absurdity.  If THAT'S your daffynition of "liberal," then you can be a liberal.  I'm not interested.  I am concerned with the public health and access to health-care, too.  But my expression of that concern would NEVER be found in creating a Federal Government bureaucracy like the depraved joke called "Obamacare."

Caring for the housing of the people, likewise, can be expressed by libs in having the Fed government act like everyone's nanny at the expense of all wealth earners and producers.  Or it can be expressed in less cumbersome and less socialist ways.  Mandating that everyone who applies for a mortgage is required to by God GET one from a bank on pain of Federal prosecution of the bank or on pain of the denial to the Bank of certain needed bank access to Federal monetary management tools -- as we have seen -- is destined not only to fail, but to cause massive disruptions that could have and should have been utterly avoidable.

The difference between libs and conservatives is NOT found in the false dichotomy that only libs "care" about the people.  This is now and always was bullshit.  The real difference is found in HOW the problems are seen as being properly addressed, if at all, by the Federal Government, and upon what principles.

That's point one.

Point two is simpler.  JFK would NOT be considered liberal ENOUGH in today's world, much like the clearly liberal Lieberman is seen as not nearly liberal enough by the liberal kooks in the Democrat parody.  For there is a great deal more to being a "true liberal," in today's world, than merely advocating for the intrusive involvement of the central government in matters of social concern.


----------



## Dante

Liability said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)*
> 
> I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:
> 
> "What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean..._*someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties*_...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]
> 
> - Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum
> 
> ---
> 
> "Tonight *we salute George Meany* as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight *we salute Adlai Stevenson* as an eloquent spokesman..."
> 
> - A Liberal Definition by JFK
> 
> ---
> 
> as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.
> 
> What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?
> 
> They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.
> 
> If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually, JFK's quote reveals that he was rhetorically asking if that's what conservatives meant by the use of the term "liberal."
> 
> And it was a horseshit definition employed by JFK, anyway.*
> 
> ...
> 
> The difference between libs and conservatives is NOT found in the false dichotomy that only libs "care" about the people.  This is now and always was bullshit.  The real difference is found in HOW the problems are seen as being properly addressed, if at all, by the Federal Government, and upon what principles.
> 
> That's point one.
> 
> Point two is simpler.  JFK would NOT be considered liberal ENOUGH in today's world, much like the clearly liberal Lieberman is seen as not nearly liberal enough by the liberal kooks in the Democrat parody.  For there is a great deal more to being a "true liberal," in today's world, than merely advocating for the intrusive involvement of the central government in matters of social concern.
Click to expand...

 JFK's principles are Democratic principles. JFK was a liberal. 

JFK would not be accepted as easily by the left. The left rarely loves liberals. The far left like the far right (your homeland) are fringe lunatics,


----------



## Liability

> New reputation!
> Hi, you have received -70 reputation points from Dante.
> Reputation was given for this post.
> 
> Comment:
> ha! dope. disingenuos dope.
> 
> Regards,
> Dante





He has no actual argument to make. 

Dainty, you poor suffering retard, everyone knows that President Kennedy was a liberal Democrat.  I mean, seriously, no shit Sherlock, you imbecile.  

But the libs of today have a code that mandates how dedicated they are.  Dissent is not tolerated.  This is why, despite his 95% voting record in support of the liberal Democrat agenda, Sen. Lieberman got hounded by the liberal Democrat establishment.  His failure to totally adhere (mindlessly) to the liberal orthodoxy (in matters of military concerns, especially, such as the Iraq war) got him rebuffed by the idiotic liberals of our day.  JFK was a tough hombre in terms of confronting our enemies.  In today's world, he would get marginalized by you moron uber libs.

You can deny it all you want, in your typically retarded fashion, but that doesn't change the fact that it's plainly true.  Lieberman stands as silent proof.  You got totally exposed and hosed, dufus.   You are self-pwning, Dainty


----------



## Liability

Dante said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)*
> 
> I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:
> 
> "What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean..._*someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties*_...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]
> 
> - Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum
> 
> ---
> 
> "Tonight *we salute George Meany* as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight *we salute Adlai Stevenson* as an eloquent spokesman..."
> 
> - A Liberal Definition by JFK
> 
> ---
> 
> as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.
> 
> What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?
> 
> They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.
> 
> If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, JFK's quote reveals that he was rhetorically asking if that's what conservatives meant by the use of the term "liberal."
> 
> And it was a horseshit definition employed by JFK, anyway.
> 
> LOTS of people can be concerned with and concerned about "the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties."
> 
> That's never been the actual question.  The question, the thing that has separated libs from conservatives, historically, is the one involving HOW to address those concerns and problems.
> 
> An amorphous term like the "welfare" of the people is too ill-defined a concept to have much meaning of use in the discussion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general Welfare..."
Click to expand...


We are familiar with the PREAMBLE, you mental midget.  The fact that it's part of the PREAMBLE might suggest to even one as simple-minded as you, Dainty, that the term is amorphous.

But, no.  You are too busy pwning yourself.


----------



## Dante

Dante said:


> *President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)*
> 
> I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:
> 
> "What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean..._*someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties*_...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]
> 
> - Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum
> 
> ---
> 
> "Tonight *we salute George Meany* as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight *we salute Adlai Stevenson* as an eloquent spokesman..."
> 
> - A Liberal Definition by JFK
> 
> ---
> 
> as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.
> 
> What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?
> 
> They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.
> 
> If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.



when dealing with the House trolls it is often necessary to get back on topic without all the personal attacks and cheap shot bullshit posing as substance...


----------



## Trajan

Bfgrn said:


> I don't look to people like you



"like me"...? the cousin too; " you people"....



what am I like?


----------



## Liability

Dante said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)*
> 
> I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:
> 
> "What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean..._*someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties*_...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]
> 
> - Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum
> 
> ---
> 
> "Tonight *we salute George Meany* as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight *we salute Adlai Stevenson* as an eloquent spokesman..."
> 
> - A Liberal Definition by JFK
> 
> ---
> 
> as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.
> 
> What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?
> 
> They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.
> 
> If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> when dealing with the House trolls it is often necessary to get back on topic without all the personal attacks and cheap shot bullshit posing as substance...
Click to expand...


Wow.  imagine that.  Dainty being dishonest.  Who'd have ever imagined THAT?

<<everyone raises hands>>

Anyway, a specific reply to the premise of your flawed OP, Dainty, doesn't make me a "troll."  You also suck at the meaning of words other than "liberal," it seems.  You moron.   

Liberals of today are NOT akin to liberals of JFK's day; and even JFK's definition quoted by you in your OP was pretty dishonest for the reasons I stated.  Further, JFK would NOT be embraced by libs of today because he would not hold to the liberal orthodoxy of today in ALL things.  

(By the way, stupid, Bobby Kennedy is still offended by your use of his image as your avie.)


----------



## Dante

Dante said:


> JFK thought the Federal government had a responsibility in the areas of health, housing, schools, jobs, as well as civil rights.
> 
> JFK also praised ..._omg._..... union Bosses!!!



ignoring the troll...


----------



## Dante

Dante said:


> *President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)*
> 
> I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:
> 
> "What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean..._*someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties*_...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]
> 
> - Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum
> 
> ---
> 
> "Tonight *we salute George Meany* as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight *we salute Adlai Stevenson* as an eloquent spokesman..."
> 
> - A Liberal Definition by JFK
> 
> ---
> 
> as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.
> 
> What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?
> 
> They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.
> 
> If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.


----------



## Dante

Dante said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> JFK thought the Federal government had a responsibility in the areas of health, housing, schools, jobs, as well as civil rights.
> 
> 
> 
> He was right about civil rights.
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> JFK also praised ..._omg._..... union Bosses!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unions have become that which they were created to protect against:  Organizations that exploit workers for money and power.
> 
> They also protect the lazy and incompetent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is an unfair opinion but it is a popular one. Depending on what union people look at and at what actions, unions can be a godsend. Many places I worked at as I traveled around had dumb union rules. Many were well meaning protections that ended up getting abused.
> 
> Unions pay out retirement benefits. Many companies like Polaroid stole people's retirement benefits.  Many previously good companies became just as bad or worse, than the worst unions. *What changed?*
> 
> Corporate raiders. The investors, the wealthy, the private wealth firms cannibalized good companies and not only threw people out of work, they killed companies and stole the pension plans of generations.
> 
> Go to Massachusetts and meet people who worked for Polaroid.
Click to expand...


----------



## Dante

Dante said:


> daveman said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> JFK thought the Federal government had a responsibility in the areas of health, housing, schools, jobs, as well as civil rights.
> 
> 
> 
> He was right about civil rights.
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> JFK also praised ..._omg._..... union Bosses!!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unions have become that which they were created to protect against:  Organizations that exploit workers for money and power.
> 
> They also protect the lazy and incompetent.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I campaigned for the Kennedy family. Most all held true to the memories and values of JFK. They were all mostly liberal to moderate depending n the issue. Some were more conservative than others on how fiscal issues.
> 
> I've always believed oversight and regulation of government programs, as well as business practices, should minimize the abuse that follows human nature.
Click to expand...


----------



## Trajan

poor dante,being you must be a full time thankless job.

...when you cannot craft a reply to your own  trolling  OP,  like most net kiddies you retreat to grandmas basement and use the shadowed halls of neg. rep.,  making nasty remarks in private.....thats so punk, really....man up or go home......

I'd hit you back but you're not worth it. so neg away jeeves.


----------



## Liability

Dante said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> JFK thought the Federal government had a responsibility in the areas of health, housing, schools, jobs, as well as civil rights.
> 
> JFK also praised ..._omg._..... union Bosses!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ignoring the troll...
Click to expand...


No trolls here, Dainty.  I'm just rebutting your thread's bullshit premise.   My posts have been on topic and to the point.

Fact is, as always, you can't handle that.  You pussy.   

I understand that complete pussies like you don't like it when your boring unpersuasive monologues get challenged.

Too bad.


----------



## Liability

Trajan said:


> poor dante,being you must be a full time thankless job.
> 
> ...when you cannot craft a reply to your own  trolling  OP,  like most net kiddies you retreat to grandmas basement and use the shadowed halls of neg. rep.,  making nasty remarks in private.....thats so punk, really....man up or go home......
> 
> I'd hit you back but you're not worth it. so neg away jeeves.




I negged the pussy back!  It was entertaining.  You should too.  Everyone should.


----------



## Dante

Distortions of history aside, JFK is, was, and will always be considered a liberal Democrat.

Conservative spin aside, JFK is the spiritual as well as ideological father of today's liberals.

To say JFK would not be welcome into the Democratic party today is like saying Democrats don't like Bill Clinton. 

reality is not the strong suit of today's conservatism. the evidence is that they keep saying every conservative President of the later half of the Twentieth Century was not a true conservative. They even have a name for it - RHINO


----------



## goldcatt

Dante said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)*
> 
> I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:
> 
> "What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean..._*someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties*_...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]
> 
> - Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum
> 
> ---
> 
> "Tonight *we salute George Meany* as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight *we salute Adlai Stevenson* as an eloquent spokesman..."
> 
> - A Liberal Definition by JFK
> 
> ---
> 
> as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.
> 
> What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?
> 
> They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.
> 
> If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually, JFK's quote reveals that he was rhetorically asking if that's what conservatives meant by the use of the term "liberal."
> 
> And it was a horseshit definition employed by JFK, anyway.*
> 
> ...
> 
> The difference between libs and conservatives is NOT found in the false dichotomy that only libs "care" about the people.  This is now and always was bullshit.  The real difference is found in HOW the problems are seen as being properly addressed, if at all, by the Federal Government, and upon what principles.
> 
> That's point one.
> 
> Point two is simpler.  JFK would NOT be considered liberal ENOUGH in today's world, much like the clearly liberal Lieberman is seen as not nearly liberal enough by the liberal kooks in the Democrat parody.  For there is a great deal more to being a "true liberal," in today's world, than merely advocating for the intrusive involvement of the central government in matters of social concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> JFK's principles are Democratic principles. JFK was a liberal.
> 
> JFK would not be accepted as easily by the left. The left rarely loves liberals. The far left like the far right (your homeland) are fringe lunatics,
Click to expand...


There's something to this. Liberals are not progressives are not democratic socialists. JFK was a liberal. Today's Democratic Party is dominated mostly by progressives. What we tend to consider the Far Left is primarily progressives and democratic socialists. They're all on the same side of the spectrum, but at very different points.

I'm not sure whether a JFK could rise to power in today's DNC. There are certainly some liberals around, but the leadership has a different agenda. He would fare even less well with the RNC though. These things always go in cycles.


----------



## Liability

Dainty's basic dishonesty aside, JFK was clearly a liberal Democrat as that was defined IN HIS DAY.

But the meanings of such political terms tend not to remain static.

The ATTEMPT to pretend that they do remain static is dishonest of cretins like the always unpersuasive Dainty.

JFK is admired on SOME grounds by today's conservatives PRECISELY because of the things I've mentioned.  Dainty cannot honestly address those points and considerations.  That's not entirely his fault.  He happens to just be flatly wrong.


----------



## Dante

goldcatt said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Actually, JFK's quote reveals that he was rhetorically asking if that's what conservatives meant by the use of the term "liberal."
> 
> And it was a horseshit definition employed by JFK, anyway.*
> 
> ...
> 
> The difference between libs and conservatives is NOT found in the false dichotomy that only libs "care" about the people.  This is now and always was bullshit.  The real difference is found in HOW the problems are seen as being properly addressed, if at all, by the Federal Government, and upon what principles.
> 
> That's point one.
> 
> Point two is simpler.  JFK would NOT be considered liberal ENOUGH in today's world, much like the clearly liberal Lieberman is seen as not nearly liberal enough by the liberal kooks in the Democrat parody.  For there is a great deal more to being a "true liberal," in today's world, than merely advocating for the intrusive involvement of the central government in matters of social concern.
> 
> 
> 
> JFK's principles are Democratic principles. JFK was a liberal.
> 
> JFK would not be accepted as easily by the left. The left rarely loves liberals. The far left like the far right (your homeland) are fringe lunatics,
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There's something to this. Liberals are not progressives are not democratic socialists. JFK was a liberal. Today's Democratic Party is dominated mostly by progressives. What we tend to consider the Far Left is primarily progressives and democratic socialists. They're all on the same side of the spectrum, but at very different points.
> 
> I'm not sure whether a JFK could rise to power in today's DNC. There are certainly some liberals around, but the leadership has a different agenda. He would fare even less well with the RNC though. These things always go in cycles.
Click to expand...


The DNC and the GOP used to be dominated by various groups. The fringe types went after key posts within the parties. Progressives in the DNC fought Hillary Clinton in 2008. It was a fierce battle. It showed that the progressives do not control everything. I left the Democratic party over some of these issues.

The socialism people tend to disparage is a straw man. We have had a mixed socialist/capitalist society since the middle of the 20th century -- when America's middle class grew. 

The American middle class did well, ups and downs for decades. Then conservative voodoo economics entered the picture. Starting with Reagan the American middle class has lost ground as the wealthiest class has made substantial gains.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/revie...vie-devastating-indictment-on-our-system.html


----------



## goldcatt

Liability said:


> Dainty's basic dishonesty aside, JFK was clearly a liberal Democrat as that was defined IN HIS DAY.
> 
> But the meanings of such political terms tend not to remain static.
> 
> The ATTEMPT to pretend that they do remain static is dishonest of cretins like the always unpersuasive Dainty.
> 
> JFK is admired on SOME grounds by today's conservatives PRECISELY because of the things I've mentioned.  Dainty cannot honestly address those points and considerations.  That's not entirely his fault.  He happens to just be flatly wrong.



I'm not a conservative, so I can't speak as to why conservatives admire JFK. But by any definition, he was not a conservative. He was a liberal and in some ways very much a pragmatist, in others not so much, but overall firmly in the liberal camp.

He wouldn't really belong in either main Party today, IMO. I agree that definitions of the Parties change as the different sub-categories of "Left" and "Right" cycle through. People like JFK, or Nixon, or Ike, or Johnson, or Reagan for that matter would be out of synch with partisan mainstreams today.


----------



## Dante

goldcatt said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dainty's basic dishonesty aside, JFK was clearly a liberal Democrat as that was defined IN HIS DAY.
> 
> But the meanings of such political terms tend not to remain static.
> 
> The ATTEMPT to pretend that they do remain static is dishonest of cretins like the always unpersuasive Dainty.
> 
> JFK is admired on SOME grounds by today's conservatives PRECISELY because of the things I've mentioned.  Dainty cannot honestly address those points and considerations.  That's not entirely his fault.  He happens to just be flatly wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a conservative, so I can't speak as to why conservatives admire JFK. But by any definition, he was not a conservative. He was a liberal and in some ways very much a pragmatist, in others not so much, but overall firmly in the liberal camp.
> 
> He wouldn't really belong in either main Party today, IMO. I agree that definitions of the Parties change as the different sub-categories of "Left" and "Right" cycle through. People like JFK, or Nixon, or Ike, or Johnson, or Reagan for that matter would be out of synch with partisan mainstreams today.
Click to expand...


Bill Clinton mixed with Ted Kennedy most resembled JFK in the last few decades. The DNC mainstream is not progressive. Many leadership posts within the DNC are held by progressives. It is a strategy where a minority can hold part of the reins of power.

The differences between the GOP and the DNC over the last 50 years or so can best be viewed by examining how the fringes of each party were treated within and in their platforms. 

one thing that comes to mind is: Where is the Pat Buchanan equivalent within the DNC? 

sure the base of each party, the part of a party that votes heavily in primaries, is highly partisan ad ideological, but...what power does the base wield?

An argument can be made that the GOP is always getting screwed by the GOP leadership...but on what?  social issues? On economic philosophy? The GOP economic philosophy that conservatives now claim they dislike is what they demanded of party leaders and voted for. Reaganomics brought us to where we are today.

 I think this is the 3rd economic crisis that resulted from the denial of reality of just what supply side is.


----------



## goldcatt

Dante said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> JFK's principles are Democratic principles. JFK was a liberal.
> 
> JFK would not be accepted as easily by the left. The left rarely loves liberals. The far left like the far right (your homeland) are fringe lunatics,
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There's something to this. Liberals are not progressives are not democratic socialists. JFK was a liberal. Today's Democratic Party is dominated mostly by progressives. What we tend to consider the Far Left is primarily progressives and democratic socialists. They're all on the same side of the spectrum, but at very different points.
> 
> I'm not sure whether a JFK could rise to power in today's DNC. There are certainly some liberals around, but the leadership has a different agenda. He would fare even less well with the RNC though. These things always go in cycles.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The DNC and the GOP used to be dominated by various groups. The fringe types went after key posts within the parties. Progressives in the DNC fought Hillary Clinton in 2008. It was a fierce battle. It showed that the progressives do not control everything. I left the Democratic party over some of these issues.
> 
> The socialism people tend to disparage is a straw man. We have had a mixed socialist/capitalist society since the middle of the 20th century -- when America's middle class grew.
> 
> The American middle class did well, ups and downs for decades. Then conservative voodoo economics entered the picture. Starting with Reagan the American middle class has lost ground as the wealthiest class has made substantial gains.
> 
> http://www.usmessageboard.com/revie...vie-devastating-indictment-on-our-system.html
Click to expand...


We've had a mixed economy for longer than the mid-20th Century. And I can't think of anybody beyond the fringes on either side who really want to change that, although we can and probably should argue over the proportions in the mix. Pure capitalism and pure socialism both have serious flaws that can be addressed in a mixed system. Not many question that.

No, Progressives don't control everything within the DNC. But right now they hold most of the positions of power and therefore control the agenda. I'm a liberal, not a progressive. So I'm not a fan of much of what the DNC is doing at the moment. That doesn't make me a conservative though. If anything, liberals have more in common with libertarians (not Libertarian Party reactionaries but old school libertarians) in a lot of areas than they do with conservatives. Hence my affinity for some libertarian positions, especially in foreign policy and civil rights.

What we really need are principled pragmatists, honestly. Leaders who have general ideas they want to support but are willing to compromise and utilize ideas that work wherever they find them in order to attain their goals. I get so irritated at the Parties with their litmus tests and ideological purity questionnaires. Nothing as complex as a hot dog stand let alone the USA can be run on ideology alone.


----------



## Dante

goldcatt said:


> We've had a mixed economy for longer than the mid-20th Century. And I can't think of anybody beyond the fringes on either side who really want to change that, although we can and probably should argue over the proportions in the mix. Pure capitalism and pure socialism both have serious flaws that can be addressed in a mixed system. *Not many question that.*


*Libertarians could and do. 
*


goldcatt said:


> No, Progressives don't control everything within the DNC. But right now they hold most of the positions of power and therefore control the agenda. I'm a liberal, not a progressive. So I'm not a fan of much of what the DNC is doing at the moment. That doesn't make me a conservative though. If anything, liberals have more in common with libertarians (not Libertarian Party reactionaries but old school libertarians) in a lot of areas than they do with conservatives. Hence my affinity for some libertarian positions, especially in foreign policy and civil rights.


The record of libertarian philosophy is mixed. Many isolationists and fiscal conservatives hide behind the label of _libertarian.
_


goldcatt said:


> What we really need are principled pragmatists, honestly.
> 
> Leaders who have general ideas they want to support but are willing to compromise and utilize ideas that work wherever they find them in order to attain their goals. I get so irritated at the Parties with their litmus tests and ideological purity questionnaires.
> 
> Nothing as complex as a hot dog stand let alone the USA can be run on ideology alone.



the problem is deep. media and money. their interests are not the interests of the public.


----------



## goldcatt

Dante said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've had a mixed economy for longer than the mid-20th Century. And I can't think of anybody beyond the fringes on either side who really want to change that, although we can and probably should argue over the proportions in the mix. Pure capitalism and pure socialism both have serious flaws that can be addressed in a mixed system. *Not many question that.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Libertarians could and do.
> *
Click to expand...


There are libertarians, small-l, and modern Libertarian Party libertarians, big-L. Although economics is one area where I have strong disagreements with both types, since even the little-l libertarians come close to that view. I am convinced balance is needed.



			
				Dante said:
			
		

> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, Progressives don't control everything within the DNC. But right now they hold most of the positions of power and therefore control the agenda. I'm a liberal, not a progressive. So I'm not a fan of much of what the DNC is doing at the moment. That doesn't make me a conservative though. If anything, liberals have more in common with libertarians (not Libertarian Party reactionaries but old school libertarians) in a lot of areas than they do with conservatives. Hence my affinity for some libertarian positions, especially in foreign policy and civil rights.
> 
> 
> 
> The record of libertarian philosophy is mixed. Many isolationists and fiscal conservatives hide behind the label of _libertarian.
> _
Click to expand...


True. But noninterventionsim =/= isolationism, claiming such is similar to those who claim liberalism is the same as socialism and just as false. And as I already stated I don't agree with the libertarians on fiscal and economic policy. If I did I'd be libertarian rather than liberal. 



