Democrats... Rejecting John F. Kennedy

[NYcarbineer]

Nowadays the Democratic Party would consider Kennedy a homophobic, right wing, bible thumping moron.


View attachment 40362

JFK would be a conservative in America today.

JFK would despise today's conservative movement. They are more batshit crazy than he had to deal with

Another dishonest post, if you think JFK was more like Obama or hillary then a Scott Walker or Ted Cruz you are fucking nuts

JFK fought for government provided healthcare. Does Scott Walker?

 

[Correll]

Kennedy and the 'welfare state':

Welfare

• Unemployment and welfare benefits were expanded.[27]
• In 1961, Social Security benefits were increased by 20% and provision for early retirement was introduced, enabling workers to retire at the age of sixty-two while receiving partial benefits.[28]
• The Social Security Amendments of 1961 permitted male workers to elect early retirement age 62, increased minimum benefits, liberalized the benefit payments to aged widow, widower, or surviving dependent parent, and also liberalized eligibility requirements and the retirement test.[29]
• The 1962 amendments to the Social Security Act authorized the federal government to reimburse states for the provision of social services.[30]
• The School Lunch Act was amended for authority to begin providing free meals in poverty-stricken areas.[5]
• A pilot food stamp program was launched (1961), covering six areas in the United States. In 1962, the program was extended to eighteen areas, feeding 240,000 people.[31]
• Various school lunch and school milk programs were extended, “enabling 700,000 more children to enjoy a hot school lunch and eighty-five thousand more schools, child care centers, and camps to receive fresh milk”.[31]
• ADC was extended to whole families (1961).[32]
• Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) replaced the Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) program, as coverage was extended to adults caring for dependent children.[31]
• A major revision of the public welfare laws was carried out, with a $300 million modernisation which emphasised rehabilitation instead of relief”.[6]
• A temporary antirecession supplement to unemployment compensation was introduced.[6]
• Food distribution to needy Americans was increased.[6] In January 1961, the first executive order issued by Kennedy mandated that the Department of Agriculture increase the quantity and variety of foods donated for needy households. This executive order represented a shift in the Commodity Distribution Programs’ primary purpose, from surplus disposal to that of providing nutritious foods to low-income households.[33]
• Social Security benefits were extended to an additional five million Americans.[27]
• The Self-Employed Individuals Tax Retirement Act (1962) provided self-employed people with a tax postponement for income set aside in qualified pension plans.[29]
• The Public Welfare Amendments of 1962 provided for greater Federal sharing in the cost of rehabilitative services to applicants, recipients, and persons likely to become applicants for public assistance. It increased the Federal share in the cost of public assistance payments, and permitted the States to combine the various categories into one category. The amendments also made permanent the 1961 amendment which extended aid to dependent children to cover children removed from unsuitable homes.[29]
• Federal funds were made available for the payment of foster care costs for AFDC-eligible children who had come into state custody.[34]
• An act was approved (1963) which extended for one year the period during which responsibility for the placement and foster care of dependent children, under the program of aid to families with dependent children under Title IV of the Social Security Act.[29]
• Federal civil service retirement benefits were index-linked to changes in the Consumer Price Index (1962).

Any conservatives here on board that agenda?

You operate under the false assumption that the right isn't willing to help the poor. Could not be further from the truth. Notice that he wanted the welfare program geared toward rehabilitation (welfare to work) and tax postponement for self-employed.

There is no argument when it comes to helping the poor. Biggest difference between the parties is that one wants to actually get people out of poverty instead of keeping them there to ensure votes.

There is no problem using federal funds for necessities. The important thing is that we are actually solving the problems instead of throwing more and more money at it in a way that makes it bigger.

Too many people now ask what their country can do for them. Actually, it's more of a demand these days. They think they are entitled to receive without ever having to give back. That mentality is dangerous and the left loves it because people are addicted to government.

Where do you clowns get this cockamamie idea that one political party or ideology, all by itself, "wants to keep the poor in poverty to ensure votes"? Or keep them there for any reason?

Got a link to anyone, anywhere, any time, saying anything to that effect? Or just ipse dixit from some fat fack in Florida with a radio microphone?

He is judging you by the fruits of your labors.

That post makes no sense on any level. It isn't even my point; I have no "labors".
And I believe "Clementine" would be a "she".

FIne, she is judging libs/dems by the fruits of their labors.