			
				Dante said:
			
		

> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we really need are principled pragmatists, honestly.
> 
> Leaders who have general ideas they want to support but are willing to compromise and utilize ideas that work wherever they find them in order to attain their goals. I get so irritated at the Parties with their litmus tests and ideological purity questionnaires.
> 
> Nothing as complex as a hot dog stand let alone the USA can be run on ideology alone.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the problem is deep. media and money. their interests are not the interests of the public.
Click to expand...


We are in 100% agreement on that one.


----------



## Dante

goldcatt said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> We've had a mixed economy for longer than the mid-20th Century. And I can't think of anybody beyond the fringes on either side who really want to change that, although we can and probably should argue over the proportions in the mix. Pure capitalism and pure socialism both have serious flaws that can be addressed in a mixed system. *Not many question that.*
> 
> 
> 
> *Libertarians could and do.
> *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There are libertarians, small-l, and modern Libertarian Party libertarians, big-L. Although economics is one area where I have strong disagreements with both types, since even the little-l libertarians come close to that view. I am convinced balance is needed.
> 
> 
> 
> True. But noninterventionsim =/= isolationism, claiming such is similar to those who claim liberalism is the same as socialism and just as false. And as I already stated I don't agree with the libertarians on fiscal and economic policy. If I did I'd be libertarian rather than liberal.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> What we really need are principled pragmatists, honestly.
> 
> Leaders who have general ideas they want to support but are willing to compromise and utilize ideas that work wherever they find them in order to attain their goals. I get so irritated at the Parties with their litmus tests and ideological purity questionnaires.
> 
> Nothing as complex as a hot dog stand let alone the USA can be run on ideology alone.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the problem is deep. media and money. their interests are not the interests of the public.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> We are in 100% agreement on that one.
Click to expand...


IMNSHO, balance is overrated, but it is desirable in small doses. 
Isolationists can and do hide behind  non-interventionsim. I see little difference in their (isolationist's') distinctions. Non-interventionism as a policy amounts to isolationism.


----------



## goldcatt

Dante said:


> IMNSHO, balance is overrated, but it is desirable in small doses.
> Isolationists can and do hide behind  non-interventionsim. I see little difference in their (isolationist's') distinctions. Non-interventionism as a policy amounts to isolationism.



Isolationists do hide behind noninterventionism. Just like authoritarian neoconservatives hide behind conservatism. But that doesn't make either of them correct. 

I disagree on the issue of balance. Balance is necessary to keep the fringe in check. More like to keep it from becoming mainstream. IMO, while I dislike the institutionalization, structure and permanence of the two parties we have today people assembling themselves into two basic camps was inevitable based on the fundamental split in philosophy that's been debated since the Constitution was drafted. 

You can call it Federalists v. Anti-Federalists, Republican Democrats v. Whigs, Democrats v. Republicans (a bizarre pair of labels if I ever saw one, considering what they actually stand for)...the entire split between the American Right and the American Left is based on the original argument over the balance of power between the Federal government and the States, complicated by the Originalist v. Non-Originalist reading of the document that sets it all up.

Everything else is really just noise, or an excuse to have the same old arguments with a different topic.

I think the debate is important, it's the way we go about it that's flawed.

EDIT: Thinking about it, I would actually say four basic camps. We pay a lot of attention to the left-right spectrum in the two-party system, but almost none to the libertarian-authoritarian split.


----------



## Dante

goldcatt said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> IMNSHO, balance is overrated, but it is desirable in small doses.
> Isolationists can and do hide behind  non-interventionsim. I see little difference in their (isolationist's') distinctions. Non-interventionism as a policy amounts to isolationism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isolationists do hide behind noninterventionism. Just like authoritarian neoconservatives hide behind conservatism. But that doesn't make either of them correct.
> 
> I disagree on the issue of balance. Balance is necessary to keep the fringe in check. More like to keep it from becoming mainstream. *IMO, while I dislike the institutionalization, structure and permanence of the two parties we have today people assembling themselves into two basic camps was inevitable based on the fundamental split in philosophy that's been debated since the Constitution was drafted.*
> 
> You can call it Federalists v. Anti-Federalists, Republican Democrats v. Whigs, Democrats v. Republicans (a bizarre pair of labels if I ever saw one, considering what they actually stand for)...the entire split between the American Right and the American Left is based on the original argument over the balance of power between the Federal government and the States, complicated by the Originalist v. Non-Originalist reading of the document that sets it all up.
> 
> Everything else is really just noise, or an excuse to have the same old arguments with a different topic.
> 
> I think the debate is important, it's the way we go about it that's flawed.
> 
> EDIT: Thinking about it, I would actually say four basic camps. We pay a lot of attention to the left-right spectrum in the two-party system, but almost none to the libertarian-authoritarian split.
Click to expand...


*I agree with the bolded ...*

I'm a Federalist at heart. 

the  the Originalist v. Non-Originalist arguments are mostly bullshit. 

there are the strict texualists and the rest of them....

The founders, the framers, the ratifiers and an understanding of them and their times their stories takes quite some effort to grasp if only from the amount of time one must spend reading/going back. 

I've read a few good books on this subject --- books published by conservatives  and seek only to know what is knowable in the context of what is truly impossible to know. 

I am an old fan of Rumsfeld's


----------



## goldcatt

Dante said:


> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> IMNSHO, balance is overrated, but it is desirable in small doses.
> Isolationists can and do hide behind  non-interventionsim. I see little difference in their (isolationist's') distinctions. Non-interventionism as a policy amounts to isolationism.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Isolationists do hide behind noninterventionism. Just like authoritarian neoconservatives hide behind conservatism. But that doesn't make either of them correct.
> 
> I disagree on the issue of balance. Balance is necessary to keep the fringe in check. More like to keep it from becoming mainstream. *IMO, while I dislike the institutionalization, structure and permanence of the two parties we have today people assembling themselves into two basic camps was inevitable based on the fundamental split in philosophy that's been debated since the Constitution was drafted.*
> 
> You can call it Federalists v. Anti-Federalists, Republican Democrats v. Whigs, Democrats v. Republicans (a bizarre pair of labels if I ever saw one, considering what they actually stand for)...the entire split between the American Right and the American Left is based on the original argument over the balance of power between the Federal government and the States, complicated by the Originalist v. Non-Originalist reading of the document that sets it all up.
> 
> Everything else is really just noise, or an excuse to have the same old arguments with a different topic.
> 
> I think the debate is important, it's the way we go about it that's flawed.
> 
> EDIT: Thinking about it, I would actually say four basic camps. We pay a lot of attention to the left-right spectrum in the two-party system, but almost none to the libertarian-authoritarian split.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *I agree with the bolded ...*
> 
> I'm a Federalist at heart.
> 
> the  the Originalist v. Non-Originalist arguments are mostly bullshit.
> 
> there are the strict texualists and the rest of them....
> 
> The founders, the framers, the ratifiers and an understanding of them and their times their stories takes quite some effort to grasp if only from the amount of time one must spend reading/going back.
> 
> I've read a few good books on this subject --- books published by conservatives  and seek only to know what is knowable in the context of what is truly impossible to know.
> 
> I am an old fan of Rumsfeld's
Click to expand...


Originalist and Non-Originalist is another set of labels that don't mean precisely what a lot of people who fling them around think they mean. Although strict constructionism is one brand of Originalism, that part they usually get pretty close to right. We'd be so much better off in this country if people would read facts instead of bumper stickers. 

You're right, it does take a lot of time and effort. Which is why so many who claim to use Framers' intent as their primary interpretation method fail. First of all there isn't one single intent to be followed, just about every Framer and ratifier had his own interests and agenda. Second, there is simply too much information to be absorbed by any but the serious scholar, which many who claim to follow this method are not. It relies heavily on familiarity with both the British Colonial common law writ system and primary sources, which many who claim to follow the method have not read. In its context and done properly I suppose one could make the argument that debating the meaning of the language through the same principles as the debates over creating and/or accepting it is the proper way to go about it, but it seems really impractical to me.

I'm also a Federalist at heart. Which is why we tend to agree on a lot of issues, if not all of them.   You simply cannot take a pack of fifty dogs all pulling in their own direction, give their leashes to one scrawny half-starved human and expect the human to end up in anything but shreds. History is proof of that. 

Rumsfeld, eh? Maybe we don't agree on as much as I thought.


----------



## Bfgrn

Liability said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)*
> 
> I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:
> 
> "What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean..._*someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties*_...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]
> 
> - Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum
> 
> ---
> 
> "Tonight *we salute George Meany* as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight *we salute Adlai Stevenson* as an eloquent spokesman..."
> 
> - A Liberal Definition by JFK
> 
> ---
> 
> as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.
> 
> What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?
> 
> They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.
> 
> If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, JFK's quote reveals that he was rhetorically asking if that's what conservatives meant by the use of the term "liberal."
> 
> And it was a horseshit definition employed by JFK, anyway.
> 
> LOTS of people can be concerned with and concerned about "the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties."
> 
> That's never been the actual question.  The question, the thing that has separated libs from conservatives, historically, is the one involving HOW to address those concerns and problems.
> 
> An amorphous term like the "welfare" of the people is too ill-defined a concept to have much meaning of use in the discussion.
> 
> Concern for the health of the "people," as we see when we look at that hideous monstrosity we laughingly call "Obamacare" is expressed in a ridiculous and irrational fashion by the liberals who support that absurdity.  If THAT'S your daffynition of "liberal," then you can be a liberal.  I'm not interested.  I am concerned with the public health and access to health-care, too.  But my expression of that concern would NEVER be found in creating a Federal Government bureaucracy like the depraved joke called "Obamacare."
> 
> Caring for the housing of the people, likewise, can be expressed by libs in having the Fed government act like everyone's nanny at the expense of all wealth earners and producers.  Or it can be expressed in less cumbersome and less socialist ways.  Mandating that everyone who applies for a mortgage is required to by God GET one from a bank on pain of Federal prosecution of the bank or on pain of the denial to the Bank of certain needed bank access to Federal monetary management tools -- as we have seen -- is destined not only to fail, but to cause massive disruptions that could have and should have been utterly avoidable.
> 
> The difference between libs and conservatives is NOT found in the false dichotomy that only libs "care" about the people.  This is now and always was bullshit.  The real difference is found in HOW the problems are seen as being properly addressed, if at all, by the Federal Government, and upon what principles.
> 
> That's point one.
> 
> Point two is simpler.  JFK would NOT be considered liberal ENOUGH in today's world, much like the clearly liberal Lieberman is seen as not nearly liberal enough by the liberal kooks in the Democrat parody.  For there is a great deal more to being a "true liberal," in today's world, than merely advocating for the intrusive involvement of the central government in matters of social concern.
Click to expand...


Actually reading this conglomeration of bluster, ignorance, misinformation, disinformation and delusion, JFK's nephew has Liability pegged perfectly.

"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
Robert F. Kennedy Jr.


----------



## Dante

goldcatt said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> goldcatt said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isolationists do hide behind noninterventionism. Just like authoritarian neoconservatives hide behind conservatism. But that doesn't make either of them correct.
> 
> I disagree on the issue of balance. Balance is necessary to keep the fringe in check. More like to keep it from becoming mainstream. *IMO, while I dislike the institutionalization, structure and permanence of the two parties we have today people assembling themselves into two basic camps was inevitable based on the fundamental split in philosophy that's been debated since the Constitution was drafted.*
> 
> You can call it Federalists v. Anti-Federalists, Republican Democrats v. Whigs, Democrats v. Republicans (a bizarre pair of labels if I ever saw one, considering what they actually stand for)...the entire split between the American Right and the American Left is based on the original argument over the balance of power between the Federal government and the States, complicated by the Originalist v. Non-Originalist reading of the document that sets it all up.
> 
> Everything else is really just noise, or an excuse to have the same old arguments with a different topic.
> 
> I think the debate is important, it's the way we go about it that's flawed.
> 
> EDIT: Thinking about it, I would actually say four basic camps. We pay a lot of attention to the left-right spectrum in the two-party system, but almost none to the libertarian-authoritarian split.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *I agree with the bolded ...*
> 
> I'm a Federalist at heart.
> 
> the  the Originalist v. Non-Originalist arguments are mostly bullshit.
> 
> there are the strict texualists and the rest of them....
> 
> The founders, the framers, the ratifiers and an understanding of them and their times their stories takes quite some effort to grasp if only from the amount of time one must spend reading/going back.
> 
> I've read a few good books on this subject --- books published by conservatives  and seek only to know what is knowable in the context of what is truly impossible to know.
> 
> I am an old fan of Rumsfeld's
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Originalist and Non-Originalist is another set of labels that don't mean precisely what a lot of people who fling them around think they mean. Although strict constructionism is one brand of Originalism, that part they usually get pretty close to right. We'd be so much better off in this country if people would read facts instead of bumper stickers.
> 
> You're right, it does take a lot of time and effort. Which is why so many who claim to use Framers' intent as their primary interpretation method fail. First of all there isn't one single intent to be followed, just about every Framer and ratifier had his own interests and agenda. Second, there is simply too much information to be absorbed by any but the serious scholar, which many who claim to follow this method are not. It relies heavily on familiarity with both the British Colonial common law writ system and primary sources, which many who claim to follow the method have not read. In its context and done properly I suppose one could make the argument that debating the meaning of the language through the same principles as the debates over creating and/or accepting it is the proper way to go about it, but it seems really impractical to me.
> 
> I'm also a Federalist at heart. Which is why we tend to agree on a lot of issues, if not all of them.   You simply cannot take a pack of fifty dogs all pulling in their own direction, give their leashes to one scrawny half-starved human and expect the human to end up in anything but shreds. History is proof of that.
> 
> Rumsfeld, eh? Maybe we don't agree on as much as I thought.
Click to expand...


As a manager Rummie was a forward thinking doer. His reforms for the military pre-911were cause for consternation within the military-industrial complex. 

Donald Rumsfeld - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia he had an interesting career.  ideologically we were on opposite ends of the spectrum, but he had my respect and admiration.


----------



## Dante

Bfgrn said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)*
> 
> I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:
> 
> "What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean..._*someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties*_...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]
> 
> - Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum
> 
> ---
> 
> "Tonight *we salute George Meany* as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight *we salute Adlai Stevenson* as an eloquent spokesman..."
> 
> - A Liberal Definition by JFK
> 
> ---
> 
> as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.
> 
> What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?
> 
> They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.
> 
> If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, JFK's quote reveals that he was rhetorically asking if that's what conservatives meant by the use of the term "liberal."
> 
> And it was a horseshit definition employed by JFK, anyway.
> 
> LOTS of people can be concerned with and concerned about "the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties."
> 
> That's never been the actual question.  The question, the thing that has separated libs from conservatives, historically, is the one involving HOW to address those concerns and problems.
> 
> An amorphous term like the "welfare" of the people is too ill-defined a concept to have much meaning of use in the discussion.
> 
> Concern for the health of the "people," as we see when we look at that hideous monstrosity we laughingly call "Obamacare" is expressed in a ridiculous and irrational fashion by the liberals who support that absurdity.  If THAT'S your daffynition of "liberal," then you can be a liberal.  I'm not interested.  I am concerned with the public health and access to health-care, too.  But my expression of that concern would NEVER be found in creating a Federal Government bureaucracy like the depraved joke called "Obamacare."
> 
> Caring for the housing of the people, likewise, can be expressed by libs in having the Fed government act like everyone's nanny at the expense of all wealth earners and producers.  Or it can be expressed in less cumbersome and less socialist ways.  Mandating that everyone who applies for a mortgage is required to by God GET one from a bank on pain of Federal prosecution of the bank or on pain of the denial to the Bank of certain needed bank access to Federal monetary management tools -- as we have seen -- is destined not only to fail, but to cause massive disruptions that could have and should have been utterly avoidable.
> 
> The difference between libs and conservatives is NOT found in the false dichotomy that only libs "care" about the people.  This is now and always was bullshit.  The real difference is found in HOW the problems are seen as being properly addressed, if at all, by the Federal Government, and upon what principles.
> 
> That's point one.
> 
> Point two is simpler.  JFK would NOT be considered liberal ENOUGH in today's world, much like the clearly liberal Lieberman is seen as not nearly liberal enough by the liberal kooks in the Democrat parody.  For there is a great deal more to being a "true liberal," in today's world, than merely advocating for the intrusive involvement of the central government in matters of social concern.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Actually reading this conglomeration of bluster, ignorance, misinformation, disinformation and delusion, JFK's nephew has Liability pegged perfectly.
> 
> "Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"
> Robert F. Kennedy Jr.
Click to expand...


"Eighty percent of Republicans are just Democrats that don't know what's going on"


----------



## Trajan

Dante said:


> Distortions of history aside, JFK is, was, and will always be considered a liberal Democrat.
> 
> Conservative spin aside, JFK is the spiritual as well as ideological father of today's liberals.
> 
> To say JFK would not be welcome into the Democratic party today is like saying Democrats don't like Bill Clinton.
> 
> reality is not the strong suit of today's conservatism. the evidence is that they keep saying every conservative President of the later half of the Twentieth Century was not a true conservative. They even have a name for it - RHINO



what a crock. so Vietnam was a "good war" (?)and the left would have fallen all over him? gtfoh. 

or?


----------



## Liability

goldcatt said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dainty's basic dishonesty aside, JFK was clearly a liberal Democrat as that was defined IN HIS DAY.
> 
> But the meanings of such political terms tend not to remain static.
> 
> The ATTEMPT to pretend that they do remain static is dishonest of cretins like the always unpersuasive Dainty.
> 
> JFK is admired on SOME grounds by today's conservatives PRECISELY because of the things I've mentioned.  Dainty cannot honestly address those points and considerations.  That's not entirely his fault.  He happens to just be flatly wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a conservative, so I can't speak as to why conservatives admire JFK. But by any definition, he was not a conservative. He was a liberal and in some ways very much a pragmatist, in others not so much, but overall firmly in the liberal camp.
> 
> He wouldn't really belong in either main Party today, IMO. I agree that definitions of the Parties change as the different sub-categories of "Left" and "Right" cycle through. People like JFK, or Nixon, or Ike, or Johnson, or Reagan for that matter would be out of synch with partisan mainstreams today.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  JFK was as conservative as they come in fighting communism.  Today's libbies tend to embrace that shit.  Not JFK or Bobby, though.

When it comes to social and domestic issues, like most of today's liberals, of course, JFK saw the STATE as the font of goodness and light.  The almighty fucking STATE could correct all social injustice and all manner of inequity.    Such trite petty lib thinking.

So, "by ANYBODY's definition," JFK was a liberal on social matters and on the role of government in these things.  

BUT, on international matters and on matters of U.S. military might, JFK was plainly a conservative.  And the libs of his day didn't find that to be worthy of rebuke.  Not so today.

Just ask Lieberman.


----------



## Liability

> * * * *
> 
> Politics
> 
> Although the father had abandoned Boston in frustration, JFKs return to the city restored the familys traditional power base among the large and powerful Irish-American community in Massachusetts. Strong family connections with the Chicago Irish political community (led by Mayor Richard J. Daley) augmented his national Catholic base. JFK always had two sets of advisors, an inner circle of Irish politicians who planned his campaigns, and a Protestant-Jewish coterie of intellectuals (mostly from Harvard) who promoted his stature as the intellectual in politics. That image was solidified by the Pulitzer Prize awarded his Profiles in Courage (1956). JFK possessed powerful assets: an excellent speaker and glib commentator on major issues, a middle-of-the-road political record that offended no one, strong expertise in foreign policy, articulate anti-Communism, unfailing charm and stage presence, a national network of Irish allies, a Catholic base that comprised a fourth of the electorate, and an immense purse that was ready to fund his ambitions, not to mention innumerable relatives who campaigned endlessly on his behalf.
> 
> JFK fought his way into the Senate in 1952 by defeating incumbent Republican Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., the archetypal Yankee. With the national Democratic party leaderless, JFK largely ignored the old-boy Senate (controlled by his rival Lyndon Johnson) to display his talents through newspaper and television interviews, magazine articles, and highly publicized speeches to Democratic party gatherings in every part of the country. *Aided by his closest advisor, his brother Robert Kennedy, JFK appealed to conservatives by tolerating Joe McCarthy[6] and instead launching relentless attacks on corrupt labor leaders*, especially Jimmy Hoffa of the Teamsters Union.
> 
> *The Kennedy family represented the conservative wing of the Democratic party*, and was known for its anti-Communism and close ties with Republican Senator Joe McCarthy Many liberal Democrats, led by Eleanor Roosevelt, distrusted JFK primarily because they could never forget the fathers break with Franklin Roosevelt or the familys support for McCarthy. Yet with the fading away of Adlai Stevenson (the liberal Democratic candidate in 1952 and 1956), liberals lacked a viable candidate of their own.
> 
> * * * *


 John F. Kennedy - Conservapedia

It would appear that I am not alone in noting that while clearly a lib on various social/domestic policy concerns, JFK was recognized as being a staunch conservative on foreign policy and military might issues.


----------



## Dante

Conservatives h-a-t-e-d Jack Kennedy. 


Liability said:


> ...


Conservatives h-a-t-e-d Jack Kennedy. 

yeah and his Keynesian economics were all the rage with conservatives. 

Most men who served in the military were strong on FP and military issues. strong does not equal conservative. Many liberals were hawks on defense.  

The Peace Corp was a liberal program. Conservatives h-a-t-e-d Jack Kennedy. 

get a life you fucking troll and please post your bullshit elsewhere.

The Kennedy brothers (Bobby and Jack) went after Hoffa, and praised George Meaney -- union boss. 

Conservative bullshit aside, Jack Kennedy would piss down the throat of today's  right wing rather than allow pathetic creeps like Liability to hijack and attempt to own his memory. Kennedy was a partisan Democrat with a liberal ideology.


----------



## georgephillip

Regardless of which details of JFK's murder you subscribe to there are many who seem ready to just "move on" as we close in on the 50th anniversary of his assassination.

Has what happened that November day in Dallas in 1963 lost all relevance for us today? Water under the bridge?

"Nothing could be further from the truth, as James Douglass shows in his extraordinary book, _JFK and the Unspeakable: Why He Died and Why It Matters_ (Orbis Books, 2008)...  

"*Its not often that the intersection of history and contemporary events pose such a startling and chilling lesson as does  the contemplation of the murder of JFK on November 22, 1963 juxtaposed with the situations  faced by President Obama today.* 

"So far, at least, Obamas behavior has mirrored Johnsons, not Kennedys, as he has escalated the war in Afghanistan by 34,000. 

"One cant but help think that the thought of JFKs fate might not be far from his mind as he contemplates his next move in Afghanistan.

"Douglass presents a very compelling argument that Kennedy was killed by 'unspeakable' (the Trappist monk Thomas Mertons term) *forces within the U.S. national security state because of his conversion from a cold warrior into a man of peace*.  

"He argues, using a wealth of newly uncovered information, that JFK had become a major threat to the burgeoning military-industrial complex and had to be eliminated through a conspiracy planned by the CIA  'the CIAs fingerprints are all over the crime and the events leading up to it' - not by a crazed individual, the Mafia, or disgruntled anti-Castro Cubans, though some of these may have been used in the execution of the plot." 

JFK and the Unspeakable...

Were Jack Kennedy and Nikita Khrushchev "scared straight" by the Cuban Missile Crisis?

I was alive at the time and can attest that the only other time when the entire US population was paying as close attention to hourly political events was during the week after 9/11/2001.

If Kennedy was removed from power because he was turning away from war in 1963, the individuals and institutions responsible for his murder are still among us, AND their wealth is infinitely greater than it was 47 years ago.


----------



## Dante

Liability said:


> * * * *
> 
> Politics
> 
> Although the father had abandoned Boston in frustration, JFKs return to the city restored the familys traditional power base among the large and powerful Irish-American community in Massachusetts. Strong family connections with the Chicago Irish political community (led by Mayor Richard J. Daley) augmented his national Catholic base. JFK always had two sets of advisors, an inner circle of Irish politicians who planned his campaigns, and a Protestant-Jewish coterie of intellectuals (mostly from Harvard) who promoted his stature as the intellectual in politics. That image was solidified by the Pulitzer Prize awarded his Profiles in Courage (1956). JFK possessed powerful assets: an excellent speaker and glib commentator on major issues, a middle-of-the-road political record that offended no one, strong expertise in foreign policy, articulate anti-Communism, unfailing charm and stage presence, a national network of Irish allies, a Catholic base that comprised a fourth of the electorate, and an immense purse that was ready to fund his ambitions, not to mention innumerable relatives who campaigned endlessly on his behalf.
> 
> JFK fought his way into the Senate in 1952 by defeating incumbent Republican Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., the archetypal Yankee. With the national Democratic party leaderless, JFK largely ignored the old-boy Senate (controlled by his rival Lyndon Johnson) to display his talents through newspaper and television interviews, magazine articles, and highly publicized speeches to Democratic party gatherings in every part of the country. *Aided by his closest advisor, his brother Robert Kennedy, JFK appealed to conservatives by tolerating Joe McCarthy[6] and instead launching relentless attacks on corrupt labor leaders*, especially Jimmy Hoffa of the Teamsters Union.
> 
> *The Kennedy family represented the conservative wing of the Democratic party*, and was known for its anti-Communism and close ties with Republican Senator Joe McCarthy Many liberal Democrats, led by Eleanor Roosevelt, distrusted JFK primarily because they could never forget the fathers break with Franklin Roosevelt or the familys support for McCarthy. Yet with the fading away of Adlai Stevenson (the liberal Democratic candidate in 1952 and 1956), liberals lacked a viable candidate of their own.
> 
> * * * *
> 
> 
> 
> John F. Kennedy - Conservapedia
> 
> It would appear that I am not alone in noting that while clearly a lib on various social/domestic policy concerns, JFK was recognized as being a staunch conservative on foreign policy and military might issues.
Click to expand...

 if it's on a conservative internet site -- it must be true? 



Kennedy praised Stevenson. enough with your links to revisionist history. 

The Kennedy family included Teddy and Bobby. Both were fighting the conservative embrace of poverty as an American right after Jack's assassination which many conservative welcomed.

The southern white racist conservative wing of the Democratic party fled the Dems after the Civil Rights Act. They hated Jack Kennedy.


----------



## Dante

georgephillip said:


> ....



there is a conspiracy forum here on this site:usmessageboard.com. This thread is not in it.

thank you for playing, but...


----------



## Liability

Dante said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> * * * *
> 
> Politics
> 
> Although the father had abandoned Boston in frustration, JFKs return to the city restored the familys traditional power base among the large and powerful Irish-American community in Massachusetts. Strong family connections with the Chicago Irish political community (led by Mayor Richard J. Daley) augmented his national Catholic base. JFK always had two sets of advisors, an inner circle of Irish politicians who planned his campaigns, and a Protestant-Jewish coterie of intellectuals (mostly from Harvard) who promoted his stature as the intellectual in politics. That image was solidified by the Pulitzer Prize awarded his Profiles in Courage (1956). JFK possessed powerful assets: an excellent speaker and glib commentator on major issues, a middle-of-the-road political record that offended no one, strong expertise in foreign policy, articulate anti-Communism, unfailing charm and stage presence, a national network of Irish allies, a Catholic base that comprised a fourth of the electorate, and an immense purse that was ready to fund his ambitions, not to mention innumerable relatives who campaigned endlessly on his behalf.
> 
> JFK fought his way into the Senate in 1952 by defeating incumbent Republican Henry Cabot Lodge, Jr., the archetypal Yankee. With the national Democratic party leaderless, JFK largely ignored the old-boy Senate (controlled by his rival Lyndon Johnson) to display his talents through newspaper and television interviews, magazine articles, and highly publicized speeches to Democratic party gatherings in every part of the country. *Aided by his closest advisor, his brother Robert Kennedy, JFK appealed to conservatives by tolerating Joe McCarthy[6] and instead launching relentless attacks on corrupt labor leaders*, especially Jimmy Hoffa of the Teamsters Union.
> 
> *The Kennedy family represented the conservative wing of the Democratic party*, and was known for its anti-Communism and close ties with Republican Senator Joe McCarthy Many liberal Democrats, led by Eleanor Roosevelt, distrusted JFK primarily because they could never forget the fathers break with Franklin Roosevelt or the familys support for McCarthy. Yet with the fading away of Adlai Stevenson (the liberal Democratic candidate in 1952 and 1956), liberals lacked a viable candidate of their own.
> 
> * * * *
> 
> 
> 
> John F. Kennedy - Conservapedia
> 
> It would appear that I am not alone in noting that while clearly a lib on various social/domestic policy concerns, JFK was recognized as being a staunch conservative on foreign policy and military might issues.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> if it's on a conservative internet site -- it must be true? * * * *
Click to expand...


Sorry, Dainty, but that's not even close to anything I said.  As strawman arguments go, yours should.

You remain pathetic.

The point of quoting conservapedia, you bombastic shit-muncher, is to note that others have maintained already the very thing I am maintaining in this thread.  Namely:  that JFK was deemed a conservative to many liberals of the day, even while many conservatives of the day deemed him a liberal.

I realize that these notions sail over your pinhead at light speed, but the reality is that they are not really all that contradictory.

In matters of importance to liberals on certain domestic issues, he was a faithful lib.  But not on matters of foreign policy and some other matters like corruption in the organized labor organizations.

The converse of that was often true as far as the conservatives of the day were concerned.  You can angrily deny it, but not on a factual level.  

And your incoherent, childish and always ineffective _ad hominems_ are simply not adequate as a rebuttal.


----------



## Dante

Liability said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> John F. Kennedy - Conservapedia
> 
> It would appear that I am not alone in noting that while clearly a lib on various social/domestic policy concerns, JFK was recognized as being a staunch conservative on foreign policy and military might issues.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if it's on a conservative internet site -- it must be true? * * * *
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry...
Click to expand...


as you should be.  Conservapedia is an English-language wiki project written from an American conservative Fundamentalist Christian viewpoint that considers itself to support "conservative, family-friendly" content.

The American Taliban? These are the type of people who held JFK's religion against him. 

Shame on you troll...


----------



## Liberty

the term liberal, in it's modern sense, is simply a lazy tool who wants to bring everyone down to their misery. Quite pitiful really.


----------



## Dante

John F. Kennedy Jr.: Interviews Richard Mellon Scaife
Who's Afraid Of Richard Mellon Scaife?

John F. Kennedy Jr. Interviews Richard Mellon Scaife
Abridged from George Magazine, January, 1999

-------------


----------



## Liability

Dante said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> if it's on a conservative internet site -- it must be true? * * * *
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Sorry...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> as you should be.  Conservapedia is an English-language wiki project written from an American conservative Fundamentalist Christian viewpoint that considers itself to support "conservative, family-friendly" content.
> 
> The American Taliban? These are the type of people who held JFK's religion against him.
> 
> Shame on you troll...
Click to expand...


Ah, the old snipping to destroy the meaning of what was actually posted ploy.  A sure sign that you are a loser.

While you are engaging in one of your legion of fallacies, Dainty, I think I'll just go ahead and note that regardless of the roots of conservapedia, what they posted is either itself accurate or it isn't.  Playing "attack the messenger" is a shit-ass form of "debate," thus it's one of your mainstays.

What they wrote in the piece I quoted is accurate.  Your fraud-filled fantasy isn't.

If you could make a coherent argument, you'd be able to say (fairly enough) that on many matters, JFK was a liberal, but that on other matters he was a conservative.  But you dislike honesty.  

Does it actually cause you pain when you are subjected to reality and truth, Dainty?

"IT BURNS!!   IT BURNS!!"

Poor Dainty.  

But it is funny to see you, the class ass-clown of trolling, pretending to call other folks a "troll."


----------



## Dante

Dante said:


> *President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)*
> 
> I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:
> 
> "What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean..._*someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties*_...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]
> 
> - Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum
> 
> ---
> 
> "Tonight *we salute George Meany* as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight *we salute Adlai Stevenson* as an eloquent spokesman..."
> 
> - A Liberal Definition by JFK
> 
> ---
> 
> as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.
> 
> What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?
> 
> They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.
> 
> If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.


----------



## georgephillip

Dante said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> ....
> 
> 
> 
> 
> there is a conspiracy forum here on this site:usmessageboard.com. This thread is not in it.
> 
> thank you for playing, but...
Click to expand...

*conspiracy (plural conspiracies)*

   1. The act of two or more persons, called conspirators, working secretly to obtain some goal, usually understood with negative connotations.
   2. (law) An agreement between two or more persons to break the law at some time in the future.
   3. A group of ravens.

Two out of three?


----------



## Bfgrn

Trajan said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Distortions of history aside, JFK is, was, and will always be considered a liberal Democrat.
> 
> Conservative spin aside, JFK is the spiritual as well as ideological father of today's liberals.
> 
> To say JFK would not be welcome into the Democratic party today is like saying Democrats don't like Bill Clinton.
> 
> reality is not the strong suit of today's conservatism. the evidence is that they keep saying every conservative President of the later half of the Twentieth Century was not a true conservative. They even have a name for it - RHINO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what a crock. so Vietnam was a "good war" (?)and the left would have fallen all over him? gtfoh.
> 
> or?
Click to expand...


Kennedy had already issued the order for a 1000 troop withdrawal from Vietnam by the end of '63. And ordered the Pentagon to plan to have all US troops out of Vietnam by early 1965, shortly after what he assumed would be his re-election. But he did not, of course, live to see their withdrawal.

Galbraith and Vietnam

James K. Galbraith: Exit Strategy


Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceIsdWSMaQA"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceIsdWSMaQA[/ame]


----------



## georgephillip

"In October 1963 he signed National Security Action Memorandum  263 calling for the withdrawal of 1,000 U. S. military troops from Vietnam by the end of the year and a total withdrawal by the end of 1965.[iii]

"All this he did while secretly engaging in negotiations with Khrushchev via the KGB , Norman Cousins, and Pope John XXIII , and with Castro through various intermediaries, one of whom was French Journalist Jean Daniel. 

"In an interview with Daniel on October 24, 1963 Kennedy said, 'I approved the proclamation Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption.  I will go even further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States.  Now we will have to pay for those sins.  In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries.  That is perfectly clear.'  

"Such sentiments were anathema, shall we say treasonous, to the CIA and top generals."

JFK and the Unspeakable...


----------



## Dante

Bfgrn said:


> Trajan said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> Distortions of history aside, JFK is, was, and will always be considered a liberal Democrat.
> 
> Conservative spin aside, JFK is the spiritual as well as ideological father of today's liberals.
> 
> To say JFK would not be welcome into the Democratic party today is like saying Democrats don't like Bill Clinton.
> 
> reality is not the strong suit of today's conservatism. the evidence is that they keep saying every conservative President of the later half of the Twentieth Century was not a true conservative. They even have a name for it - RHINO
> 
> 
> 
> 
> what a crock. so Vietnam was a "good war" (?)and the left would have fallen all over him? gtfoh.
> 
> or?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Kennedy had already issued the order for a 1000 troop withdrawal from Vietnam by the end of '63. And ordered the Pentagon to plan to have all US troops out of Vietnam by early 1965, shortly after what he assumed would be his re-election. But he did not, of course, live to see their withdrawal.
> 
> Galbraith and Vietnam
> 
> James K. Galbraith: Exit Strategy
> 
> 
> Ted Sorensen - President Kennedy's Special Counsel & Adviser, and primary speechwriter
> 
> [ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceIsdWSMaQA"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceIsdWSMaQA[/ame]
Click to expand...


Just as Bobby and Martin were assassinated during an evolution in their thinking, Jack was assassinated during an evolution in his thinking.

President JFK learned not to trust certain people after the Bay of Pigs fiasco. He was a quick study. He was no LBJ with a huge Texas inferiority complex and ego to salve. LBJ got a bad deal in that he served in the shadow of the golden boy of Camelot. Tough luck.

Like Nixon, I am sure LBJ was irritated by JFK's class and sense of entitlement as a son of the ruling class. It is unavoidable. JFK and LBJ were both products of their environments. 

In America some people try desperately to deny class issues. Those people are usually from the upper class...the minority. Reality bites. In an egalitarian merit society, the upper class will always feel the sting of entitlement and selfishness thrown back in their faces by realities on the ground.


----------



## Dante

can we do something about conspiracy trolls?


georgephillip???


----------



## mdn2000

Seems like Kennedy was a war monger, sending weapons to Israel, building the South Vietnamese Army, the Bay of Pigs with Cuba. 

Liberal, I like the definition

John F Kennedy and Vietnam



> &#8220;Pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend&#8230;to assure the survival and success of liberty &#8221;.
> 
> In 1961, Kennedy agreed that America should finance an increase in the size of the South Vietnamese Army from 150,000 to 170,000. He also agreed that an extra 1000 US military advisors should be sent to South Vietnam to help train the South Vietnamese Army. Both of these decisions were not made public as they broke the agreements made at the 1954 Geneva Agreement.
> 
> It was during Kennedy&#8217;s presidency that the &#8216;Strategic Hamlet&#8217; programme was introduced. This failed badly and almost certainly drove a number of South Vietnamese peasants into supporting the North Vietnamese communists. This forcible moving of peasants into secure compounds was supported by Diem and did a great deal to further the opposition to him in the South. American television reporters relayed to the US public that &#8216;Strategic Hamlet&#8217; destroyed decades, if not hundreds, of years of village life in the South and that the process might only take half-a-day. Here was a super-power effectively orchestrating the forced removal of peasants by the South Vietnamese Army who were not asked if they wanted to move. To those who knew about US involvement in Vietnam and were opposed to it, &#8216;Strategic Hamlet&#8217; provided them with an excellent propaganda opportunity.
> 
> Kennedy was informed about the anger of the South Vietnamese peasants and was shocked to learn that membership of the NLF had increased, according to US Intelligence, by 300% in a two year time span &#8211; the years when &#8216;Strategic Hamlet&#8217; was in operation. Kennedy&#8217;s response was to send more military advisors to Vietnam so that by the end of 1962 there were 12,000 of these advisors in South Vietnam. As well as sending more advisors to South Vietnam, Kennedy also sent 300 helicopters with US pilots. They were told to avoid military combat at all costs but this became all but impossible to fulfil.
> 
> Kennedy&#8217;s presidency also saw the response to the Diem government by some Buddhist monks. On June 11th 1963, Thich Quang Duc, a Buddhist monk, committed suicide on a busy Saigon road by being burned to death. Other Buddhist monks followed his example in August 1963. Television reported these events throughout the world. A member of Diem&#8217;s government said:
> 
> &#8220;Let them burn, and we shall clap our hands.&#8221;
> 
> Another member of Diem&#8217;s government was heard to say that he would be happy to provide Buddhist monks with petrol.
> 
> Kennedy became convinced that Diem could never unite South Vietnam and he agreed that the CIA should initiate a programme to overthrow him. A CIA operative, Lucien Conein, provided some South Vietnamese generals with $40,000 to overthrow Diem with the added guarantee that the US would not protect the South Vietnam leader. Diem was overthrown and killed in November 1963. Kennedy was assassinated three weeks later


----------



## Dante

mdn2000 said:


> Seems like Kennedy was a war monger, sending weapons to Israel, building the South Vietnamese Army, the Bay of Pigs with Cuba.
> 
> Liberal, I like the definition



What did Clinton do militarily? I guess using your ignorant logic, Bill Clinton is a conservative too?


----------



## Dante

GOP Rivals Attack Clinton's Plan to Send Troops to Bosnia - The Tech

Conservative Hawks on defense, all GOP Rivals, Attack Liberal Clinton's Plan to Send Troops to Bosnia


----------



## mdn2000

georgephillip said:


> "In October 1963 he signed National Security Action Memorandum  263 calling for the withdrawal of 1,000 U. S. military troops from Vietnam by the end of the year and a total withdrawal by the end of 1965.[iii]
> 
> "All this he did while secretly engaging in negotiations with Khrushchev via the KGB , Norman Cousins, and Pope John XXIII , and with Castro through various intermediaries, one of whom was French Journalist Jean Daniel.
> 
> "In an interview with Daniel on October 24, 1963 Kennedy said, 'I approved the proclamation Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption.  I will go even further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States.  Now we will have to pay for those sins.  In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries.  That is perfectly clear.'
> 
> "Such sentiments were anathema, shall we say treasonous, to the CIA and top generals."
> 
> JFK and the Unspeakable...



Chomsky students do not do their homework, Memorandum  263 did not call for the withdrawal of troops. Troops will stay, only advisors training the Vietnamese would be withdrawn once they were capable of continuing the war on their own.

Vietnam War: The Documents - 14



> 2. The objectives of the United States with respect to the withdrawal of U.S. military personnel remain as stated in the White House statement of October 2, 1963.



So Georgy/Chomsky paraphrase Memo 263, no link when as we know Georgy/chomsky loves links. If you quote something you should link to it. Especially if you never read it.

Reading Memo 263 item 2 makes it clear one must read another statement to no what the policy is. Politics within the White House most likely move faster than these threads. What was the policy of Kennedy a minute before the bullet entered his brain, who knows.

U.S. Policy Statement on Vietnam, 1963



> Secretary [of Defense Robert S.] McNamara and General [Maxwell D.] Taylor reported to the President this morning and to the National Security Council this afternoon. Their report included a number of classified findings and recommendations which will be the subject of further review and action. Their basic presentation was endorsed by all members of the Security Council and the following statement of United States policy was approved by the President on the basis of recommendations received from them and from Ambassador [Henry Cabot] Lodge.
> 
> 1. The security of South Viet-Nam is a major interest of the United States as other free nations. We will adhere to our policy of working with the people and Government of South Viet-Nam to deny this country to communism and to suppress the externally stimulated and supported insurgency of the Viet Cong as promptly as possible. Effective performance in this undertaking is the central objective of our policy in South Viet-Nam.
> 
> 2. The military program in South Viet-Nam has made progress and is sound in principle, though improvements are being energetically sought.
> 
> 3. Major U.S. assistance in support of this military effort is needed only until the insurgency has been suppressed or until the national security forces of the Government of South Viet-Nam are capable of suppressing it.
> 
> Secretary McNamara and General Taylor reported their judgment that the major part of the U.S. military task can be completed by the end of 1965, although there may be a continuing requirement for a limited number of U.S. training personnel. They reported that by the end of this year, the U.S. program for training Vietnamese should have progressed to the point where 1,000 U.S. military personnel assigned to South Viet-Nam can be withdrawn.
> 
> 4. The political situation in South Viet-Nam remains deeply serious. The United States has made clear its continuing opposition to any repressive actions in South Viet-Nam. While such actions have not yet significantly affected the military effort, they could do so in the future.
> 
> 5. It remains the policy of the United States, in South Viet-Nam as in other parts of the world, to support the efforts of the people of that country to defeat aggression and to build a peaceful and free society.



That is the policy, at that second, for how long after considering everything Kennedy was doing, Kennedy was a military man, not like Liberals of today. I would have to say Kennedy is not a Liberal by today's definition.

Chomsky and his students count on the the conservatives to not be able to counter the arguments they present, they present heresy as fact. Why not just refer to the policy statement of Oct 2, 1963, its simple, Chomsky does not base his criticism on fact.

Memo 263 explicitly refers in item 2 that the White house policy statement of Oct. 2, 1963 stands as policy.

Do we need our university professors telling lies about history. Chomsky has no business in the classroom


----------



## Dante

mdn2000 said:


> ...


----------



## mdn2000

Dante said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...
Click to expand...


Off topic? you just asked about Bill Clinton. Sorry, just sharing history. I wish you gave me something I could respond to other than talking about Bill Clinton.


----------



## Bfgrn

mdn2000 said:


> Seems like Kennedy was a war monger, sending weapons to Israel, building the South Vietnamese Army, the Bay of Pigs with Cuba.
> 
> Liberal, I like the definition
> 
> John F Kennedy and Vietnam
> 
> Pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friendto assure the survival and success of liberty .



I don't know who authored that 'history' piece. But if you want to understand the Machiavellian reasons behind JFK's bellicose rhetoric, here is a great article from Time magazine.
Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME

I saw a TV program on Iraq and the neocons about 5 years ago where they interviewed Richard 'the Prince of Darkness' Perle, the leading neoconservative hawk who pushed for war with Iraq. Perle idolized John F. Kennedy. And he cited the same Pay any price, bear any burden..." soaring rhetoric.

But Perle and the neocons ignored Jack Kennedy's real message of peace in the same Inaugural address, and they totally ignored JFK's actions while President. On at least 3 well known occasions, Kennedy resisted military action and went against Pentagon and CIA hard-liners, military advisers and the Chiefs of Staff who he despised.


"War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."
John F. Kennedy

________________________________________________

*Inaugural Address, January 20, 1961*
United States Capitol, Washington, D.C.
Date: January 20, 1961

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge--and more.

---

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course--both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.

So let us begin anew--remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.

Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.

Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms--and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.

Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths and encourage the arts and commerce.

Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah--to "undo the heavy burdens . . . (and) let the oppressed go free."

And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.

All this will not be finished in the first one hundred days. Nor will it be finished in the first one thousand days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.