 

[Correll]

Why can't conservatives find their own great President to dig up and brag about? Why do they have to try and steal a liberal one and lie about him being one of their own? Nobody but brainwashed fools are going to believe that nonsense. .

Do you believe Rights are Inherent (GOd Given) or do you believe they are granted by the State?

God seems no where around when a civil rights violation is occurring...

And you just put yourself on the other side of the Age of Enlightenment, THe Founding Fathers, JFK, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, The UN Declaration of Human RIghts, and modern conservatives.

 

[Correll]

JFK would be a conservative in America today.

JFK would despise today's conservative movement. They are more batshit crazy than he had to deal with

Do you believe in Inherent Rights (God Given) or do you believe Rights are granted by the State?

God does not give us shit

Rights are demanded by We the people
The State is an agent of the people

And you just shit canned 300 years of philosophical advancement.

JFK clearly stated the opposite of what you just said.

Liberals, they claim to be progressive, but they are turning the clock back 300 years, literally to the end of the Medieval Period.

There are no God given rights. If there were, God would have told us so.

And you just put yourself on the other side of the Age of Enlightenment, THe Founding Fathers, JFK, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, The UN Declaration of Human RIghts, and modern conservatives.

 

[NYcarbineer]

JFK would despise today's conservative movement. They are more batshit crazy than he had to deal with

Do you believe in Inherent Rights (God Given) or do you believe Rights are granted by the State?

God does not give us shit

Rights are demanded by We the people
The State is an agent of the people

And you just shit canned 300 years of philosophical advancement.

JFK clearly stated the opposite of what you just said.

Liberals, they claim to be progressive, but they are turning the clock back 300 years, literally to the end of the Medieval Period.

There are no God given rights. If there were, God would have told us so.

And you just put yourself on the other side of the Age of Enlightenment, THe Founding Fathers, JFK, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, The UN Declaration of Human RIghts, and modern conservatives.

There is no mention of God in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

 

[Moonglow]

JFK would despise today's conservative movement. They are more batshit crazy than he had to deal with

Do you believe in Inherent Rights (God Given) or do you believe Rights are granted by the State?

God does not give us shit

Rights are demanded by We the people
The State is an agent of the people

And you just shit canned 300 years of philosophical advancement.

JFK clearly stated the opposite of what you just said.

Liberals, they claim to be progressive, but they are turning the clock back 300 years, literally to the end of the Medieval Period.

There are no God given rights. If there were, God would have told us so.

And you just put yourself on the other side of the Age of Enlightenment, THe Founding Fathers, JFK, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, The UN Declaration of Human RIghts, and modern conservatives.

The Age of Enlightenment is over dood...

 

[Pogo]

Kennedy and the 'welfare state':

Welfare

• Unemployment and welfare benefits were expanded.[27]
• In 1961, Social Security benefits were increased by 20% and provision for early retirement was introduced, enabling workers to retire at the age of sixty-two while receiving partial benefits.[28]
• The Social Security Amendments of 1961 permitted male workers to elect early retirement age 62, increased minimum benefits, liberalized the benefit payments to aged widow, widower, or surviving dependent parent, and also liberalized eligibility requirements and the retirement test.[29]
• The 1962 amendments to the Social Security Act authorized the federal government to reimburse states for the provision of social services.[30]
• The School Lunch Act was amended for authority to begin providing free meals in poverty-stricken areas.[5]
• A pilot food stamp program was launched (1961), covering six areas in the United States. In 1962, the program was extended to eighteen areas, feeding 240,000 people.[31]
• Various school lunch and school milk programs were extended, “enabling 700,000 more children to enjoy a hot school lunch and eighty-five thousand more schools, child care centers, and camps to receive fresh milk”.[31]
• ADC was extended to whole families (1961).[32]
• Aid to Families with Dependent Children (AFDC) replaced the Aid to Dependent Children (ADC) program, as coverage was extended to adults caring for dependent children.[31]
• A major revision of the public welfare laws was carried out, with a $300 million modernisation which emphasised rehabilitation instead of relief”.[6]
• A temporary antirecession supplement to unemployment compensation was introduced.[6]
• Food distribution to needy Americans was increased.[6] In January 1961, the first executive order issued by Kennedy mandated that the Department of Agriculture increase the quantity and variety of foods donated for needy households. This executive order represented a shift in the Commodity Distribution Programs’ primary purpose, from surplus disposal to that of providing nutritious foods to low-income households.[33]
• Social Security benefits were extended to an additional five million Americans.[27]
• The Self-Employed Individuals Tax Retirement Act (1962) provided self-employed people with a tax postponement for income set aside in qualified pension plans.[29]
• The Public Welfare Amendments of 1962 provided for greater Federal sharing in the cost of rehabilitative services to applicants, recipients, and persons likely to become applicants for public assistance. It increased the Federal share in the cost of public assistance payments, and permitted the States to combine the various categories into one category. The amendments also made permanent the 1961 amendment which extended aid to dependent children to cover children removed from unsuitable homes.[29]
• Federal funds were made available for the payment of foster care costs for AFDC-eligible children who had come into state custody.[34]
• An act was approved (1963) which extended for one year the period during which responsibility for the placement and foster care of dependent children, under the program of aid to families with dependent children under Title IV of the Social Security Act.[29]
• Federal civil service retirement benefits were index-linked to changes in the Consumer Price Index (1962).