----------



## georgephillip

mdn2000 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "In October 1963 he signed National Security Action Memorandum  263 calling for the withdrawal of 1,000 U. S. military troops from Vietnam by the end of the year and a total withdrawal by the end of 1965.[iii]
> 
> "All this he did while secretly engaging in negotiations with Khrushchev via the KGB , Norman Cousins, and Pope John XXIII , and with Castro through various intermediaries, one of whom was French Journalist Jean Daniel.
> 
> "In an interview with Daniel on October 24, 1963 Kennedy said, 'I approved the proclamation Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption.  I will go even further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States.  Now we will have to pay for those sins.  In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries.  That is perfectly clear.'
> 
> "Such sentiments were anathema, shall we say treasonous, to the CIA and top generals."
> 
> JFK and the Unspeakable...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chomsky students do not do their homework, Memorandum  263 did not call for the withdrawal of troops. Troops will stay, only advisors training the Vietnamese would be withdrawn once they were capable of continuing the war on their own.
> 
> Vietnam War: The Documents - 14
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The objectives of the United States with respect to the withdrawal of U.S. military personnel remain as stated in the White House statement of October 2, 1963.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Georgy/Chomsky paraphrase Memo 263, no link when as we know Georgy/chomsky loves links. If you quote something you should link to it. Especially if you never read it.
> 
> Reading Memo 263 item 2 makes it clear one must read another statement to no what the policy is. Politics within the White House most likely move faster than these threads. What was the policy of Kennedy a minute before the bullet entered his brain, who knows.
> 
> U.S. Policy Statement on Vietnam, 1963
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secretary [of Defense Robert S.] McNamara and General [Maxwell D.] Taylor reported to the President this morning and to the National Security Council this afternoon. Their report included a number of classified findings and recommendations which will be the subject of further review and action. Their basic presentation was endorsed by all members of the Security Council and the following statement of United States policy was approved by the President on the basis of recommendations received from them and from Ambassador [Henry Cabot] Lodge.
> 
> 1. The security of South Viet-Nam is a major interest of the United States as other free nations. We will adhere to our policy of working with the people and Government of South Viet-Nam to deny this country to communism and to suppress the externally stimulated and supported insurgency of the Viet Cong as promptly as possible. Effective performance in this undertaking is the central objective of our policy in South Viet-Nam.
> 
> 2. The military program in South Viet-Nam has made progress and is sound in principle, though improvements are being energetically sought.
> 
> 3. Major U.S. assistance in support of this military effort is needed only until the insurgency has been suppressed or until the national security forces of the Government of South Viet-Nam are capable of suppressing it.
> 
> Secretary McNamara and General Taylor reported their judgment that the major part of the U.S. military task can be completed by the end of 1965, although there may be a continuing requirement for a limited number of U.S. training personnel. They reported that by the end of this year, the U.S. program for training Vietnamese should have progressed to the point where 1,000 U.S. military personnel assigned to South Viet-Nam can be withdrawn.
> 
> 4. The political situation in South Viet-Nam remains deeply serious. The United States has made clear its continuing opposition to any repressive actions in South Viet-Nam. While such actions have not yet significantly affected the military effort, they could do so in the future.
> 
> 5. It remains the policy of the United States, in South Viet-Nam as in other parts of the world, to support the efforts of the people of that country to defeat aggression and to build a peaceful and free society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the policy, at that second, for how long after considering everything Kennedy was doing, Kennedy was a military man, not like Liberals of today. I would have to say Kennedy is not a Liberal by today's definition.
> 
> Chomsky and his students count on the the conservatives to not be able to counter the arguments they present, they present heresy as fact. Why not just refer to the policy statement of Oct 2, 1963, its simple, Chomsky does not base his criticism on fact.
> 
> Memo 263 explicitly refers in item 2 that the White house policy statement of Oct. 2, 1963 stands as policy.
> 
> Do we need our university professors telling lies about history. Chomsky has no business in the classroom
Click to expand...

Now show us where I mentioned the name "Chomsky" on this thread?


----------



## Bfgrn

mdn2000 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "In October 1963 he signed National Security Action Memorandum  263 calling for the withdrawal of 1,000 U. S. military troops from Vietnam by the end of the year and a total withdrawal by the end of 1965.[iii]
> 
> "All this he did while secretly engaging in negotiations with Khrushchev via the KGB , Norman Cousins, and Pope John XXIII , and with Castro through various intermediaries, one of whom was French Journalist Jean Daniel.
> 
> "In an interview with Daniel on October 24, 1963 Kennedy said, 'I approved the proclamation Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption.  I will go even further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States.  Now we will have to pay for those sins.  In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries.  That is perfectly clear.'
> 
> "Such sentiments were anathema, shall we say treasonous, to the CIA and top generals."
> 
> JFK and the Unspeakable...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chomsky students do not do their homework, Memorandum  263 did not call for the withdrawal of troops. Troops will stay, only advisors training the Vietnamese would be withdrawn once they were capable of continuing the war on their own.
> 
> Vietnam War: The Documents - 14
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The objectives of the United States with respect to the withdrawal of U.S. military personnel remain as stated in the White House statement of October 2, 1963.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Georgy/Chomsky paraphrase Memo 263, no link when as we know Georgy/chomsky loves links. If you quote something you should link to it. Especially if you never read it.
> 
> Reading Memo 263 item 2 makes it clear one must read another statement to no what the policy is. Politics within the White House most likely move faster than these threads. What was the policy of Kennedy a minute before the bullet entered his brain, who knows.
> 
> U.S. Policy Statement on Vietnam, 1963
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secretary [of Defense Robert S.] McNamara and General [Maxwell D.] Taylor reported to the President this morning and to the National Security Council this afternoon. Their report included a number of classified findings and recommendations which will be the subject of further review and action. Their basic presentation was endorsed by all members of the Security Council and the following statement of United States policy was approved by the President on the basis of recommendations received from them and from Ambassador [Henry Cabot] Lodge.
> 
> 1. The security of South Viet-Nam is a major interest of the United States as other free nations. We will adhere to our policy of working with the people and Government of South Viet-Nam to deny this country to communism and to suppress the externally stimulated and supported insurgency of the Viet Cong as promptly as possible. Effective performance in this undertaking is the central objective of our policy in South Viet-Nam.
> 
> 2. The military program in South Viet-Nam has made progress and is sound in principle, though improvements are being energetically sought.
> 
> 3. Major U.S. assistance in support of this military effort is needed only until the insurgency has been suppressed or until the national security forces of the Government of South Viet-Nam are capable of suppressing it.
> 
> Secretary McNamara and General Taylor reported their judgment that the major part of the U.S. military task can be completed by the end of 1965, although there may be a continuing requirement for a limited number of U.S. training personnel. They reported that by the end of this year, the U.S. program for training Vietnamese should have progressed to the point where 1,000 U.S. military personnel assigned to South Viet-Nam can be withdrawn.
> 
> 4. The political situation in South Viet-Nam remains deeply serious. The United States has made clear its continuing opposition to any repressive actions in South Viet-Nam. While such actions have not yet significantly affected the military effort, they could do so in the future.
> 
> 5. It remains the policy of the United States, in South Viet-Nam as in other parts of the world, to support the efforts of the people of that country to defeat aggression and to build a peaceful and free society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the policy, at that second, for how long after considering everything Kennedy was doing, Kennedy was a military man, not like Liberals of today. I would have to say Kennedy is not a Liberal by today's definition.
> 
> Chomsky and his students count on the the conservatives to not be able to counter the arguments they present, they present heresy as fact. Why not just refer to the policy statement of Oct 2, 1963, its simple, Chomsky does not base his criticism on fact.
> 
> Memo 263 explicitly refers in item 2 that the White house policy statement of Oct. 2, 1963 stands as policy.
> 
> Do we need our university professors telling lies about history. Chomsky has no business in the classroom
Click to expand...


If you're interested in some insight about the "Taylor report" I suggest you read this article. Galbraith and Vietnam

Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith was then Ambassador to India. He was a close friend and a very trusted adviser to JFK. 

Galbraith got wind of the McNamara Taylor plan--and rushed to block their efforts. It is an interesting read.


When Kennedy was assassinated in 1963, John Kenneth Galbraith wrote that he was relieved that the President had died quickly, fearing the destruction of his wit and intellect as the greater evil.


----------



## georgephillip

Dante said:


> can we do something about conspiracy trolls?
> 
> 
> georgephillip???


Conspiracy trolls CAN take a hint, Dante.

Let me just leave you with this...

November 22nd is rapidly approaching.

Think about a thread in this forum exploring Conspiracy's contribution to History.

Remember the Bay of Pigs?

"Though Douglass doesn&#8217;t mention it, and few Americans know it, classified documents uncovered in 2000 revealed that the CIA had discovered that the Soviets had learned of the date of the invasion more than a week in advance, had informed Castro, but

" &#8211; and here is a startling fact that should make people&#8217;s hair stand on end -  *never told the President*. [ii] 

"*The CIA knew the invasion was doomed before the fact but went ahead with it anyway.* 

"Why?  

"So they could and did afterwards blame JFK for the failure.

JFK and the Unspeakable...


----------



## Liability

Liberal distortion of JFK is a product of the unquestioned Camelot mythology.

In reality, it is safe to say that by today's standards, JFK was neither quite fish nor fowl.  He was probably (judging by today's standards) more libeal than conservative, but the important fact is that he was not an absolute.  But, that said, J*FK was far more conservative than today's libbies can tolerate.*  They have to paint him as an ideologically "pure" liberal to keep the myth alive.   

Here's an interesting read, with fodder for additional research:  JFK and Nixon


----------



## Dante

it took 9 pages for the troll(s) to take this thread into the USMB toilet.


not a bad day for USMB


----------



## Liability

Dante said:


> it took 9 pages for the troll(s) to take this thread into the USMB toilet.
> 
> 
> not a bad day for USMB



Any thread you start is generally troll material and already in the toilet.

Your OP premise was delusional and you, being the total pussy you always are, objected to actual debate on your silly topic. 

So, feel free to fuck yourself.  As always, Dainty, you _are_ the troll.  

It's really quite extraordinarily pathetic.  You actually play the part of retard troll in your own thread.


----------



## Bfgrn

georgephillip said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> can we do something about conspiracy trolls?
> 
> 
> georgephillip???
> 
> 
> 
> Conspiracy trolls CAN take a hint, Dante.
> 
> Let me just leave you with this...
> 
> November 22nd is rapidly approaching.
> 
> Think about a thread in this forum exploring Conspiracy's contribution to History.
> 
> Remember the Bay of Pigs?
> 
> "Though Douglass doesnt mention it, and few Americans know it, classified documents uncovered in 2000 revealed that the CIA had discovered that the Soviets had learned of the date of the invasion more than a week in advance, had informed Castro, but
> 
> "  and here is a startling fact that should make peoples hair stand on end -  *never told the President*. [ii]
> 
> "*The CIA knew the invasion was doomed before the fact but went ahead with it anyway.*
> 
> "Why?
> 
> "So they could and did afterwards blame JFK for the failure.
> 
> JFK and the Unspeakable...
Click to expand...


Washington's national-security apparatus had decided there was no living with Castro. During the final months of the Eisenhower Administration, the CIA started planning an invasion of the island, recruiting Cuban exiles who had fled the new regime. Agency officials assured the young President who inherited the invasion plan that it was a "slam dunk," in the words of a future CIA director contemplating another ill-fated U.S. invasion. J.F.K. had deep misgivings, but unwilling to overrule his senior intelligence officials so early in his Administration, he went fatefully ahead with the plan. The doomed Bay of Pigs invasion in April 1961 became the Kennedy Administration's first great trauma.

We now knowfrom the CIA's internal history of the Bay of Pigs, which was declassified in 2005that agency officials realized their motley crew of invaders had no chance of victory unless they were reinforced by the U.S. military. But Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell, the top CIA officials, never disclosed this to J.F.K. They clearly thought the young President would cave in the heat of battle, that he would be forced to send in the Marines and Air Force to rescue the beleaguered exiles brigade after it was pinned down on the beaches by Castro's forces. But Kennedywho was concerned about aggravating the U.S. image in Latin America as a Yanqui bully and also feared a Soviet countermove against West Berlinhad warned agency officials that he would not fully intervene. As the invasion quickly bogged down at the swampy landing site, J.F.K. stunned Dulles and Bissell by standing his ground and refusing to escalate the assault.

From that point on, the Kennedy presidency became a government at war with itself.

A bitter Dulles thought Kennedy had suffered a failure of nerve and observed that he was "surrounded by doubting Thomases and admirers of Castro." The Joint Chiefs also muttered darkly about the new President. General Lyman Lemnitzer, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, said "pulling out the rug [on the invaders ]was... absolutely reprehensible, almost criminal." Admiral Arleigh Burke, the Navy chief, later fumed, "Mr. Kennedy was a very bad President... He permitted himself to jeopardize the nation."

Kennedy was equally outraged at his national-security advisers. While he famously took responsibility for the Bay of Pigs debacle in public, privately he lashed out at the Joint Chiefs and especially at the cia, threatening to "shatter [the agency] into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds." J.F.K. never followed through on this threat, but he did eventually fire Dulles, despite his stature as a legendary spymaster, as well as Bissell.

Weeks after the Cuba fiasco, J.F.K. was still steaming, recalled his friend Assistant Navy Secretary Paul (Red) Fay years later in his memoir, The Pleasure of His Company. "Nobody is going to force me to do anything I don't think is in the best interest of the country," the President told his friend, over a game of checkers at the Kennedy-family compound in Hyannis Port, Mass. "We're not going to plunge into an irresponsible action just because a fanatical fringe in this country puts so-called national pride above national reason. Do you think I'm going to carry on my conscience the responsibility for the wanton maiming and killing of children like our children we saw [playing] here this evening? Do you think I'm going to cause a nuclear exchangefor what? Because I was forced into doing something that I didn't think was proper and right? Well, if you or anybody else thinks I am, he's crazy."

Warrior For Peace - The Lessons of J.F.K. - TIME


----------



## MajinLink

JFK and RFK were killed long before they could help out this country. I pity us.


----------



## mdn2000

Bay of Pigs, too bad JFK could not recover from his failure. Afraid to say no as the president, as a Kennedy that killed Nixon in the debates, afraid to say no to subordinates. 

I guess he was a liberal after all.


----------



## Bfgrn

mdn2000 said:


> Bay of Pigs, too bad JFK could not recover from his failure. Afraid to say no as the president, as a Kennedy that killed Nixon in the debates, afraid to say no to subordinates.
> 
> I guess he was a liberal after all.



Finally, the REAL you comes out. An asshole.

JFK did say no when the chips were down. 
---------------------------------------------------
We now knowfrom the CIA's internal history of the Bay of Pigs, which was declassified in 2005that agency officials realized their motley crew of invaders had no chance of victory unless they were reinforced by the U.S. military. But Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell, the top CIA officials, never disclosed this to J.F.K. They clearly thought the young President would cave in the heat of battle, that he would be forced to send in the Marines and Air Force to rescue the beleaguered exiles brigade after it was pinned down on the beaches by Castro's forces. But Kennedywho was concerned about aggravating the U.S. image in Latin America as a Yanqui bully and also feared a Soviet countermove against West Berlinhad warned agency officials that he would not fully intervene. As the invasion quickly bogged down at the swampy landing site, J.F.K. stunned Dulles and Bissell by standing his ground and refusing to escalate the assault.
---------------------------------------------------

Yell 'ya what. The CIA blatantly lying to the new president was a blessing, for ALL of us. JFK was a quick learner. And he applied what he learned during the Bay of Pigs during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It prevented WWIII, American cities being wiped off the face of the earth and the death of millions of Americans.


----------



## mdn2000

Bfgrn said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bay of Pigs, too bad JFK could not recover from his failure. Afraid to say no as the president, as a Kennedy that killed Nixon in the debates, afraid to say no to subordinates.
> 
> I guess he was a liberal after all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, the REAL you comes out. An asshole.
> 
> JFK did say no when the chips were down.
> ---------------------------------------------------
> We now knowfrom the CIA's internal history of the Bay of Pigs, which was declassified in 2005that agency officials realized their motley crew of invaders had no chance of victory unless they were reinforced by the U.S. military. But Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell, the top CIA officials, never disclosed this to J.F.K. They clearly thought the young President would cave in the heat of battle, that he would be forced to send in the Marines and Air Force to rescue the beleaguered exiles brigade after it was pinned down on the beaches by Castro's forces. But Kennedywho was concerned about aggravating the U.S. image in Latin America as a Yanqui bully and also feared a Soviet countermove against West Berlinhad warned agency officials that he would not fully intervene. As the invasion quickly bogged down at the swampy landing site, J.F.K. stunned Dulles and Bissell by standing his ground and refusing to escalate the assault.
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> Yell 'ya what. The CIA blatantly lying to the new president was a blessing, for ALL of us. JFK was a quick learner. And he applied what he learned during the Bay of Pigs during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It prevented WWIII, American cities being wiped off the face of the earth and the death of millions of Americans.
Click to expand...


I know the story better than you, it was specifically Rockefeller men within the CIA that planned the Bay of Pigs. Rockefeller lost lots of money in Cuba. 

JFK called off the air support, JFK did not call off the invasion. JFK allowed the Bay of Pigs to start with the belief there would be air support.

Maybe indecisive, Kennedy was indecisive.


----------



## Bfgrn

mdn2000 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Bay of Pigs, too bad JFK could not recover from his failure. Afraid to say no as the president, as a Kennedy that killed Nixon in the debates, afraid to say no to subordinates.
> 
> I guess he was a liberal after all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, the REAL you comes out. An asshole.
> 
> JFK did say no when the chips were down.
> ---------------------------------------------------
> We now knowfrom the CIA's internal history of the Bay of Pigs, which was declassified in 2005that agency officials realized their motley crew of invaders had no chance of victory unless they were reinforced by the U.S. military. But Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell, the top CIA officials, never disclosed this to J.F.K. They clearly thought the young President would cave in the heat of battle, that he would be forced to send in the Marines and Air Force to rescue the beleaguered exiles brigade after it was pinned down on the beaches by Castro's forces. But Kennedywho was concerned about aggravating the U.S. image in Latin America as a Yanqui bully and also feared a Soviet countermove against West Berlinhad warned agency officials that he would not fully intervene. As the invasion quickly bogged down at the swampy landing site, J.F.K. stunned Dulles and Bissell by standing his ground and refusing to escalate the assault.
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> Yell 'ya what. The CIA blatantly lying to the new president was a blessing, for ALL of us. JFK was a quick learner. And he applied what he learned during the Bay of Pigs during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It prevented WWIII, American cities being wiped off the face of the earth and the death of millions of Americans.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I know the story better than you, it was specifically Rockefeller men within the CIA that planned the Bay of Pigs. Rockefeller lost lots of money in Cuba.
> 
> JFK called off the air support, JFK did not call off the invasion. JFK allowed the Bay of Pigs to start with the belief there would be air support.
> 
> Maybe indecisive, Kennedy was indecisive.
Click to expand...


Maybe you don't know as much as you think. The Dulles brothers had their grubby little hands in a lot of shit that undermined US relations, security and stability in the America's. Kennedy wondered why the US was hated most in our own hemisphere. That was why the Alliance For Progress was one of the first programs he initiated.

Look into the Dulles Brothers, the United Fruit Company and Guatemala.


----------



## mdn2000

Bfgrn said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Finally, the REAL you comes out. An asshole.
> 
> JFK did say no when the chips were down.
> ---------------------------------------------------
> We now knowfrom the CIA's internal history of the Bay of Pigs, which was declassified in 2005that agency officials realized their motley crew of invaders had no chance of victory unless they were reinforced by the U.S. military. But Allen Dulles and Richard Bissell, the top CIA officials, never disclosed this to J.F.K. They clearly thought the young President would cave in the heat of battle, that he would be forced to send in the Marines and Air Force to rescue the beleaguered exiles brigade after it was pinned down on the beaches by Castro's forces. But Kennedywho was concerned about aggravating the U.S. image in Latin America as a Yanqui bully and also feared a Soviet countermove against West Berlinhad warned agency officials that he would not fully intervene. As the invasion quickly bogged down at the swampy landing site, J.F.K. stunned Dulles and Bissell by standing his ground and refusing to escalate the assault.
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> Yell 'ya what. The CIA blatantly lying to the new president was a blessing, for ALL of us. JFK was a quick learner. And he applied what he learned during the Bay of Pigs during the Cuban Missile Crisis. It prevented WWIII, American cities being wiped off the face of the earth and the death of millions of Americans.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I know the story better than you, it was specifically Rockefeller men within the CIA that planned the Bay of Pigs. Rockefeller lost lots of money in Cuba.
> 
> JFK called off the air support, JFK did not call off the invasion. JFK allowed the Bay of Pigs to start with the belief there would be air support.
> 
> Maybe indecisive, Kennedy was indecisive.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Maybe you don't know as much as you think. The Dulles brothers had their grubby little hands in a lot of shit that undermined US relations, security and stability in the America's. Kennedy wondered why the US was hated most in our own hemisphere. That was why the Alliance For Progress was one of the first programs he initiated.
> 
> Look into the Dulles Brothers, the United Fruit Company and Guatemala.
Click to expand...


Bitter Fruit, read that a long time ago, I also read most the junk about Che, I read the bible of them all as well, Thy Will Be Done the Conquest of the Amazon Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil. If you have not read this you do not know your side of the debate as well as I do. Sometimes in life a great book comes along and Thy Will Be Done is that book. 

What would Kennedy do had he lived is speculation, I typically dont like to speculate other than to make the point that speculation is pointless and meaningless. I can easily provide examples that twists who Kennedy is, problem with my examples is simple, they are fact. Being fact its easy to manipulate the image.

Kennedy was who he was, a man of his time, a Liberal if you think, but mistaken you are if you believe Kennedy would be called a Liberal today.

I would of liked to see Kennedy handle Cuba, Bay of Pigs was definitely thrust upon Kennedy. 1300 men, I would of gave it a try, given that Eisenhower approved the plan, a general, it must of seemed like a good idea. 

Seems like the whole nation lost on the day Kennedy was shot, the Cubans lost a chance of reconciliation. Vietnam, most likely would of been the same, unless Kennedy attacked Hanoi. 

Speculation, who cares.

If anyone cares to fact check what I post in regards to Kennedy invest in a copy of Thy Will Be Done, Gerard Colby. Its out of print, killed the year it comes out by the people it exposed. My opinion is that being forced out of print indicates there is some truth to what Colby wrote. 

My book is not with me so its impossible to para-phrase or state what I think exactly happened.

So is your post stating Kennedy thought they had a chance with no element of surprise, Kennedy thought 1300 men could take over Cuba. I have to re-read the chapter on the Bay of Pigs, Colby ties it into Rockefeller, Nelson Rockefeller. Rockefeller was a politician as well as the heir to an empire.


----------



## Bfgrn

mdn2000 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know the story better than you, it was specifically Rockefeller men within the CIA that planned the Bay of Pigs. Rockefeller lost lots of money in Cuba.
> 
> JFK called off the air support, JFK did not call off the invasion. JFK allowed the Bay of Pigs to start with the belief there would be air support.
> 
> Maybe indecisive, Kennedy was indecisive.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you don't know as much as you think. The Dulles brothers had their grubby little hands in a lot of shit that undermined US relations, security and stability in the America's. Kennedy wondered why the US was hated most in our own hemisphere. That was why the Alliance For Progress was one of the first programs he initiated.
> 
> Look into the Dulles Brothers, the United Fruit Company and Guatemala.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Bitter Fruit, read that a long time ago, I also read most the junk about Che, I read the bible of them all as well, Thy Will Be Done the Conquest of the Amazon Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil. If you have not read this you do not know your side of the debate as well as I do. Sometimes in life a great book comes along and Thy Will Be Done is that book.
> 
> What would Kennedy do had he lived is speculation, I typically dont like to speculate other than to make the point that speculation is pointless and meaningless. I can easily provide examples that twists who Kennedy is, problem with my examples is simple, they are fact. Being fact its easy to manipulate the image.
> 
> Kennedy was who he was, a man of his time, a Liberal if you think, but mistaken you are if you believe Kennedy would be called a Liberal today.
> 
> I would of liked to see Kennedy handle Cuba, Bay of Pigs was definitely thrust upon Kennedy. 1300 men, I would of gave it a try, given that Eisenhower approved the plan, a general, it must of seemed like a good idea.
> 
> Seems like the whole nation lost on the day Kennedy was shot, the Cubans lost a chance of reconciliation. Vietnam, most likely would of been the same, unless Kennedy attacked Hanoi.
> 
> Speculation, who cares.
> 
> If anyone cares to fact check what I post in regards to Kennedy invest in a copy of Thy Will Be Done, Gerard Colby. Its out of print, killed the year it comes out by the people it exposed. My opinion is that being forced out of print indicates there is some truth to what Colby wrote.
> 
> My book is not with me so its impossible to para-phrase or state what I think exactly happened.
> 
> So is your post stating Kennedy thought they had a chance with no element of surprise, Kennedy thought 1300 men could take over Cuba. I have to re-read the chapter on the Bay of Pigs, Colby ties it into Rockefeller, Nelson Rockefeller. Rockefeller was a politician as well as the heir to an empire.
Click to expand...




mdn2000 said:


> Speculation, who cares.



Of course it is speculation. But who cares? There are 58,000 families who lost a son in Vietnam who still care. And as more information comes out, it supports that Kennedy planned to withdraw from Vietnam, not commit combat troops. But he was not going to make it public, especially before the 1964 election and give the right ammo to run against him with.

But there are things are not really speculation. Your statement: 'Iraq ceased being "sovereign" the minute Abd al-Karim Qasim took over' couldn't be further from the truth. The truth is Iraq's chance of BEING sovereign ended when Qasim was overthrown by Ba'athists backed by the British government and our CIA. Need you be reminded that Saddam was a Ba'athist.

Thy Will Be Done was published in 1995. Bill Moyers was all over this in 1987. The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis, by Bill Moyers. The same Bill Moyers who was in the Kennedy administration and the recipient of the November 25, 1963  Justice dept memo from Nicholas Katzenbach, Deputy Attorney General that: 1. The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial. 2. Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off...

The real question that hasn't been answered is who was behind President Kennedy's assassination. I think Bobby knew before his brother was buried. Bobby had a phone conversation on the afternoon of Nov. 22. with Enrique "Harry" Ruiz-Williams, a Bay of Pigs veteran who was his most trusted ally among exiled political leaders, Bobby shocked his friend by telling him point-blank, "One of your guys did it."

The best evidence that JFK was going to withdraw from Vietnam was his murder. Which makes that event the most tragic in our history, especially for 58,000 families, and millions of innocent people in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.

And WE, the PEOPLE should care. It is supposed to be our government.


----------



## mdn2000

Bfgrn said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you don't know as much as you think. The Dulles brothers had their grubby little hands in a lot of shit that undermined US relations, security and stability in the America's. Kennedy wondered why the US was hated most in our own hemisphere. That was why the Alliance For Progress was one of the first programs he initiated.
> 
> Look into the Dulles Brothers, the United Fruit Company and Guatemala.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bitter Fruit, read that a long time ago, I also read most the junk about Che, I read the bible of them all as well, Thy Will Be Done the Conquest of the Amazon Nelson Rockefeller and Evangelism in the Age of Oil. If you have not read this you do not know your side of the debate as well as I do. Sometimes in life a great book comes along and Thy Will Be Done is that book.
> 
> What would Kennedy do had he lived is speculation, I typically dont like to speculate other than to make the point that speculation is pointless and meaningless. I can easily provide examples that twists who Kennedy is, problem with my examples is simple, they are fact. Being fact its easy to manipulate the image.
> 
> Kennedy was who he was, a man of his time, a Liberal if you think, but mistaken you are if you believe Kennedy would be called a Liberal today.
> 
> I would of liked to see Kennedy handle Cuba, Bay of Pigs was definitely thrust upon Kennedy. 1300 men, I would of gave it a try, given that Eisenhower approved the plan, a general, it must of seemed like a good idea.
> 
> Seems like the whole nation lost on the day Kennedy was shot, the Cubans lost a chance of reconciliation. Vietnam, most likely would of been the same, unless Kennedy attacked Hanoi.
> 
> Speculation, who cares.
> 
> If anyone cares to fact check what I post in regards to Kennedy invest in a copy of Thy Will Be Done, Gerard Colby. Its out of print, killed the year it comes out by the people it exposed. My opinion is that being forced out of print indicates there is some truth to what Colby wrote.
> 
> My book is not with me so its impossible to para-phrase or state what I think exactly happened.
> 
> So is your post stating Kennedy thought they had a chance with no element of surprise, Kennedy thought 1300 men could take over Cuba. I have to re-read the chapter on the Bay of Pigs, Colby ties it into Rockefeller, Nelson Rockefeller. Rockefeller was a politician as well as the heir to an empire.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Speculation, who cares.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Of course it is speculation. But who cares? There are 58,000 families who lost a son in Vietnam who still care. And as more information comes out, it supports that Kennedy planned to withdraw from Vietnam, not commit combat troops. But he was not going to make it public, especially before the 1964 election and give the right ammo to run against him with.
> 
> But there are things are not really speculation. Your statement: 'Iraq ceased being "sovereign" the minute Abd al-Karim Qasim took over' couldn't be further from the truth. The truth is Iraq's chance of BEING sovereign ended when Qasim was overthrown by Ba'athists backed by the British government and our CIA. Need you be reminded that Saddam was a Ba'athist.
> 
> Thy Will Be Done was published in 1995. Bill Moyers was all over this in 1987. The Secret Government: The Constitution in Crisis, by Bill Moyers. The same Bill Moyers who was in the Kennedy administration and the recipient of the November 25, 1963  Justice dept memo from Nicholas Katzenbach, Deputy Attorney General that: 1. The public must be satisfied that Oswald was the assassin; that he did not have confederates who are still at large; and that the evidence was such that he would have been convicted at trial. 2. Speculation about Oswald's motivation ought to be cut off...
> 
> The real question that hasn't been answered is who was behind President Kennedy's assassination. I think Bobby knew before his brother was buried. Bobby had a phone conversation on the afternoon of Nov. 22. with Enrique "Harry" Ruiz-Williams, a Bay of Pigs veteran who was his most trusted ally among exiled political leaders, Bobby shocked his friend by telling him point-blank, "One of your guys did it."
> 
> The best evidence that JFK was going to withdraw from Vietnam was his murder. Which makes that event the most tragic in our history, especially for 58,000 families, and millions of innocent people in Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia.
> 
> And WE, the PEOPLE should care. It is supposed to be our government.
Click to expand...


Are you insinuating that my ideas of, "speculation" in respect to history are callous in light of the deaths of people in the South East. I will be sure to tell my friend who lived in the refugee camps. He is from Cambodia and chooses to live with us because in his words, "I hate commies", "in communism you work for the commies". 

You wish to view Kennedy as you "speculate" what Kennedy would do had Kennedy not been assassinated. That my friend, is not logical.

Bfgrn, my source you seem to dismiss, Thy Will Be done by Colby. Chapter 24 is titled Deadly Inheritance, is that an adequate title for the story of Kennedy and The Bay of Pigs. March 28th, 1961 the book speaks of, a day Kennedy meets with the CIA, specifically Bissell. As I have stated I own a copy, actually two copies of Bitter Fruit, I recently found a Hard back copy. I like the Hard Back books better than paperbacks.

So Bissell goes from Guatemala to Cuba, ch. 24 starts with Kennedy specifically asking if they need air strikes, seems Kennedy had lots of questions. 

I think its safe to say that our view on the timeline of events is pretty much exactly the same as the people we are stating are involved.

Bissell seems he needed another success after Guatemala, Bay of Pigs was it. Kennedy had intimated to Undersecretary of State Chester Bowles that he planned to appoint Bissell in July, only three months after the expected victory over Castro (T.W.B.D., Colby pg 348).

Kennedy had much to worry about, it would be a bit tedious to type all of this out, we can say that there was much apprehensiveness. a critical Helms-inspired report. Conflicts in the CIA, conflicts with State Department and the CIA.

There was much the CIA did not tell him: That Colonel J. C. King, thought a CIA officer, had offered $50,000 to the Mafia's John Roselli and Santos Trafficante to have a Cuban agent poison Castro, tht a colleague of King had set up another 'Executive Action" capability, and that the arms drops to the Cuban resistance promised by Bissell had been failing for months.  (T.W.B.D., Colby pg 348)

This is where Adolf Berle enters the story, Berle an old mentor of Nelson Rockefeller. So Kennedy turns to Berle, Berle talks to King, Berle than talks to Betancourt, than Berle spoke with Camargo. etc, etc, etc,

So we can go step by step, of what happened, how much diplomacy, planning, memos, all the things we miss in one tiny paragraph. 

Unfortunately I have a book, I can not find this book through a google search so anything from the book I would have to type. 

Bottom line the Bay of Pigs was a huge operation, it spanned two administrations, between diplomacy, allies, the CIA, the State Department, Eisenhower, Kennedy, Berle, Rockefeller.

There were a lot of players. Kennedy let it unfold with apprehension. At the last minute he stopped the operation. Had Kennedy know all the details, everything the CIA was involved in, would he of taken a different approach, most likely, what that approach would be is a guess. 

Thy Will Be Done, is most likely the story exactly as you state with a little more insight to connections with Nelson Rockefeller. I have read the book twice, with foot notes and index over 900 pages, a lot to remember.

This statement of mine is easily proven wrong, it was also wrong to characterize the Bay of Pigs as an invasion, Kennedy stood up to his subordinates, Kennedy was perfectly clear that Kennedy would not commit the Armed Forces of the United States to overthrow Cuba. He was led to believe the people would rise against Castro, that a small force of dissidents with the people would overthrow Castro.

Kennedy was specific, no Armed Forces, the CIA made grave errors and had poor intelligence, they woke Kennedy in the early morning, Kennedy made it clear his position had not changed. I was being sarcastic, there is another word but I cannot spell it, (faicetuos?) Kennedy was strong enough to say no, he was not tricked, he was apprehensive, Kennedy was not afraid and did things as a man in power, Kennedy new enough not to ask "too many" questions, from everything I read Kennedy needed plausible denial, can I  "speculate" Kennedy did not ask every question to alleviate his "apprehension", so that Kennedy could claim, "he did not know". Seems reasonable.



> Bay of Pigs, too bad JFK could not recover from his failure. Afraid to say no as the president, as a Kennedy that killed Nixon in the debates, afraid to say no to subordinates.



Kennedy did fail at Bay of Pigs, Kennedy inherited the Bay of Pigs and allowed it to continue. Kennedy was not through with Cuba, the missile crises would follow. 

Cuba was part of the Cold War, that is how Kennedy saw it, Kennedy fought the Cold War, the war against Communism. That is why the Bay of Pigs was given a chance by Kennedy, not to mention Cuban exiles were begging for the overthrow of Castro.

Next, Kennedy on Vietnam, Strategy of Peace, 1960, foreign policy.


----------



## mdn2000

The Strategy of Peace, by Kennedy, 1960

That is my reference, I have my copy hear, I must type to quote, so much will be left out, like a whole book. Its mostly speeches given by Kennedy as a Senator. I can use the book to find some stuff online so when I can I will find it online and link to/quote.

Kennedy begins his book with a speech to congress, slipped in after it went to the publisher, hence we can conclude Kennedy wanted the public to know Kennedy's motives. 

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy in the Senate, June 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum



> For on May 17, 1960, the long-awaited, highly publicized Summit Conference collapsed. That collapse was the direct result of Soviet determination to destroy the talks. The insults and distortions of Mr. Khrushchev - the violence of his attacks - shocked all Americans and united the country in admiration for the dignity and self-control of President Eisenhower. Regardless of party, all of us deeply resented Russian abuse of this nation and its President - and all of us shared a common disappointment at the failure of the conference. But it is imperative, nevertheless, that we as a nation rise above our resentment and frustration to a critical re-examination of the events at Paris and their meaning for America.



So I am hacking this great speech, too much for one post. Liberal or Conservative, who was Kennedy. Kennedy was shaped by the times he lived and Kennedy articulated that danger as the USSR and Communism. Here Kennedy is clear, strength leads to peace. Kennedy is determined to win. Not retreat. Words will only work if your strong.



> But the truth of the matter is that we were not prepared for any such negotiations - that there was no real success which the Summit could have achieved. For words and discussion are not a substitute for strength - they are an instrument for the translation of strength into survival and peace.



The Missile Gap of 1960-64, the most dangerous threat we face, Communism. Strength will bring survival and peace.



> This is an issue worthy of a great debate - a debate by the American people through the media of their political parties - and that debate must not be stifled or degraded by empty appeals to national unity, false cries of appeasement, or deceptive slogans about "standing up to Khrushchev." For the issue is not who can best "stand up to Khrushchev" - who can best swap threats and insults - the real issue is who can stand up and summon America's vast resources to the defense of freedom against the most dangerous threat it has ever faced.



And to reiterate, what is Kennedy's idea of talk and peace negotiations



> As a substitute for policy, Mr. Eisenhower has tried smiling at the Russians; our State Department has tried frowning at them; and Mr. Nixon has tried both. None have succeeded. For we cannot conceal or overcome our lack of purpose and our failure of planning by "talking tough"; nor can we compensate for our weaknesses by "talking nice," by assuming that the righteousness of our principles will ensure their victory. For just as we know that "might" never makes "right", we must also remember that "right," unfortunately, never makes "might."
> Thus neither our smiles nor our frowns have ever altered Mr. Khrushchev's course, however he may alter his expression. His real goals have remained unmoved, his interests unchanged, his determination unending. And as long as Mr. Khrushchev is convinced that the balance of world power is shifting his way, no amount of either smiles or toughness, neither Camp David talks nor kitchen debates, can compel him to enter fruitful negotiations.



WAR, WAR, WAR, WAR, WAR, WAR



> So let us abandon the useless discussion of who can best "stand up to Khrushchev", or whether a "hard" or "soft" line is preferable. Our task is to rebuild our strength, and the strength of the free world - to prove to the Soviets that time and the course of history are not on their side, that the balance of world power is not shifting their way - and that therefore peaceful settlement is essential to mutual survival. Our task is to devise a national strategy - based not on the 11th hour responses to Soviet created crises, but a comprehensive set of carefully prepared, long-term policies designed to increase the strength of the non-communist world. Until this task is accomplished, there is no point in returning to the Summit - for no President of the United States must ever again be put in the position of traveling across the seas, armed only with vague, speculative hopes, in order to provide an occasion for public humiliation. And unless this task is accomplished - as we move into the most critical period in our nation's history since that bleak winter at Valley Forge - our national security, our survival itself, will be in peril.
> The hour is late - but the agenda is long





> For all America - its President and its people - the coming years will be a time of decision. We must decide whether we have reached our limit - whether our greatness is past - whether we can go no further - or whether, in the words of Thomas Wolfe, "the true discovery of America is before us ... the true fulfillment of our mighty and immortal land is yet to come."



Just the first speech, a few pages, and I cut a lot out but nothing that changes what I quoted. Kennedy faced a dangerous world and was prepared to do more than talk. I guess people forget we were at war with Russia, its called the cold war because it was a new kind of war, one in which we had to win, as articulated by Kennedy. 

Next I will skip to Kennedy's chapter on Vietnam, written before he was president.


----------



## mdn2000

Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy on Indochina before the Senate, Washington, D.C., April 6, 1954 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum



> Mr. President, the time has come for the American people to be told the blunt truth about Indochina.
> I am reluctant to make any statement which may be misinterpreted as unappreciative of the gallant French struggle at Dien Bien Phu and elsewhere; or as partisan criticism of our Secretary of State just prior to his participation in the delicate deliberations in Geneva. Nor, as one who is not a member of those committees of the Congress which have been briefed - if not consulted - on this matter, do I wish to appear impetuous or an alarmist in my evaluation of the situation. But the speeches of President Eisenhower, Secretary Dulles, and others have left too much unsaid, in my opinion - and what has been left unsaid is the heart of the problem that should concern every citizen. For if the American people are, for the fourth time in this century, to travel the long and tortuous road of war - particularly a war which we now realize would threaten the survival of civilization - then I believe we have a right - a right which we should have hitherto exercised - to inquire in detail into the nature of the struggle in which we may become engaged, and the alternative to such struggle. Without such clarification the general support and success of our policy is endangered.
> Inasmuch as Secretary Dulles has rejected, with finality, any suggestion of bargaining on Indochina in exchange for recognition of Red China, those discussions in Geneva which concern that war may center around two basic alternatives





> I think it is important that the Senate and the American people demonstrate their endorsement of Mr. Dulles' objectives, despite our difficulty in ascertaining the full significance of its key phrases.
> Certainly, I, for one, favor a policy of a "united action" by many nations whenever necessary to achieve a military and political victory for the free world in that area, realizing full well that it may eventually require some commitment of our manpower.





> I think it is important that the Senate and the American people demonstrate their endorsement of Mr. Dulles' objectives, despite our difficulty in ascertaining the full significance of its key phrases.
> Certainly, I, for one, favor a policy of a "united action" by many nations whenever necessary to achieve a military and political victory for the free world in that area, realizing full well that it may eventually require some commitment of our manpower.





> I am frankly of the belief that no amount of American military assistance in Indochina can conquer an enemy which is everywhere and at the same time nowhere, "an enemy of the people" which has the sympathy and covert support of the people. As succinctly stated by the report of the Judd Subcommittee of the House Foreign Affairs Committee in January of this year:
> "Until political independence has been achieved, an effective fighting force from the associated states cannot be expected. ... The apathy of the local population to the menace of the Viet Minh communism disguised as nationalism is the most discouraging aspect of the situation. That can only be overcome through the grant of complete independence to each of the associated states. Only for such a cause as their own freedom will people make the heroic effort necessary to win this kind of struggle."
> This is an analysis which is shared, if in some instances grudgingly, by most American observers. Moreover, without political independence for the associated states, the other Asiatic nations have made it clear that they regard this as a war of colonialism; and the "united action" which is said to be so desperately needed for victory in that area is likely to end up as unilateral action by our own country. Such intervention, without participation by the armed forces of the other nations of Asia, without the support of the great masses of the peoples of the associated states, with increasing reluctance and discouragement on the part of the French - and, I might add, with hordes of Chinese Communist troops poised just across the border in anticipation of our unilateral entry into their kind of battleground - such intervention, Mr. President, would be virtually impossible in the type of military situation which prevails in Indochina.





> In Indochina, as in Korea, the battle against communism should be a battle, not for economic or political gain, but for the security of the free world, and for the values and institutions which are held dear in France and throughout the non-Communist world, as well as in the United States. It seems to me, therefore, that the dilemma which confronts us is not a hopeless one; that a victorious fight can be maintained by the French, with the support of this Nation and many other nations - and most important of all, the support of the Vietnamese and other peoples of the Associated States - once it is recognized that the defense of southeast Asia and the repelling of Communist aggression are the objectives of such a struggle, and not the maintenance of political relationships founded upon ancient colonialism. In such a struggle, the United States and other nations may properly be called upon to play their fullest part.



Kennedy speaks of independence for Vietnam and without popular support by the people we will fail. 

I cut much out so to understand Kennedy and what he knew one must read this speech and must more.

What is clear is Kennedy looked at the Communist threat as war and Kennedy fought that war, Kennedy intended to win the war, not retreat.

Kennedy would not leave Vietnam to Communism.

Four hours devoted to three posts. No google, only a link to JFK's library to cut and paste of Kennedy's speeches included in his book, The Strategy of Peace.


----------



## Dante

Kennedy was a liberal hawk on defense. So what? Not all liberals were doves. 

Kennedy was a liberal Democrat.


note: I'm a liberal (and was a Democrat in 2001-2008) I supported invading Iraq to rid the place of Saddam, and this was before the WMD bullshit arguments that I never pushed as the main reason for invading.


----------



## mdn2000

Dante said:


> Kennedy was a liberal hawk on defense. So what? Not all liberals were doves.
> 
> Kennedy was a liberal Democrat.
> 
> 
> note: I'm a liberal (and was a Democrat in 2001-2008) I supported invading Iraq to rid the place of Saddam, and this was before the WMD bullshit arguments that I never pushed as the main reason for invading.



so you agree the war against Vietnam was a war against Communism that must be fought, as Kennedy fought, with the military, with strength.


----------



## Bfgrn

mdn2000 said:


> The Strategy of Peace, by Kennedy, 1960
> 
> That is my reference, I have my copy hear, I must type to quote, so much will be left out, like a whole book. Its mostly speeches given by Kennedy as a Senator. I can use the book to find some stuff online so when I can I will find it online and link to/quote.
> 
> Kennedy begins his book with a speech to congress, slipped in after it went to the publisher, hence we can conclude Kennedy wanted the public to know Kennedy's motives.
> 
> Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy in the Senate, June 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For on May 17, 1960, the long-awaited, highly publicized Summit Conference collapsed. That collapse was the direct result of Soviet determination to destroy the talks. The insults and distortions of Mr. Khrushchev - the violence of his attacks - shocked all Americans and united the country in admiration for the dignity and self-control of President Eisenhower. Regardless of party, all of us deeply resented Russian abuse of this nation and its President - and all of us shared a common disappointment at the failure of the conference. But it is imperative, nevertheless, that we as a nation rise above our resentment and frustration to a critical re-examination of the events at Paris and their meaning for America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I am hacking this great speech, too much for one post. Liberal or Conservative, who was Kennedy. Kennedy was shaped by the times he lived and Kennedy articulated that danger as the USSR and Communism. Here Kennedy is clear, strength leads to peace. Kennedy is determined to win. Not retreat. Words will only work if your strong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But the truth of the matter is that we were not prepared for any such negotiations - that there was no real success which the Summit could have achieved. For words and discussion are not a substitute for strength - they are an instrument for the translation of strength into survival and peace.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Missile Gap of 1960-64, the most dangerous threat we face, Communism. Strength will bring survival and peace.
> 
> 
> 
> And to reiterate, what is Kennedy's idea of talk and peace negotiations
> 
> 
> 
> WAR, WAR, WAR, WAR, WAR, WAR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So let us abandon the useless discussion of who can best "stand up to Khrushchev", or whether a "hard" or "soft" line is preferable. Our task is to rebuild our strength, and the strength of the free world - to prove to the Soviets that time and the course of history are not on their side, that the balance of world power is not shifting their way - and that therefore peaceful settlement is essential to mutual survival. Our task is to devise a national strategy - based not on the 11th hour responses to Soviet created crises, but a comprehensive set of carefully prepared, long-term policies designed to increase the strength of the non-communist world. Until this task is accomplished, there is no point in returning to the Summit - for no President of the United States must ever again be put in the position of traveling across the seas, armed only with vague, speculative hopes, in order to provide an occasion for public humiliation. And unless this task is accomplished - as we move into the most critical period in our nation's history since that bleak winter at Valley Forge - our national security, our survival itself, will be in peril.
> The hour is late - but the agenda is long
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For all America - its President and its people - the coming years will be a time of decision. We must decide whether we have reached our limit - whether our greatness is past - whether we can go no further - or whether, in the words of Thomas Wolfe, "the true discovery of America is before us ... the true fulfillment of our mighty and immortal land is yet to come."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just the first speech, a few pages, and I cut a lot out but nothing that changes what I quoted. Kennedy faced a dangerous world and was prepared to do more than talk. I guess people forget we were at war with Russia, its called the cold war because it was a new kind of war, one in which we had to win, as articulated by Kennedy.
> 
> Next I will skip to Kennedy's chapter on Vietnam, written before he was president.
Click to expand...