Any conservatives here on board that agenda?

You operate under the false assumption that the right isn't willing to help the poor. Could not be further from the truth. Notice that he wanted the welfare program geared toward rehabilitation (welfare to work) and tax postponement for self-employed.

There is no argument when it comes to helping the poor. Biggest difference between the parties is that one wants to actually get people out of poverty instead of keeping them there to ensure votes.

There is no problem using federal funds for necessities. The important thing is that we are actually solving the problems instead of throwing more and more money at it in a way that makes it bigger.

Too many people now ask what their country can do for them. Actually, it's more of a demand these days. They think they are entitled to receive without ever having to give back. That mentality is dangerous and the left loves it because people are addicted to government.

Where do you clowns get this cockamamie idea that one political party or ideology, all by itself, "wants to keep the poor in poverty to ensure votes"? Or keep them there for any reason?

Got a link to anyone, anywhere, any time, saying anything to that effect? Or just ipse dixit from some fat fack in Florida with a radio microphone?

He is judging you by the fruits of your labors.

That post makes no sense on any level. It isn't even my point; I have no "labors".
And I believe "Clementine" would be a "she".

FIne, she is judging libs/dems by the fruits of their labors.

-- Which makes my point and indicates the question can't be answered, i.e. there is no source.

 

[whitehall]

The term "Bible thumping moron" is offensive and only a bigot or a latent bigot would use it in a political argument. A rational argument about JFK would include the fact that his presidency was propped up by the liberal media which was the only source of information available to the public at the time. JFK was so flawed personally and morally that only a society which was thoroughly influenced by propaganda disguised as information would buy it. JFK's "historic" speech in Berlin when the Russians were putting up the Berlin Wall was a joke but the liberal media called it a political victory when he went home and left the Germans to endure torture at the hands of Russian thugs. The Bay of Pigs should have gotten JFK impeached when he used the CIA illegally and chickened out at the end.

 

[Correll]

Do you believe in Inherent Rights (God Given) or do you believe Rights are granted by the State?

God does not give us shit

Rights are demanded by We the people
The State is an agent of the people

And you just shit canned 300 years of philosophical advancement.

JFK clearly stated the opposite of what you just said.

Liberals, they claim to be progressive, but they are turning the clock back 300 years, literally to the end of the Medieval Period.

There are no God given rights. If there were, God would have told us so.

And you just put yourself on the other side of the Age of Enlightenment, THe Founding Fathers, JFK, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, The UN Declaration of Human RIghts, and modern conservatives.

There is no mention of God in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Hee Hee, I love that you ignored the Age of Enlightenment, THe Founding Fathers, JFK, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights and focused on the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

I purposefully para phrased God Given to Inherent out of respect for your lib intolerance of religion.

And indeed, that UN Declaration is quite clear that Human Rights are Inherent and NOT granted by the UN or any other Governmental organization.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,"

Inherent, inalienable,

"Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,"

Here to help you out.

"fun·da·men·tal
ˌfəndəˈmen(t)əl/
adjective

1. 1.
   forming a necessary base or core; of central importance."

This is not a edict GRANTING rights to people, but an announcement of their belief in Human Rights as ALREADY being part of the Human Condition.