What you are reading is posturing, bellicose campaign rhetoric and most of all, campaigning for president. It was done for the purpose of WINNING the 1960 election. It is explained perfectly in this article.


John F. Kennedy's loyal White House aides, Kenneth O'Donnell and Dave Powers, titled their 1972 J.F.K. memoir Johnny, We Hardly Knew Yedespite the fact that they had served him since his days as a scrawny young congressional candidate in Boston. So it's no surprise that Americans are still trying to figure out nearly half a century after his abbreviated presidency who Jack Kennedy really was. Was he a cold war hawk, as much of the history establishment, Washington pundit class and presidential hopefuls of both partieseager to lay claim to his mantle of muscular leadershiphave insisted over the years? Or was he a man ahead of his time, a peace-minded visionary trying to untie the nuclear knot that held hostage the U.S. and the Soviet Unionand the rest of the world?

As the U.S. once again finds itself in an endless warthis time against terror, or perhaps against fear itselfthe question of Kennedy's true legacy seems particularly loaded. What is the best way for America to navigate through a world where its enemies seem everywhere and nowhere at the same time? What can we learn from the way Kennedy was trying to redefine the U.S. role in the world and to invite Americans to be part of that change? Who was the real John Fitzgerald Kennedy?

The conundrum begins with Kennedy himself, a politically complex man whose speeches often brandished arrows as well as olive branches. This seemingly contradictory message was vividly communicated in J.F.K.'s famous Inaugural Address. While Kennedy vowed the nation "would pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty"aggressive rhetoric that would fit right in with George W. Bush's presidencythe young leader also dispensed with the usual Soviet bashing of his time and invited our enemy to join us in a new "quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all of humanity." It would be hard to imagine the current occupant of the White House extending the same offer to Islamic jihadists or Iran's leaders.

Young Jack Kennedy developed a deep, visceral disgust for war because of hisand his family'sexperiences in it. "All war is stupid," he wrote home from his PT boat in the Pacific battleground of World War II. That war destroyed the family's sense of godlike invincibility. His older brother Joea Navy pilotdied in a fiery explosion over the English Channel after volunteering for a high-risk mission, and the young husband of "Kick" Kennedy, J.F.K.'s beloved sister, was also killed. As Jack wrote to Claiborne Pell in 1947, the war had simply "savaged" his family. "It turned my father and brothers and sisters and I upside down and sucked all the oxygen out of our smug and comfortable assumptions... Now, after all that we experienced and lost in the war, we finally understand that there is nothing inevitable about us."

But Kennedy and his brothers were also bred to be winners by their fatherto never accept defeat. And when he entered the 1960 presidential campaign against Richard Nixon, one of the dirtiest fighters in the American political arena, he was prepared to do whatever it took to prevail. At the height of the cold war, that meant positioning himself as even more of a hawk than his Republican opponent. Kennedy had no interest in becoming another Adlai Stevensonthe high-minded liberal who was easily defeated in back-to-back elections by war hero Dwight Eisenhower. J.F.K. was determined not to be turned into a weakling on defense, a punching bag for two-fisted GOP rhetoric. So he outflanked Nixon, warning that the country was falling behind Russia in the nuclear arms race and turning "the missile gap" into a major campaign theme. Kennedy also championed the cause of Cuban "freedom fighters" in their crusade to take back the island from Fidel Castro's newly victorious regime. Liberal Kennedy supporters, such as Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, were worried that J.F.K. would later pay a price for this bellicose campaign rhetoric. But Kennedy's tough posture helped secure him a wafer-thin victory on Election Day.

Read more: The Lessons of J.F.K. - Warrior For Peace - TIME

"War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."
John F. Kennedy


----------



## mdn2000

Bfgrn said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Strategy of Peace, by Kennedy, 1960
> 
> That is my reference, I have my copy hear, I must type to quote, so much will be left out, like a whole book. Its mostly speeches given by Kennedy as a Senator. I can use the book to find some stuff online so when I can I will find it online and link to/quote.
> 
> Kennedy begins his book with a speech to congress, slipped in after it went to the publisher, hence we can conclude Kennedy wanted the public to know Kennedy's motives.
> 
> Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy in the Senate, June 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For on May 17, 1960, the long-awaited, highly publicized Summit Conference collapsed. That collapse was the direct result of Soviet determination to destroy the talks. The insults and distortions of Mr. Khrushchev - the violence of his attacks - shocked all Americans and united the country in admiration for the dignity and self-control of President Eisenhower. Regardless of party, all of us deeply resented Russian abuse of this nation and its President - and all of us shared a common disappointment at the failure of the conference. But it is imperative, nevertheless, that we as a nation rise above our resentment and frustration to a critical re-examination of the events at Paris and their meaning for America.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So I am hacking this great speech, too much for one post. Liberal or Conservative, who was Kennedy. Kennedy was shaped by the times he lived and Kennedy articulated that danger as the USSR and Communism. Here Kennedy is clear, strength leads to peace. Kennedy is determined to win. Not retreat. Words will only work if your strong.
> 
> 
> 
> The Missile Gap of 1960-64, the most dangerous threat we face, Communism. Strength will bring survival and peace.
> 
> 
> 
> And to reiterate, what is Kennedy's idea of talk and peace negotiations
> 
> 
> 
> WAR, WAR, WAR, WAR, WAR, WAR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> For all America - its President and its people - the coming years will be a time of decision. We must decide whether we have reached our limit - whether our greatness is past - whether we can go no further - or whether, in the words of Thomas Wolfe, "the true discovery of America is before us ... the true fulfillment of our mighty and immortal land is yet to come."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just the first speech, a few pages, and I cut a lot out but nothing that changes what I quoted. Kennedy faced a dangerous world and was prepared to do more than talk. I guess people forget we were at war with Russia, its called the cold war because it was a new kind of war, one in which we had to win, as articulated by Kennedy.
> 
> Next I will skip to Kennedy's chapter on Vietnam, written before he was president.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What you are reading is posturing, bellicose campaign rhetoric and most of all, campaigning for president. It was done for the purpose of WINNING the 1960 election. It is explained perfectly in this article.
> 
> 
> John F. Kennedy's loyal White House aides, Kenneth O'Donnell and Dave Powers, titled their 1972 J.F.K. memoir Johnny, We Hardly Knew Ye&#8212;despite the fact that they had served him since his days as a scrawny young congressional candidate in Boston. So it's no surprise that Americans are still trying to figure out nearly half a century after his abbreviated presidency who Jack Kennedy really was. Was he a cold war hawk, as much of the history establishment, Washington pundit class and presidential hopefuls of both parties&#8212;eager to lay claim to his mantle of muscular leadership&#8212;have insisted over the years? Or was he a man ahead of his time, a peace-minded visionary trying to untie the nuclear knot that held hostage the U.S. and the Soviet Union&#8212;and the rest of the world?
> 
> As the U.S. once again finds itself in an endless war&#8212;this time against terror, or perhaps against fear itself&#8212;the question of Kennedy's true legacy seems particularly loaded. What is the best way for America to navigate through a world where its enemies seem everywhere and nowhere at the same time? What can we learn from the way Kennedy was trying to redefine the U.S. role in the world and to invite Americans to be part of that change? Who was the real John Fitzgerald Kennedy?
> 
> The conundrum begins with Kennedy himself, a politically complex man whose speeches often brandished arrows as well as olive branches. This seemingly contradictory message was vividly communicated in J.F.K.'s famous Inaugural Address. While Kennedy vowed the nation "would pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty"&#8212;aggressive rhetoric that would fit right in with George W. Bush's presidency&#8212;the young leader also dispensed with the usual Soviet bashing of his time and invited our enemy to join us in a new "quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all of humanity." It would be hard to imagine the current occupant of the White House extending the same offer to Islamic jihadists or Iran's leaders.
> 
> Young Jack Kennedy developed a deep, visceral disgust for war because of his&#8212;and his family's&#8212;experiences in it. "All war is stupid," he wrote home from his PT boat in the Pacific battleground of World War II. That war destroyed the family's sense of godlike invincibility. His older brother Joe&#8212;a Navy pilot&#8212;died in a fiery explosion over the English Channel after volunteering for a high-risk mission, and the young husband of "Kick" Kennedy, J.F.K.'s beloved sister, was also killed. As Jack wrote to Claiborne Pell in 1947, the war had simply "savaged" his family. "It turned my father and brothers and sisters and I upside down and sucked all the oxygen out of our smug and comfortable assumptions... Now, after all that we experienced and lost in the war, we finally understand that there is nothing inevitable about us."
> 
> But Kennedy and his brothers were also bred to be winners by their father&#8212;to never accept defeat. And when he entered the 1960 presidential campaign against Richard Nixon, one of the dirtiest fighters in the American political arena, he was prepared to do whatever it took to prevail. At the height of the cold war, that meant positioning himself as even more of a hawk than his Republican opponent. Kennedy had no interest in becoming another Adlai Stevenson&#8212;the high-minded liberal who was easily defeated in back-to-back elections by war hero Dwight Eisenhower. J.F.K. was determined not to be turned into a weakling on defense, a punching bag for two-fisted GOP rhetoric. So he outflanked Nixon, warning that the country was falling behind Russia in the nuclear arms race and turning "the missile gap" into a major campaign theme. Kennedy also championed the cause of Cuban "freedom fighters" in their crusade to take back the island from Fidel Castro's newly victorious regime. Liberal Kennedy supporters, such as Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, were worried that J.F.K. would later pay a price for this bellicose campaign rhetoric. But Kennedy's tough posture helped secure him a wafer-thin victory on Election Day.
> 
> Read more: The Lessons of J.F.K. - Warrior For Peace - TIME
> 
> "War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."
> John F. Kennedy
Click to expand...


The book came out after the election, not before. hence the books purpose was to explain Kennedy's foreign policy. 

That the book contained speeches that Kennedy wanted identified with Kennedy's foreign policy shows Kennedy's consistent position for his entire career as a senator, 1946 to 1960.

Lame try.


----------



## Two Thumbs

Dante said:


> *President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)*
> 
> I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:
> 
> "What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean..._*someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties*_...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]
> 
> - Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum
> 
> ---
> 
> "Tonight *we salute George Meany* as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight *we salute Adlai Stevenson* as an eloquent spokesman..."
> 
> - A Liberal Definition by JFK
> 
> ---
> 
> as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.
> 
> What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?
> 
> They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.
> 
> If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.



"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."

That's very conservative.

He also spent big on the military
Started a war that we truly had no business being in.
He cheated on his wife. (it was Monroe, so I can't hold that against him to much)
He family made money of the illegal trade in alcohol.
His Dad wanted Germany to crush England.

yeah, come to think of it, you can keep this warmongering evil capatalist adulterer.


----------



## Bfgrn

mdn2000 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Strategy of Peace, by Kennedy, 1960
> 
> That is my reference, I have my copy hear, I must type to quote, so much will be left out, like a whole book. Its mostly speeches given by Kennedy as a Senator. I can use the book to find some stuff online so when I can I will find it online and link to/quote.
> 
> Kennedy begins his book with a speech to congress, slipped in after it went to the publisher, hence we can conclude Kennedy wanted the public to know Kennedy's motives.
> 
> Remarks of Senator John F. Kennedy in the Senate, June 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum
> 
> 
> 
> So I am hacking this great speech, too much for one post. Liberal or Conservative, who was Kennedy. Kennedy was shaped by the times he lived and Kennedy articulated that danger as the USSR and Communism. Here Kennedy is clear, strength leads to peace. Kennedy is determined to win. Not retreat. Words will only work if your strong.
> 
> 
> 
> The Missile Gap of 1960-64, the most dangerous threat we face, Communism. Strength will bring survival and peace.
> 
> 
> 
> And to reiterate, what is Kennedy's idea of talk and peace negotiations
> 
> 
> 
> WAR, WAR, WAR, WAR, WAR, WAR
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Just the first speech, a few pages, and I cut a lot out but nothing that changes what I quoted. Kennedy faced a dangerous world and was prepared to do more than talk. I guess people forget we were at war with Russia, its called the cold war because it was a new kind of war, one in which we had to win, as articulated by Kennedy.
> 
> Next I will skip to Kennedy's chapter on Vietnam, written before he was president.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What you are reading is posturing, bellicose campaign rhetoric and most of all, campaigning for president. It was done for the purpose of WINNING the 1960 election. It is explained perfectly in this article.
> 
> 
> John F. Kennedy's loyal White House aides, Kenneth O'Donnell and Dave Powers, titled their 1972 J.F.K. memoir Johnny, We Hardly Knew Yedespite the fact that they had served him since his days as a scrawny young congressional candidate in Boston. So it's no surprise that Americans are still trying to figure out nearly half a century after his abbreviated presidency who Jack Kennedy really was. Was he a cold war hawk, as much of the history establishment, Washington pundit class and presidential hopefuls of both partieseager to lay claim to his mantle of muscular leadershiphave insisted over the years? Or was he a man ahead of his time, a peace-minded visionary trying to untie the nuclear knot that held hostage the U.S. and the Soviet Unionand the rest of the world?
> 
> As the U.S. once again finds itself in an endless warthis time against terror, or perhaps against fear itselfthe question of Kennedy's true legacy seems particularly loaded. What is the best way for America to navigate through a world where its enemies seem everywhere and nowhere at the same time? What can we learn from the way Kennedy was trying to redefine the U.S. role in the world and to invite Americans to be part of that change? Who was the real John Fitzgerald Kennedy?
> 
> The conundrum begins with Kennedy himself, a politically complex man whose speeches often brandished arrows as well as olive branches. This seemingly contradictory message was vividly communicated in J.F.K.'s famous Inaugural Address. While Kennedy vowed the nation "would pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty"aggressive rhetoric that would fit right in with George W. Bush's presidencythe young leader also dispensed with the usual Soviet bashing of his time and invited our enemy to join us in a new "quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all of humanity." It would be hard to imagine the current occupant of the White House extending the same offer to Islamic jihadists or Iran's leaders.
> 
> Young Jack Kennedy developed a deep, visceral disgust for war because of hisand his family'sexperiences in it. "All war is stupid," he wrote home from his PT boat in the Pacific battleground of World War II. That war destroyed the family's sense of godlike invincibility. His older brother Joea Navy pilotdied in a fiery explosion over the English Channel after volunteering for a high-risk mission, and the young husband of "Kick" Kennedy, J.F.K.'s beloved sister, was also killed. As Jack wrote to Claiborne Pell in 1947, the war had simply "savaged" his family. "It turned my father and brothers and sisters and I upside down and sucked all the oxygen out of our smug and comfortable assumptions... Now, after all that we experienced and lost in the war, we finally understand that there is nothing inevitable about us."
> 
> But Kennedy and his brothers were also bred to be winners by their fatherto never accept defeat. And when he entered the 1960 presidential campaign against Richard Nixon, one of the dirtiest fighters in the American political arena, he was prepared to do whatever it took to prevail. At the height of the cold war, that meant positioning himself as even more of a hawk than his Republican opponent. Kennedy had no interest in becoming another Adlai Stevensonthe high-minded liberal who was easily defeated in back-to-back elections by war hero Dwight Eisenhower. J.F.K. was determined not to be turned into a weakling on defense, a punching bag for two-fisted GOP rhetoric. So he outflanked Nixon, warning that the country was falling behind Russia in the nuclear arms race and turning "the missile gap" into a major campaign theme. Kennedy also championed the cause of Cuban "freedom fighters" in their crusade to take back the island from Fidel Castro's newly victorious regime. Liberal Kennedy supporters, such as Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, were worried that J.F.K. would later pay a price for this bellicose campaign rhetoric. But Kennedy's tough posture helped secure him a wafer-thin victory on Election Day.
> 
> Read more: The Lessons of J.F.K. - Warrior For Peace - TIME
> 
> "War will exist until that distant day when the conscientious objector enjoys the same reputation and prestige that the warrior does today."
> John F. Kennedy
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The book came out after the election, not before. hence the books purpose was to explain Kennedy's foreign policy.
> 
> That the book contained speeches that Kennedy wanted identified with Kennedy's foreign policy shows Kennedy's consistent position for his entire career as a senator, 1946 to 1960.
> 
> Lame try.
Click to expand...


What is lame is placing any significance on your book's date of publishing. Kennedy MADE the speeches BEFORE the election for a specific person. To outflank the right and win the election. It was Machiavellian. Did you have the courtesy to even READ the excerpt I posted? 

Here's a snippet:

And when he entered the 1960 presidential campaign against Richard Nixon, one of the dirtiest fighters in the American political arena, he was prepared to do whatever it took to prevail. At the height of the cold war, that meant positioning himself as even more of a hawk than his Republican opponent. Kennedy had no interest in becoming another Adlai Stevensonthe high-minded liberal who was easily defeated in back-to-back elections by war hero Dwight Eisenhower. J.F.K. was determined not to be turned into a weakling on defense, a punching bag for two-fisted GOP rhetoric. So he outflanked Nixon, warning that the country was falling behind Russia in the nuclear arms race and turning "the missile gap" into a major campaign theme. Kennedy also championed the cause of Cuban "freedom fighters" in their crusade to take back the island from Fidel Castro's newly victorious regime. Liberal Kennedy supporters, such as Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, were worried that J.F.K. would later pay a price for this bellicose campaign rhetoric. But Kennedy's tough posture helped secure him a wafer-thin victory on Election Day.


----------



## mdn2000

Bfgrn said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> What you are reading is posturing, bellicose campaign rhetoric and most of all, campaigning for president. It was done for the purpose of WINNING the 1960 election. It is explained perfectly in this article.
> 
> 
> y
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The book came out after the election, not before. hence the books purpose was to explain Kennedy's foreign policy.
> 
> That the book contained speeches that Kennedy wanted identified with Kennedy's foreign policy shows Kennedy's consistent position for his entire career as a senator, 1946 to 1960.
> 
> Lame try.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is lame is placing any significance on your book's date of publishing. Kennedy MADE the speeches BEFORE the election for a specific person. To outflank the right and win the election. It was Machiavellian. Did you have the courtesy to even READ the excerpt I posted?
> 
> Here's a snippet:
> 
> And when he entered the 1960 presidential campaign against Richard Nixon, one of the dirtiest fighters in the American political arena, he was prepared to do whatever it took to prevail. At the height of the cold war, that meant positioning himself as even more of a hawk than his Republican opponent. Kennedy had no interest in becoming another Adlai Stevensonthe high-minded liberal who was easily defeated in back-to-back elections by war hero Dwight Eisenhower. J.F.K. was determined not to be turned into a weakling on defense, a punching bag for two-fisted GOP rhetoric. So he outflanked Nixon, warning that the country was falling behind Russia in the nuclear arms race and turning "the missile gap" into a major campaign theme. Kennedy also championed the cause of Cuban "freedom fighters" in their crusade to take back the island from Fidel Castro's newly victorious regime. Liberal Kennedy supporters, such as Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, were worried that J.F.K. would later pay a price for this bellicose campaign rhetoric. But Kennedy's tough posture helped secure him a wafer-thin victory on Election Day.
Click to expand...


Sorry, I will have to take the word of the President. I have an entire book of his speeches, we all know Kennedy fought in WW II, in the Navy, in danger on a PT boat. So we are expected to believe Kennedy did not understand the threat of Communism. The Communist took East Berlin, Poland, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, how many other countries, and we are to believe Kennedy did not fight the Cold war, the speeches were merely for the campaign. Kennedy went to war in Vietnam to fight Communist, Kennedy was not leaving until South Vietnam was secure, had an army, capable of destroying the Communist, Kennedy risked nuclear war over missiles in Cuba, and I am to believe a link over Kennedy's own words and actions.

Sorry, what you quoted makes no sense, contradictory to Kennedy's own words and actions.


----------



## Bfgrn

mdn2000 said:


> Bfgrn said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> The book came out after the election, not before. hence the books purpose was to explain Kennedy's foreign policy.
> 
> That the book contained speeches that Kennedy wanted identified with Kennedy's foreign policy shows Kennedy's consistent position for his entire career as a senator, 1946 to 1960.
> 
> Lame try.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is lame is placing any significance on your book's date of publishing. Kennedy MADE the speeches BEFORE the election for a specific person. To outflank the right and win the election. It was Machiavellian. Did you have the courtesy to even READ the excerpt I posted?
> 
> Here's a snippet:
> 
> And when he entered the 1960 presidential campaign against Richard Nixon, one of the dirtiest fighters in the American political arena, he was prepared to do whatever it took to prevail. At the height of the cold war, that meant positioning himself as even more of a hawk than his Republican opponent. Kennedy had no interest in becoming another Adlai Stevensonthe high-minded liberal who was easily defeated in back-to-back elections by war hero Dwight Eisenhower. J.F.K. was determined not to be turned into a weakling on defense, a punching bag for two-fisted GOP rhetoric. So he outflanked Nixon, warning that the country was falling behind Russia in the nuclear arms race and turning "the missile gap" into a major campaign theme. Kennedy also championed the cause of Cuban "freedom fighters" in their crusade to take back the island from Fidel Castro's newly victorious regime. Liberal Kennedy supporters, such as Harvard economist John Kenneth Galbraith, were worried that J.F.K. would later pay a price for this bellicose campaign rhetoric. But Kennedy's tough posture helped secure him a wafer-thin victory on Election Day.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Sorry, I will have to take the word of the President. I have an entire book of his speeches, we all know Kennedy fought in WW II, in the Navy, in danger on a PT boat. So we are expected to believe Kennedy did not understand the threat of Communism. The Communist took East Berlin, Poland, Bulgaria, Yugoslavia, how many other countries, and we are to believe Kennedy did not fight the Cold war, the speeches were merely for the campaign. Kennedy went to war in Vietnam to fight Communist, Kennedy was not leaving until South Vietnam was secure, had an army, capable of destroying the Communist, Kennedy risked nuclear war over missiles in Cuba, and I am to believe a link over Kennedy's own words and actions.
> 
> Sorry, what you quoted makes no sense, contradictory to Kennedy's own words and actions.
Click to expand...


You have a right to your opinion, but not your own facts. Let's not loose sight of what we are debating; if President Kennedy had lived, would he have taken us down the same road as LBJ did in Vietnam. The answer is no. And his words did not match his actions. 

Yes, Jack Kennedy fought in WWII, but it was not against communism. And like most men who saw battle and witnessed the human carnage, he detested war and viewed it with disgust. He considered war the scourge of mankind. You say you believe JFK's word and actions, but his actions did not match his words. During the Bay of Pigs he refused to invade Cuba. During the Berlin Crisis he refused to take any military action when the Berlin Wall was constructed. During the Cuban missile crisis he again refused to invade Cuba against the advice of ALL the people around him. And he had issued an order to withdraw 1000 military advisers from Vietnam by the end of 1963 and intimated to more than one adviser he planned to withdraw AFTER he won reelection in 1964.

I was alive and old enough to remember, Vietnam was a non issue until a couple years after JFK's assassination. LBJ and LBJ alone is responsible for the escalation in Vietnam.

Kennedy's policy in Vietnam was very similar to Eisenhower's and NOTHING like LBJ's.