By your belief that the State is GRANTING rights, you libs reveal yourself to be extreme reactionaries trying to turn the clock back to BEFORE the Age of Enlightenment, to the late Medieval Period, where the King granted Rights and Privileges.

With the slight adjustment of replace the Divine Right of Kings, with the All Powerful State.

 

[Correll]

Do you believe in Inherent Rights (God Given) or do you believe Rights are granted by the State?

God does not give us shit

Rights are demanded by We the people
The State is an agent of the people

And you just shit canned 300 years of philosophical advancement.

JFK clearly stated the opposite of what you just said.

Liberals, they claim to be progressive, but they are turning the clock back 300 years, literally to the end of the Medieval Period.

There are no God given rights. If there were, God would have told us so.

And you just put yourself on the other side of the Age of Enlightenment, THe Founding Fathers, JFK, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, The UN Declaration of Human RIghts, and modern conservatives.

The Age of Enlightenment is over dood...

The Philosophical questions answered then, have been reopened by you lefties trying to turn back the clock.

SO we have modern conservatives who hold the Enlightened belief that Human RIghts are God Given, or Inherent vs you liberals who believe they are granted by the State.

 

[Correll]

You operate under the false assumption that the right isn't willing to help the poor. Could not be further from the truth. Notice that he wanted the welfare program geared toward rehabilitation (welfare to work) and tax postponement for self-employed.

There is no argument when it comes to helping the poor. Biggest difference between the parties is that one wants to actually get people out of poverty instead of keeping them there to ensure votes.

There is no problem using federal funds for necessities. The important thing is that we are actually solving the problems instead of throwing more and more money at it in a way that makes it bigger.

Too many people now ask what their country can do for them. Actually, it's more of a demand these days. They think they are entitled to receive without ever having to give back. That mentality is dangerous and the left loves it because people are addicted to government.

Where do you clowns get this cockamamie idea that one political party or ideology, all by itself, "wants to keep the poor in poverty to ensure votes"? Or keep them there for any reason?

Got a link to anyone, anywhere, any time, saying anything to that effect? Or just ipse dixit from some fat fack in Florida with a radio microphone?

He is judging you by the fruits of your labors.

That post makes no sense on any level. It isn't even my point; I have no "labors".
And I believe "Clementine" would be a "she".

FIne, she is judging libs/dems by the fruits of their labors.

-- Which makes my point and indicates the question can't be answered, i.e. there is no source.

Bull. The "source" is you libs seeing what the results are of your policies and still deciding to stick to those policies.

If you aren't happy with the outcomes, then why don't your change your policies?

 

[Correll]

You operate under the false assumption that the right isn't willing to help the poor. Could not be further from the truth. Notice that he wanted the welfare program geared toward rehabilitation (welfare to work) and tax postponement for self-employed.

There is no argument when it comes to helping the poor. Biggest difference between the parties is that one wants to actually get people out of poverty instead of keeping them there to ensure votes.

There is no problem using federal funds for necessities. The important thing is that we are actually solving the problems instead of throwing more and more money at it in a way that makes it bigger.

Too many people now ask what their country can do for them. Actually, it's more of a demand these days. They think they are entitled to receive without ever having to give back. That mentality is dangerous and the left loves it because people are addicted to government.

Where do you clowns get this cockamamie idea that one political party or ideology, all by itself, "wants to keep the poor in poverty to ensure votes"? Or keep them there for any reason?

Got a link to anyone, anywhere, any time, saying anything to that effect? Or just ipse dixit from some fat fack in Florida with a radio microphone?

He is judging you by the fruits of your labors.

That post makes no sense on any level. It isn't even my point; I have no "labors".
And I believe "Clementine" would be a "she".

FIne, she is judging libs/dems by the fruits of their labors.

-- Which makes my point and indicates the question can't be answered, i.e. there is no source.

Bull. The source is your lib behavior. YOu see the results of your policies and keep doing more of them.

Clementine is drawing the obvious conclusion that you are purposefully achieving the easily predictable results of your actions.

There are other possible explanations.

Many conservatives believe liberalism is a mental disorder. Surely you've heard the saying, "insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and to keep expecting a different result"?

Others believe that liberals are stupid.

 

[Moonglow]

Where do you clowns get this cockamamie idea that one political party or ideology, all by itself, "wants to keep the poor in poverty to ensure votes"? Or keep them there for any reason?