Vietnam War casualties

USA
By Year

	19561964 	401
	1965 	1,863
	1966 	6,143
	1967 	11,153
	1968 	16,592
	1969 	11,616
	1970 	6,081
	1971 	2,357
	1972 	641
	1973 	168
	19741998 	1178

It is now common knowledge that the 'missile gap' Kennedy created during the '60 campaign didn't exist. It was a deliberate fabrication, along with his bellicose rhetoric to turn the tables on the GOP and make them look like the weaker party on defense. Back then as today. the GOP was 'perceived' to be stronger on defense and military issues. The Democrats were thumped in '52 and '56 in their bid for the White House. JFK was not going to be another Adlai Stevenson.


----------



## mdn2000

Gaither Committee, that is were the Missile Gap theory or analysis came from, under Eisenhower.

So what is your perception on Kennedy's position fighting Communism. 

As far as pulling troops out of Vietnam, I went through that in this thread, Kennedy did not issue an order withdrawing troops.

The White House or Department of Defense most certainly had a plan of action to withdraw troops, just as the Pentagon has a battle plan for war against just about every country in the world, having a plan and taking action are two very different things. 

Of course Kennedy discussed troop withdrawal, just as Kennedy had a plan to send more troops, all conditional on the security of South Vietnam. All dependent on defeat of Communism. 

Whatever is stated about Kennedy's supposed troop withdrawal, Kennedy increased military personal from around a 1000-10000 and specifically stated soldiers may be sent. Kennedy did send the Green Berets, around 500. Hell, it was during Kennedy's time that Robin Moore went to Vietnam and thus wrote the book "The Green Beret". The Green Beret became the basis for the John Wayne movie of the same name.

H-Net Reviews



> Joseph G. Morgan. The Vietnam Lobby: The American Friends of Vietnam, 1955-1975. Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press, 1997. xviii + 229 pp. $39.95 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-8078-2322-4





> The AFV initially included anti-Communists from across the American political spectrum, not just conservatives but liberals like Senators John F. Kennedy and Mike Mansfield, and even Norman Thomas, head of the American Socialist Party. Joseph Buttinger, an Austrian immigrant who still held some of the socialist views of his youth, and who went to South Vietnam in 1954 to aid refugees from North Vietnam, had more than anyone else been the founder of the organization. By the mid to late 1960s the socialists and liberals had mostly dropped out, and the AFV shifted to the Right.


----------



## Dante

Two Thumbs said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)*
> 
> I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:
> 
> "What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean..._*someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties*_...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]
> 
> - Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum
> 
> ---
> 
> "Tonight *we salute George Meany* as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight *we salute Adlai Stevenson* as an eloquent spokesman..."
> 
> - A Liberal Definition by JFK
> 
> ---
> 
> as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.
> 
> What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?
> 
> They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.
> 
> If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
> 
> That's very conservative.
Click to expand...


no, that's very liberal. 

The Peace Corp was not a selfish conservative greed program. 

Liberalism made America great. Conservatism has sold America out to the highest bidder.

JFK himself defined himself as a liberal, yet shitheads like you imagine that if you shout a lie enough times, it may become truth.

sadly for you, JFK called himself a liberal.


----------



## Liability

Dante said:


> * * * *
> 
> JFK himself defined himself as a liberal, yet shitheads like you imagine that if you shout a lie enough times, it may become truth.
> 
> sadly for you, JFK called himself a liberal.



It is neither sad (nor particularly true) nor is it relevant.

He could have, theoretically, called himself a fucking *Jelly Donut.*  But *that doesn't mean you'd want to eat him.*

Well, maybe YOU would.

Dainty to JFK:  "Oh my, Mr. President!  Cream filling came squirting out!"


----------



## Dante

poor lie-ability, still hard for Dante?

_
tsk, tsk, tsk, a closeted gay troll scorned. _


----------



## Liability

Dante said:


> poor lie-ability, still hard for Dante?
> 
> _
> tsk, tsk, tsk, a closeted gay troll scorned. _



Dainty fevah!  Dainty is the only one who ever "got it."

It's probably just syphilis, Dainty.  See a doctor, ya quiff.


----------



## Bfgrn

mdn2000 said:


> Gaither Committee, that is were the Missile Gap theory or analysis came from, under Eisenhower.
> 
> So what is your perception on Kennedy's position fighting Communism.
> 
> As far as pulling troops out of Vietnam, I went through that in this thread, Kennedy did not issue an order withdrawing troops.
> 
> The White House or Department of Defense most certainly had a plan of action to withdraw troops, just as the Pentagon has a battle plan for war against just about every country in the world, having a plan and taking action are two very different things.
> 
> Of course Kennedy discussed troop withdrawal, just as Kennedy had a plan to send more troops, all conditional on the security of South Vietnam. All dependent on defeat of Communism.
> 
> Whatever is stated about Kennedy's supposed troop withdrawal, Kennedy increased military personal from around a 1000-10000 and specifically stated soldiers may be sent. Kennedy did send the Green Berets, around 500. Hell, it was during Kennedy's time that Robin Moore went to Vietnam and thus wrote the book "The Green Beret". The Green Beret became the basis for the John Wayne movie of the same name.
> 
> H-Net Reviews
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Joseph G. Morgan. The Vietnam Lobby: The American Friends of Vietnam, 1955-1975. Chapel Hill and London: University of North Carolina Press, 1997. xviii + 229 pp. $39.95 (cloth), ISBN 978-0-8078-2322-4
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The AFV initially included anti-Communists from across the American political spectrum, not just conservatives but liberals like Senators John F. Kennedy and Mike Mansfield, and even Norman Thomas, head of the American Socialist Party. Joseph Buttinger, an Austrian immigrant who still held some of the socialist views of his youth, and who went to South Vietnam in 1954 to aid refugees from North Vietnam, had more than anyone else been the founder of the organization. By the mid to late 1960s the socialists and liberals had mostly dropped out, and the AFV shifted to the Right.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


National Security Memorandum No. 263, 11 October 1963

Source: The Pentagon Papers, Gravel Edition, Volume 2, pp. 769-770

October 11, 1963

NATIONAL SECURITY ACTION MEMORANDUM NO. 263

TO: Secretary of State
Secretary of Defense
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

SUBJECT: South Vietnam

At a meeting on October 5, 1963, the President considered the recommendations contained in the report of Secretary McNamara and General Taylor on their
mission to South Vietnam.

The President approved the military recommendations contained in Section I B (1-3) of the report, but directed that no formal announcement be made of the implementation of plans to withdraw 1,000 U.S. military personnel by the end of 1963.

After discussion of the remaining recommendations of the report, the President approved an instruction to Ambassador Lodge which is set forth in State Department telegram No. 534 to Saigon.

                                            McGeorge Bundy

Copy furnished:
Director of Central Intelligence
Administrator, Agency for International Development


Essay on NSAM's #263 and #273

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Kennedy's position fighting Communism...

Today's hawks like to claim J.F.K. as one of their heroes by pointing to his steep increase in defense spending and to defiant speeches like his June 1963 denunciation of communist tyranny in the shadow of the Berlin Wall. It is certainly true that Kennedy brought a new vigor to the global duel with the Soviet Union and its client governments. But it is also clear that Kennedy preferred to compete ideologically and economically with the communist system than engage with the enemy militarily. He was supremely confident that the advantages of the capitalist system would ultimately prevail, as long as a nuclear catastrophe could be avoided. In the final months of his Administration, J.F.K. even opened a secret peace channel to Castro, led by U.N. diplomat William Attwood. "He would have recognized Cuba," Milt Ebbins, a Hollywood crony of J.F.K.'s, says today. "He told me that if we recognize Cuba, they'll buy our refrigerators and toasters, and they'll end up kicking Castro out."

Kennedy often said he wanted his epitaph to be "He kept the peace." Even Khrushchev and Castro, Kennedy's toughest foreign adversaries, came to appreciate J.F.K.'s commitment to that goal. The roly-poly Soviet leader, clowning and growling, had thrown the young President off his game when they met at the Vienna summit in 1961. But after weathering storms like the Cuban missile crisis, the two leaders had settled into a mutually respectful quest for détente. When Khrushchev got the news from Dallas in November 1963, he broke down and sobbed in the Kremlin, unable to perform his duties for days. Despite his youth, Kennedy was a "real statesman," Khrushchev later wrote in his memoir, after he was pushed from power less than a year following J.F.K.'s death. If Kennedy had lived, he wrote, the two men could have brought peace to the world.

Castro too had come to see J.F.K. as an agent of change, despite their long and bitter jousting, declaring that Kennedy had the potential to become "the greatest President" in U.S. history. Tellingly, the Cuban leader never blamed the Kennedys for the numerous assassination attempts on him. Years later, when Bobby Kennedy's widow Ethel made a trip to Havana, she assured Castro that "Jack and Bobby had nothing to do with the plots to kill you." The tall, graying leaderwho had survived so long in part because of his network of informers in the U.S.looked down at her and said, "I know."

J.F.K. was slow to define his global vision, but under withering attacks from an increasingly energized right, he finally began to do so toward the end of his first year in office. Taking to the road in the fall of 1961, he told the American people why his efforts to extricate the world from the cold war's death grip made more sense than the right's militaristic solutions. On Nov. 16, Kennedy delivered a landmark speech at the University of Washington campus in Seattle. There was nothing "soft," he declared that day, about averting nuclear warAmerica showed its true strength by refraining from military force until all other avenues were exhausted. And then Kennedy made a remarkable acknowledgment about the limits of U.S. powerone that seemed to reject his Inaugural commitment to "oppose any foe" in the world. "We must face the fact that the United States is neither omnipotent nor omniscient, that we are only 6% of the world's population, that we cannot impose our will upon the other 94% of mankind, that we cannot right every wrong or reverse each adversity, and that therefore there cannot be an American solution to every world problem."

Sorensenthe young progressive raised in a pacifist, Unitarian household who helped write the speechcalls it today "one of Kennedy's great speeches on foreign policy." If J.F.K. had lived, he adds, "there is no doubt in my mind [that] we would have laid the groundwork for détente. The cold war would have ended much sooner than it did."

Kennedy reached another visionary pinnacle on June 10, 1963, wheneager to break the diplomatic deadlock with the Soviet Unionhe gave wing to the most poetic foreign policy speech of his life, a speech that would go down in history as the "Peace Speech." In this stirring address, J.F.K. would do something that no other President during the cold warand no American leader todaywould dare. He attempted to humanize our enemy. No matter how "profoundly repugnant" we might find our foes' ideology or system of government, he told the American public, they are stilllike ushuman beings. And then Kennedy launched into a passage of such sweeping eloquence and empathy for the Russian peoplethe enemy that a generation of Americans had been taught to fear and despisethat it still has the power to inspire. "We all inhabit this small planet. We all breathe the same air. We all cherish our children's future. And we are all mortal." The following month, the U.S. and the Soviet Union reached agreement on the Limited Test Ban Treaty, the first significant restraint put on the superpowers' doomsday arms race.

The speech that Kennedy was scheduled to deliver in Dallas on Nov. 22, 1963, was to strike a similar peace chord. It was a courageous address to give in the Texas city, a seething hotbed of anti-Kennedy passions. Dallas had voted for Nixon in 1960 by the widest margin of any major city. It was the base of far-right agitators like General Edwin Walker, who after being forced into retirement by the Kennedy Administration, had launched a national crusade against J.F.K.'s "defeatist" foreign policy and "socialistic" domestic agenda. The day of the President's Dallas motorcade, angry street posters and an ad in the Dallas Morning News accused J.F.K. of treason. But Kennedy was undeterred. This is what he planned to tell his audience at the Dallas Trade Mart that afternoon: The most effective way to demonstrate America's strength was not to threaten its enemies. It was to live up to the country's democratic ideals and "practice what it preaches about equal rights and social justice."


Read more: The Lessons of J.F.K. - Warrior for Peace - TIME


----------



## mdn2000

Bfgrn, I addressed National Security Action Memorandum 263, I posted a link to the complete document.

From this thread;



mdn2000 said:


> georgephillip said:
> 
> 
> 
> "In October 1963 he signed National Security Action Memorandum  263 calling for the withdrawal of 1,000 U. S. military troops from Vietnam by the end of the year and a total withdrawal by the end of 1965.[iii]
> 
> "All this he did while secretly engaging in negotiations with Khrushchev via the KGB , Norman Cousins, and Pope John XXIII , and with Castro through various intermediaries, one of whom was French Journalist Jean Daniel.
> 
> "In an interview with Daniel on October 24, 1963 Kennedy said, 'I approved the proclamation Fidel Castro made in the Sierra Maestra, when he justifiably called for justice and especially yearned to rid Cuba of corruption.  I will go even further: to some extent it is as though Batista was the incarnation of a number of sins on the part of the United States.  Now we will have to pay for those sins.  In the matter of the Batista regime, I am in agreement with the first Cuban revolutionaries.  That is perfectly clear.'
> 
> "Such sentiments were anathema, shall we say treasonous, to the CIA and top generals."
> 
> JFK and the Unspeakable...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chomsky students do not do their homework, Memorandum  263 did not call for the withdrawal of troops. Troops will stay, only advisors training the Vietnamese would be withdrawn once they were capable of continuing the war on their own.
> 
> Vietnam War: The Documents - 14
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2. The objectives of the United States with respect to the withdrawal of U.S. military personnel remain as stated in the White House statement of October 2, 1963.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So Georgy/Chomsky paraphrase Memo 263, no link when as we know Georgy/chomsky loves links. If you quote something you should link to it. Especially if you never read it.
> 
> Reading Memo 263 item 2 makes it clear one must read another statement to no what the policy is. Politics within the White House most likely move faster than these threads. What was the policy of Kennedy a minute before the bullet entered his brain, who knows.
> 
> U.S. Policy Statement on Vietnam, 1963
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Secretary [of Defense Robert S.] McNamara and General [Maxwell D.] Taylor reported to the President this morning and to the National Security Council this afternoon. Their report included a number of classified findings and recommendations which will be the subject of further review and action. Their basic presentation was endorsed by all members of the Security Council and the following statement of United States policy was approved by the President on the basis of recommendations received from them and from Ambassador [Henry Cabot] Lodge.
> 
> 1. The security of South Viet-Nam is a major interest of the United States as other free nations. We will adhere to our policy of working with the people and Government of South Viet-Nam to deny this country to communism and to suppress the externally stimulated and supported insurgency of the Viet Cong as promptly as possible. Effective performance in this undertaking is the central objective of our policy in South Viet-Nam.
> 
> 2. The military program in South Viet-Nam has made progress and is sound in principle, though improvements are being energetically sought.
> 
> 3. Major U.S. assistance in support of this military effort is needed only until the insurgency has been suppressed or until the national security forces of the Government of South Viet-Nam are capable of suppressing it.
> 
> Secretary McNamara and General Taylor reported their judgment that the major part of the U.S. military task can be completed by the end of 1965, although there may be a continuing requirement for a limited number of U.S. training personnel. They reported that by the end of this year, the U.S. program for training Vietnamese should have progressed to the point where 1,000 U.S. military personnel assigned to South Viet-Nam can be withdrawn.
> 
> 4. The political situation in South Viet-Nam remains deeply serious. The United States has made clear its continuing opposition to any repressive actions in South Viet-Nam. While such actions have not yet significantly affected the military effort, they could do so in the future.
> 
> 5. It remains the policy of the United States, in South Viet-Nam as in other parts of the world, to support the efforts of the people of that country to defeat aggression and to build a peaceful and free society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is the policy, at that second, for how long after considering everything Kennedy was doing, Kennedy was a military man, not like Liberals of today. I would have to say Kennedy is not a Liberal by today's definition.
> 
> Chomsky and his students count on the the conservatives to not be able to counter the arguments they present, they present heresy as fact. Why not just refer to the policy statement of Oct 2, 1963, its simple, Chomsky does not base his criticism on fact.
> 
> Memo 263 explicitly refers in item 2 that the White house policy statement of Oct. 2, 1963 stands as policy.
> 
> Do we need our university professors telling lies about history. Chomsky has no business in the classroom
Click to expand...


----------



## mdn2000

Dante said:


> Two Thumbs said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)*
> 
> I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:
> 
> "What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean..._*someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties*_...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]
> 
> - Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum
> 
> ---
> 
> "Tonight *we salute George Meany* as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight *we salute Adlai Stevenson* as an eloquent spokesman..."
> 
> - A Liberal Definition by JFK
> 
> ---
> 
> as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.
> 
> What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?
> 
> They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.
> 
> If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country."
> 
> That's very conservative.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> no, that's very liberal.
> 
> The Peace Corp was not a selfish conservative greed program.
> 
> Liberalism made America great. Conservatism has sold America out to the highest bidder.
> 
> JFK himself defined himself as a liberal, yet shitheads like you imagine that if you shout a lie enough times, it may become truth.
> 
> sadly for you, JFK called himself a liberal.
Click to expand...


I dont know much about JFK, I have much I am studying so no time to learn, I do know that JFK's greatest contribution to man was Nagasaki and Hiroshima.


----------



## xotoxi

Liberty said:


> How can you be so brain dead to not understand that it is better to teach a man to fish than to just give him fish.



Do you advocate that the Department of Education be responsible for teaching the fishing?

If you were a true conservative, you would say "It is better for a man to figure out how to fish on his own, then to be taught how to fish"


----------



## Liability

xotoxi said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> How can you be so brain dead to not understand that it is better to teach a man to fish than to just give him fish.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Do you advocate that the Department of Education be responsible for teaching the fishing?
> 
> If you were a true conservative, you would say "It is better for a man to figure out how to fish on his own, then to be taught how to fish"
Click to expand...


Wrong.  Conservatives  enthusiastically endorse education.  Conservatives merely challenge the notion that the job of educating youngsters is properly one granted to the Federal Government.


----------



## Dante

Liability said:


> Conservatives  enthusiastically endorse education.



tell that to children who are US Citizens with illegal parents.

They are still citizens and people like you would throw these children into the gutter.


----------



## Liability

Dante said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives  enthusiastically endorse education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tell that to children who are US Citizens with illegal parents.
> 
> They are still citizens and people like you would throw these children into the gutter.
Click to expand...


Another set of mindless Dainty lies.  You can't speak for me, douche bag.

First of all, I think all children here, *while here*, should get an education.  Secondly, I don't know of any other conservatives who would deny to the anchor kids an education either.

You making-up shit doesn't constitute legitimate basis for an "argument," piss-boi.


----------



## Dante

Liability said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives  enthusiastically endorse education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tell that to children who are US Citizens with illegal parents.
> 
> They are still citizens and people like you would throw these children into the gutter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another set of mindless Dainty lies.  You can't speak for me, douche bag.
> 
> First of all, I think all children here, *while here*, should get an education.  Secondly, I don't know of any other conservatives who would deny to the anchor kids an education either.
> 
> You making-up shit doesn't constitute legitimate basis for an "argument," piss-boi.
Click to expand...





The Lunatic Fringe @ USMB


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Dante said:


> JFK thought the Federal government had a responsibility in the areas of health, housing, schools, jobs, as well as civil rights.
> 
> JFK also praised ..._omg._..... union Bosses!!!



 Yeah, and his brother went after Hoffa with a passion and accused him of being a Communist.

JFK took us into a war we had no business being involved in so he'd have been more of a scourge to the left today than Bush is.

Oh and JFK cut taxes for (gasp!) the RICH!!!!


----------



## mdn2000

Dante said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives  enthusiastically endorse education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tell that to children who are US Citizens with illegal parents.
> 
> They are still citizens and people like you would throw these children into the gutter.
Click to expand...


Illegal Aliens get free education in California, scholarships are even given to 4th graders in public schools, as long as they are overcoming English as a second language. 

Further Illegal aliens are admitted to Universities without the scores required of legal students, all for free.

So where are kids not being educated.


----------



## Dante

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> JFK thought the Federal government had a responsibility in the areas of health, housing, schools, jobs, as well as civil rights.
> 
> JFK also praised ..._omg._..... union Bosses!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and his brother went after Hoffa with a passion and accused him of being a Communist.
> 
> JFK took us into a war we had no business being involved in so he'd have been more of a scourge to the left today than Bush is.
> 
> Oh and JFK cut taxes for (gasp!) the RICH!!!!
Click to expand...


History Lesson:

JFK's brother Bobby went after lots of corrupt nitwits and some undersving people too. It's called politics.

JFK escalated a war...a war Ike took us into. The anti-war movement on the left was no fan of JFK (fact).  (simpleminded theories have the anti-war movement representing the left or liberalism on all things)

JFK lowered the tax rates on wealth and closed loopholes -- the result being higher taxes on lots of wealth    D'oh!


----------



## Dante

mdn2000 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives  enthusiastically endorse education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tell that to children who are US Citizens with illegal parents.
> 
> They are still citizens and people like you would throw these children into the gutter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Illegal Aliens get free education in California, scholarships are even given to 4th graders in public schools, as long as they are overcoming English as a second language.
> 
> Further Illegal aliens are admitted to Universities without the scores required of legal students, all for free.
> 
> So where are kids not being educated.
Click to expand...


fact: in 2009 I took classes at a local city college along with low income illegals who were paying their own way because they were ineligible for grants


----------



## Liberty

Dante said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> tell that to children who are US Citizens with illegal parents.
> 
> They are still citizens and people like you would throw these children into the gutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal Aliens get free education in California, scholarships are even given to 4th graders in public schools, as long as they are overcoming English as a second language.
> 
> Further Illegal aliens are admitted to Universities without the scores required of legal students, all for free.
> 
> So where are kids not being educated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fact: in 2009 I took classes at a local city college along with low income illegals who were paying their own way because they were ineligible for grants
Click to expand...


Then you are an accessory to a crime. Good job.


----------



## whitehall

I think that's Bobby Kennedy's picture you have posted Dante.


----------



## Dante

Liberty said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal Aliens get free education in California, scholarships are even given to 4th graders in public schools, as long as they are overcoming English as a second language.
> 
> Further Illegal aliens are admitted to Universities without the scores required of legal students, all for free.
> 
> So where are kids not being educated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fact: in 2009 I took classes at a local city college along with low income illegals who were paying their own way because they were ineligible for grants
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Then you are an accessory to a crime. Good job.
Click to expand...


here's a good example of Tea Party Type Lunacy...


gawd, some people are dumber than shit.


----------



## Rousseau

Liberty said:


> The more I study the more I grow impatient with socialist welfare morons....
> 
> ...THEY ARE NEVER LONG TERM.
> 
> look at:
> france
> greece
> and now the UK
> 
> just for some recent examples.
> 
> Is that what you want? Rioting? Violence?
> 
> The liberals of today are nothing more than confused, insolent, and lazy people who want something for nothing, or openly want theft and violence committed against their fellow citizen at the threat of government force. And when you don't get your way? You attack the government. It is the liberals who are violent, the people who would rather earn nothing but have everything rather than earn everything themselves.
> 
> Makes me want to throw up my oatmeal to be honest. Get a fucking life.



My, you're quite sheltered. What a delicate, uneducated, ethnocentric little flower you are.

The more you "study"? Seriously? I think it's blatant you haven't "studied" shit from your comments, my homely friend. I grow impatient with aggressively ignorant claims like yours. Let me explain some things to you because I think you're entirely confused and seem to suffer from an almost childish view of how government works:

#1 To put it simply, Greece's economy failed because the Government failed to repay debts, resulting in low credit rating (literally every government has a credit rating, i.e. the U.S. is AAA).  When a government's rating is low it's debt becomes "junk" or "toxic" debt which makes it harder for that government to borrow further and continue. The IMF offered a bailout to which the people of Greece protested at first (now they really don't have much choice).

I'm actually really baffled as to why France and UK are on your list... maybe you can explain 

The UK students protests last month were against raising tuition fees and the Paris riots in October had to do with protests of a variety of government reforms including the raising of the pension age from 60 to 62.  From your comments it's almost as if you view the rioters as "socialists" and the governments as not.  These are nations which you may call "socialist", their governments would love to continue offering them these social services if they could do so, fiscally.

As for your moronic attempt at a rhetorical question:



Liberty said:


> Is that what you want? Rioting? Violence?


No, I don't think there's many people who want that, except maybe... well you know, Glenn Beck.

Moving on...

#2 Germany, a "socialist" democratic nation, do you have any idea how well they are doing in this economy? Perhaps you should "study" more, my homely friend.

#3 Every developed nation in the world has socialized health care available to all it's citizens, with the exception of the U.S.  So when you try to make an example of one "socialist" nation, really you should compare it to the rest of the developed world (since they're all "socialist" )

#4 It's worth noting that Bush Jr. increased Welfare spending 32% from Clinton (and overall federal spending 55%). Yes, that's right, a Republican allocated more federal money to Welfare than a Democrat, welcome to 21st century.


----------



## Dante

whitehall said:


> I think that's Bobby Kennedy's picture you have posted Dante.



soon to be taken down.

do you like the head shot?


----------



## TossObama

JFK was a monster who thought nothing of physically attacking the American people he disagreed with or thought he disagreed with.

That guy had goon squads he sent around the country attacking entire communities in America. He held the traditional northeast coast mentality that everyone else in the country was somehow backwards and simply chunks of meat that had to be destroyed. To him everyone was a racist -- which was a very convenient cover and excuse for his own racism. That guy was no good guy.


----------



## TossObama

Rousseau said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more I study the more I grow impatient with socialist welfare morons....
> 
> ...THEY ARE NEVER LONG TERM.
> 
> look at:
> france
> greece
> and now the UK
> 
> just for some recent examples.
> 
> Is that what you want? Rioting? Violence?
> 
> The liberals of today are nothing more than confused, insolent, and lazy people who want something for nothing, or openly want theft and violence committed against their fellow citizen at the threat of government force. And when you don't get your way? You attack the government. It is the liberals who are violent, the people who would rather earn nothing but have everything rather than earn everything themselves.
> 
> Makes me want to throw up my oatmeal to be honest. Get a fucking life.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My, you're quite sheltered. What a delicate, uneducated, ethnocentric little flower you are.
> 
> The more you "study"? Seriously? I think it's blatant you haven't "studied" shit from your comments, my homely friend. I grow impatient with aggressively ignorant claims like yours. Let me explain some things to you because I think you're entirely confused and seem to suffer from an almost childish view of how government works:
> 
> #1 To put it simply, Greece's economy failed because the Government failed to repay debts, resulting in low credit rating (literally every government has a credit rating, i.e. the U.S. is AAA).  When a government's rating is low it's debt becomes "junk" or "toxic" debt which makes it harder for that government to borrow further and continue. The IMF offered a bailout to which the people of Greece protested at first (now they really don't have much choice).
> 
> I'm actually really baffled as to why France and UK are on your list... maybe you can explain
> 
> The UK students protests last month were against raising tuition fees and the Paris riots in October had to do with protests of a variety of government reforms including the raising of the pension age from 60 to 62.  From your comments it's almost as if you view the rioters as "socialists" and the governments as not.  These are nations which you may call "socialist", their governments would love to continue offering them these social services if they could do so, fiscally.
> 
> As for your moronic attempt at a rhetorical question:
> 
> 
> 
> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> Is that what you want? Rioting? Violence?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I don't think there's many people who want that, except maybe... well you know, Glenn Beck.
> 
> Moving on...
> 
> #2 Germany, a "socialist" democratic nation, do you have any idea how well they are doing in this economy? Perhaps you should "study" more, my homely friend.
> 
> #3 Every developed nation in the world has socialized health care available to all it's citizens, with the exception of the U.S.  So when you try to make an example of one "socialist" nation, really you should compare it to the rest of the developed world (since they're all "socialist" )
> 
> #4 It's worth noting that Bush Jr. increased Welfare spending 32% from Clinton (and overall federal spending 55%). Yes, that's right, a Republican allocated more federal money to Welfare than a Democrat, welcome to 21st century.
Click to expand...


Folks, before you allow yourself to be manipulated by comments that Germany is such a great power, you might want to study some recent history to find out what they've been doing -- and who and what controls Germany.

It's money is NOT strong and Germany has gone to great lengths to pull a Madoff in the EU.

Atta way to go Berney and Barney.


----------



## MajinLink

German is one of the biggest economic powers in the world. If you deny this you are an idiot.


----------



## Bfgrn

TossObama said:


> JFK was a monster who thought nothing of physically attacking the American people he disagreed with or thought he disagreed with.
> 
> That guy had goon squads he sent around the country attacking entire communities in America. He held the traditional northeast coast mentality that everyone else in the country was somehow backwards and simply chunks of meat that had to be destroyed. To him everyone was a racist -- which was a very convenient cover and excuse for his own racism. That guy was no good guy.



That's why President Kennedy introduced what became the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A landmark piece of legislation in the United States that outlawed major forms of discrimination against blacks and women, including racial segregation.







President John F. Kennedy addresses the nation about Civil Rights on June 11, 1963

"The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated. If an American, because his skin is dark, cannot eat lunch in a restaurant open to the public, if he cannot send his children to the best public school available, if he cannot vote for the public officials who will represent him, if, in short, he cannot enjoy the full and free life which all of us want, then who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place? Who among us would then be content with the counsels of patience and delay?

One hundred years of delay have passed since President Lincoln freed the slaves, yet their heirs, their grandsons, are not fully free. They are not yet freed from the bonds of injustice. They are not yet freed from social and economic oppression. And this Nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free."


----------



## Dante

Bfgrn said:


> TossObama said:
> 
> 
> 
> JFK was a monster who thought nothing of physically attacking the American people he disagreed with or thought he disagreed with.
> 
> That guy had goon squads he sent around the country attacking entire communities in America. He held the traditional northeast coast mentality that everyone else in the country was somehow backwards and simply chunks of meat that had to be destroyed. To him everyone was a racist -- which was a very convenient cover and excuse for his own racism. That guy was no good guy.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's why President Kennedy introduced what became the Civil Rights Act of 1964. A landmark piece of legislation in the United States that outlawed major forms of discrimination against blacks and women, including racial segregation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> President John F. Kennedy addresses the nation about Civil Rights on June 11, 1963
> 
> "The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated. If an American, because his skin is dark, cannot eat lunch in a restaurant open to the public, if he cannot send his children to the best public school available, if he cannot vote for the public officials who will represent him, if, in short, he cannot enjoy the full and free life which all of us want, then who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place? Who among us would then be content with the counsels of patience and delay?
> 
> One hundred years of delay have passed since President Lincoln freed the slaves, yet their heirs, their grandsons, are not fully free. They are not yet freed from the bonds of injustice. They are not yet freed from social and economic oppression. And this Nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free."
Click to expand...


yeah. he sounds like a real conseravtive here, eh?


----------



## Dante

Liability said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> Conservatives  enthusiastically endorse education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> tell that to children who are US Citizens with illegal parents.
> 
> They are still citizens and people like you would throw these children into the gutter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Another set of mindless Dainty lies.  You can't speak for me, douche bag.
> 
> First of all, I think all children here, *while here*, should get an education.  Secondly, I don't know of any other conservatives who would deny to the anchor kids an education either.
> 
> You making-up shit doesn't constitute legitimate basis for an "argument," piss-boi.
Click to expand...


Lawmakers From 40 States Team Up to Stop 'Anchor Baby' Spike

Lawmakers From 40 States Team Up to Stop 'Anchor Baby' Spike


----------



## Dante

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> JFK thought the Federal government had a responsibility in the areas of health, housing, schools, jobs, as well as civil rights.
> 
> JFK also praised ..._omg._..... union Bosses!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and his brother went after Hoffa with a passion and accused him of being a Communist.
> 
> JFK took us into a war we had no business being involved in so he'd have been more of a scourge to the left today than Bush is.
> 
> Oh and JFK cut taxes for (gasp!) the RICH!!!!
Click to expand...


The Most Dangerous Man In Americaaniel Ellsberg - Veteran Veritas

Presidents Truman, Eissenhower (Ike), Kennedy, Johnson, and Nixon all lied about US involement in Vietnam. Kennedy lied and said we'd only need advisors, but it was Johnson and Nixon who escaltde the war with more combat troops and bombings.

Taz, I consider you one of the salvageable (as opposed to lost) trolls @ USMB. So here goes:

Daniel Ellsberg Documentary, The Most Dangerous Man in America, Premieres Tonight on PBS
by Michael Ellsberg on October 5, 2010

history is fascinating when ideological glasses come off.

have a good day


dD


----------



## konradv

Liberty said:


> so of you simply "care" about someone, you have to provide them with whatever that is?
> 
> That's fucked up.
> 
> How can you be so brain dead to not understand that it is better to teach a man to fish than to just give him fish.
> 
> People like you are a cancer.



What do you have against people's "health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties..."?  How about talking about what he actually said instead of putting words in someone else's mouth.  Schools and civil rights are a given.  The rest can just mean that people shouldn't be taken advantage of.  Teaching a man to fish is reasonable, but we're talking health care (everyone should be a doctor?), schools (everyone should be a self-educated educator?), housing (everyone should be able to build their own home?), jobs (everyone should be at the mercy of the whims of their employer?).   Libertarians are like the Marxists in a major respect.  Both philosophies require a basic change in human nature to work.  Marxism ignores the fact that when people don't see rewards for their efforts, they don't work as hard.  Libertarianism, the flip side of the coin, ignores the fact that, without enforcable regulation the strong will prey on the weak.


----------



## Dante

konradv said:


> Liberty said:
> 
> 
> 
> so of you simply "care" about someone, you have to provide them with whatever that is?
> 
> That's fucked up.
> 
> How can you be so brain dead to not understand that it is better to teach a man to fish than to just give him fish.
> 
> People like you are a cancer.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What do you have against people's "health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties..."?  How about talking about what he actually said instead of putting words in someone else's mouth.  Schools and civil rights are a given.  The rest can just mean that people shouldn't be taken advantage of.  Teaching a man to fish is reasonable, but we're talking health care (everyone should be a doctor?), schools (everyone should be a self-educated educator?), housing (everyone should be able to build their own home?), jobs (everyone should be at the mercy of the whims of their employer?).   Libertarians are like the Marxists in a major respect.  Both philosophies require a basic change in human nature to work.  Marxism ignores the fact that when people don't see rewards for their efforts, they don't work as hard.  Libertarianism, the flip side of the coin, ignores the fact that, without enforcable regulation the strong will prey on the weak.
Click to expand...


Liberty is fighting to be the House Moron @ USMB -- but the competition is stiff.


----------



## mdn2000

Dante said:


> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> tell that to children who are US Citizens with illegal parents.
> 
> They are still citizens and people like you would throw these children into the gutter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal Aliens get free education in California, scholarships are even given to 4th graders in public schools, as long as they are overcoming English as a second language.
> 
> Further Illegal aliens are admitted to Universities without the scores required of legal students, all for free.
> 
> So where are kids not being educated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> fact: in 2009 I took classes at a local city college along with low income illegals who were paying their own way because they were ineligible for grants
Click to expand...


Must be nice to be low income and afford College, sounds like a great school. I have personally seen forth graders given what the school called scholarships. One I remember was for overcoming English as a Second Language. Another sholarship given for being a good peer. I saved the pamphlet, pretty crazy. 

So people find it better to break our laws, work for our wages, and pay their way through college than to live in Mexico where education is free. 

Sounds like we have a pretty good system if it allows someone that much freedom

Of course I live in California so it may all have to do with what I see compared to what you see. I would eliminate grants completly, I would also eliminate all collecting of tutition at government run schools, let the employee of the government collect money and somehow a mistake is always made that is somehow the fault of everyone but the government employee. 

Anyhow, where was this school, Democrat or Republican country, I thing the example of Illegal Aleins being able to work through college is a fine example of nobody getting kicked to the curb, was this before Obama or after, who's policy allowed this, a man to work his way through school. 

Seems like if an illegal alein can work his way through college there is no need for a better off U.S. citizen to be unfairly subsidized. 

Illegal Aleins can work thier way through college yet we need grants and scholarships for better off, better educated, United States of America born citizens. 

That is rich.


----------



## Dante

mdn2000 said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> mdn2000 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Illegal Aliens get free education in California, scholarships are even given to 4th graders in public schools, as long as they are overcoming English as a second language.
> 
> Further Illegal aliens are admitted to Universities without the scores required of legal students, all for free.
> 
> So where are kids not being educated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> fact: in 2009 I took classes at a local city college along with low income illegals who were paying their own way because they were ineligible for grants
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Must be nice to be low income and afford College, sounds like a great school.
> 
> ...
Click to expand...


It's calld a helping hand...it's the American way.

go back to where your people come from if you don't like America. You complaining nincompoop


----------



## M14 Shooter

Dante said:


> *President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal.
> I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:
> *


*
:roll:

Everyone cares about the poor, sick, old, etc.

What we have here is a sompomoric attempt to gain the moral high ground by arguing that you can only care about those people if you subscribe to current liberal ideology.

This is, of course, nothing more than a strawman, and does nothing to illustrate that JFK would be a liberal/Democrat today.*


----------



## M14 Shooter

Dante said:


> "The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated. If an American, because his skin is dark, cannot eat lunch in a restaurant open to the public, if he cannot send his children to the best public school available, if he cannot vote for the public officials who will represent him, if, in short, he cannot enjoy the full and free life which all of us want, then who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place? Who among us would then be content with the counsels of patience and delay?
> 
> One hundred years of delay have passed since President Lincoln freed the slaves, yet their heirs, their grandsons, are not fully free. They are not yet freed from the bonds of injustice. They are not yet freed from social and economic oppression. And this Nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free."
> 
> 
> 
> yeah. he sounds like a real conseravtive here, eh?
Click to expand...

Which of these things do you think conservatives oppose?
Support your answer with substance.


----------



## Liability

JFK (Kennedy, not that pansy John Lurch Fn Kerry) was a conservative in some matters and a liberal in other matters.

True story.

I heard (reliable sources) that his last words were, "Gak!  Gaaakkkkxx,"


----------



## Dante

M14 Shooter said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal.
> I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> :roll:
> 
> Everyone cares about the poor, sick, old, etc.
> 
> What we have here is a sompomoric[sic] attempt to gain the moral high ground by arguing that you can only care about those people if you subscribe to current liberal ideology.
> 
> This is, of course, nothing more than a strawman[sic], and does nothing to illustrate that JFK would be a liberal/Democrat today.*
Click to expand...

*

learning to spell simple words like sompomoric[sic] correctly (sophomoric), would go a long way in establishing you as a character worth engaging. 

but today WE, are feeling generous. 

Everyone does not care the same about the old, the poor, the ill. Actions always speak louder than words...and you by your actions (what you choose to focus on as well as ignore in your arguments) have spoken loudly: you're a fool*


----------



## Dante

M14 Shooter said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "The heart of the question is whether all Americans are to be afforded equal rights and equal opportunities, whether we are going to treat our fellow Americans as we want to be treated. If an American, because his skin is dark, cannot eat lunch in a restaurant open to the public, if he cannot send his children to the best public school available, if he cannot vote for the public officials who will represent him, if, in short, he cannot enjoy the full and free life which all of us want, then who among us would be content to have the color of his skin changed and stand in his place? Who among us would then be content with the counsels of patience and delay?
> 
> One hundred years of delay have passed since President Lincoln freed the slaves, yet their heirs, their grandsons, are not fully free. They are not yet freed from the bonds of injustice. They are not yet freed from social and economic oppression. And this Nation, for all its hopes and all its boasts, will not be fully free until all its citizens are free."
> 
> 
> 
> yeah. he sounds like a real conseravtive[sic] here, eh?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Which of these things do you think conservatives oppose?
> Support your answer with substance.
Click to expand...


Conservative Southerners during the Civil Rights days of the 1950s/1960s, disagreed with Presidents Kennedy and Johnson, and disagreed with the liberal Democrats and liberal Republicans of those days.

It is this struggle between conservatives and liberals that led to the conservatives within the GOP welcoming with open arms the racist and bigoted conservative Southerners who helped the GOP win with it's disgraceful Southern Strategy.

USATODAY.com - GOP: 'We were wrong' to play racial politics

"Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," Mehlman said at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. "I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong." -Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman.


----------



## Liability

I wonder when the day might come when today's liberals are ashamed of how they are so busy these days always playing the race card?


----------



## Dante

Liability said:


> I wonder when the day might come when today's liberals are ashamed of how they are so busy these days always playing the race card?



USATODAY.com - GOP: 'We were wrong' to play racial politics

"Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," Mehlman said at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. "I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong." -Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman.







.


----------



## Liability

Dante said:


> Liability said:
> 
> 
> 
> I wonder when the day might come when today's liberals are ashamed of how they are so busy these days always playing the race card?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> USATODAY.com - GOP: 'We were wrong' to play racial politics
> 
> "Some Republicans gave up on winning the African-American vote, looking the other way or trying to benefit politically from racial polarization," Mehlman said at the annual convention of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People. "I am here today as the Republican chairman to tell you we were wrong." -Republican National Committee Chairman Ken Mehlman.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> .
Click to expand...


Yeah.  You already said that.  THEN, I wondered when the time might come when you liberals might come to feel any shame for YOUR playing of the race card so much THESE days?

Apparently, you folks will forever remain shameless, instead.

Or as President Kennedy said, famously, "Gak!  Gakkkkxxx!"


----------



## M14 Shooter

Dante said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> *President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal.
> I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:
> *
> 
> 
> 
> *
> :roll:
> 
> Everyone cares about the poor, sick, old, etc.
> 
> What we have here is a sompomoric[sic] attempt to gain the moral high ground by arguing that you can only care about those people if you subscribe to current liberal ideology.
> 
> This is, of course, nothing more than a strawman[sic], and does nothing to illustrate that JFK would be a liberal/Democrat today.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> *
> 
> learning to spell simple words like sompomoric[sic] correctly (sophomoric), would go a long way in establishing you as a character worth engaging.
> *
Click to expand...

*
Ah.   A Typo Nazi.
A sure indication that someone has nothing better to say.




			Everyone does not care the same about the old, the poor, the ill. Actions always speak louder than words...and you by your actions (what you choose to focus on as well as ignore in your arguments) have spoken loudly: you're a fool
		
Click to expand...

Thank you for proving me right.

*


----------



## Dante

M14 Shooter said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> :roll:
> 
> Everyone cares about the poor, sick, old, etc.
> 
> What we have here is a sompomoric[sic] attempt to gain the moral high ground by arguing that you can only care about those people if you subscribe to current liberal ideology.
> 
> This is, of course, nothing more than a strawman[sic], and does nothing to illustrate that JFK would be a liberal/Democrat today.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> learning to spell simple words like sompomoric[sic] correctly (sophomoric), would go a long way in establishing you as a character worth engaging.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah.   A Typo Nazi.
> A sure indication that someone has nothing better to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone does not care the same about the old, the poor, the ill. Actions always speak louder than words...and you by your actions (what you choose to focus on as well as ignore in your arguments) have spoken loudly: you're a fool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for proving me right.
Click to expand...


the only thing proven is what a fucking loser you are. go crawl back under your right wingnut rock, willya?


----------



## M14 Shooter

Dante said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> learning to spell simple words like sompomoric[sic] correctly (sophomoric), would go a long way in establishing you as a character worth engaging.
> 
> 
> 
> Ah.   A Typo Nazi.
> A sure indication that someone has nothing better to say.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Everyone does not care the same about the old, the poor, the ill. Actions always speak louder than words...and you by your actions (what you choose to focus on as well as ignore in your arguments) have spoken loudly: you're a fool
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for proving me right.
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> the only thing proven is what a fucking loser you are. go crawl back under your right wingnut rock, willya?
Click to expand...

Ah.   Ad homs.
Again, a sure indication that someone has nothing better to say.


----------



## Dante

M14 Shooter said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> Ah.   A Typo Nazi.
> A sure indication that someone has nothing better to say.
> 
> 
> Thank you for proving me right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> the only thing proven is what a fucking loser you are. go crawl back under your right wingnut rock, willya?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Ah.   Ad homs.
> Again, a sure indication that someone has nothing better to say.
Click to expand...


Nah, it's how 'we' deal with garden variety trolls who possess poor critical thinking skills.

good luck with your nightmare


----------



## M14 Shooter

Dante said:


> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> the only thing proven is what a fucking loser you are. go crawl back under your right wingnut rock, willya?
> 
> 
> 
> Ah.   Ad homs.
> Again, a sure indication that someone has nothing better to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, it's how 'we' deal with garden variety trolls who possess poor critical thinking skills.
Click to expand...

:roll:
Such as yourself?  Roger-roger.

When you think you can respond w/ any degree of substance, please be sure to let us know.  We will not hold our breaths.


----------



## Dante

Dante said:


> *President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)*
> 
> I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:
> 
> "What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean..._*someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties*_...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]
> 
> - Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum
> 
> ---
> 
> "Tonight *we salute George Meany* as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight *we salute Adlai Stevenson* as an eloquent spokesman..."
> 
> - A Liberal Definition by JFK
> 
> ---
> 
> as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.
> 
> What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?
> 
> They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.
> 
> If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.


----------



## Dante

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> JFK thought the Federal government had a responsibility in the areas of health, housing, schools, jobs, as well as civil rights.
> 
> JFK also praised ..._omg._..... union Bosses!!!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah, and his brother went after Hoffa with a passion and accused him of being a Communist.
> 
> JFK took us into a war we had no business being involved in so he'd have been more of a scourge to the left today than Bush is.
> 
> Oh and JFK cut taxes for (gasp!) the RICH!!!!
Click to expand...

gawd, you're were such a moron early on here.  Events taken out of context can paint any leader as pro or anti war and JFK's tax policy which was hotly debated within his administration was the opposite of supply-side tax breaks for the wealthy. Do you know this?.


----------



## Dante

M14 Shooter said:


> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> M14 Shooter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Dante said:
> 
> 
> 
> the only thing proven is what a fucking loser you are. go crawl back under your right wingnut rock, willya?
> 
> 
> 
> Ah.   Ad homs.
> Again, a sure indication that someone has nothing better to say.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nah, it's how 'we' deal with garden variety trolls who possess poor critical thinking skills.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> :roll:
> Such as yourself?  Roger-roger.
> 
> When you think you can respond w/ any degree of substance, please be sure to let us know.  We will not hold our breaths.
Click to expand...

On Dante's short list for top 10 most ironic posts on usmb


----------