Got a link to anyone, anywhere, any time, saying anything to that effect? Or just ipse dixit from some fat fack in Florida with a radio microphone?

He is judging you by the fruits of your labors.

That post makes no sense on any level. It isn't even my point; I have no "labors".
And I believe "Clementine" would be a "she".

FIne, she is judging libs/dems by the fruits of their labors.

-- Which makes my point and indicates the question can't be answered, i.e. there is no source.

Bull. The source is your lib behavior. YOu see the results of your policies and keep doing more of them.

Clementine is drawing the obvious conclusion that you are purposefully achieving the easily predictable results of your actions.

There are other possible explanations.

Many conservatives believe liberalism is a mental disorder. Surely you've heard the saying, "insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and to keep expecting a different result"?

Others believe that liberals are stupid.

Yeah, you conservatives praying over and over with the same result...Nada....

 

[Correll]

He is judging you by the fruits of your labors.

That post makes no sense on any level. It isn't even my point; I have no "labors".
And I believe "Clementine" would be a "she".

FIne, she is judging libs/dems by the fruits of their labors.

-- Which makes my point and indicates the question can't be answered, i.e. there is no source.

Bull. The source is your lib behavior. YOu see the results of your policies and keep doing more of them.

Clementine is drawing the obvious conclusion that you are purposefully achieving the easily predictable results of your actions.

There are other possible explanations.

Many conservatives believe liberalism is a mental disorder. Surely you've heard the saying, "insanity is doing the same thing over and over, and to keep expecting a different result"?

Others believe that liberals are stupid.

Yeah, you conservatives praying over and over with the same result...Nada....

Praying?

Where did that come from?

So, you've got a real problem with religious people?

 

[Edgetho]

If JFK were to magically rise from the grave, dimocraps would have to kill him again.

He was nothing like dimocraps make him out to be. They completely and totally invented him.

The JFK of dimocrap myth never existed.

dimocraps have always worked in demagoguery as opposed to reality.

It's all they have. It's all they've had. It's all they will ever have

 

[NYcarbineer]

God does not give us shit

Rights are demanded by We the people
The State is an agent of the people

And you just shit canned 300 years of philosophical advancement.

JFK clearly stated the opposite of what you just said.

Liberals, they claim to be progressive, but they are turning the clock back 300 years, literally to the end of the Medieval Period.

There are no God given rights. If there were, God would have told us so.

And you just put yourself on the other side of the Age of Enlightenment, THe Founding Fathers, JFK, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, The UN Declaration of Human RIghts, and modern conservatives.

There is no mention of God in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Hee Hee, I love that you ignored the Age of Enlightenment, THe Founding Fathers, JFK, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights and focused on the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

I purposefully para phrased God Given to Inherent out of respect for your lib intolerance of religion.

And indeed, that UN Declaration is quite clear that Human Rights are Inherent and NOT granted by the UN or any other Governmental organization.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,"

Inherent, inalienable,

"Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,"

Here to help you out.

"fun·da·men·tal
ˌfəndəˈmen(t)əl/
adjective

1. 1.
   forming a necessary base or core; of central importance."

This is not a edict GRANTING rights to people, but an announcement of their belief in Human Rights as ALREADY being part of the Human Condition.

By your belief that the State is GRANTING rights, you libs reveal yourself to be extreme reactionaries trying to turn the clock back to BEFORE the Age of Enlightenment, to the late Medieval Period, where the King granted Rights and Privileges.

With the slight adjustment of replace the Divine Right of Kings, with the All Powerful State.

Do you even realize what the word 'divine' means in the term?

Hint: it means God given.

 

[NYcarbineer]

God does not give us shit

Rights are demanded by We the people
The State is an agent of the people

And you just shit canned 300 years of philosophical advancement.

JFK clearly stated the opposite of what you just said.

Liberals, they claim to be progressive, but they are turning the clock back 300 years, literally to the end of the Medieval Period.

There are no God given rights. If there were, God would have told us so.

And you just put yourself on the other side of the Age of Enlightenment, THe Founding Fathers, JFK, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, The UN Declaration of Human RIghts, and modern conservatives.

There is no mention of God in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Hee Hee, I love that you ignored the Age of Enlightenment, THe Founding Fathers, JFK, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights and focused on the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

I purposefully para phrased God Given to Inherent out of respect for your lib intolerance of religion.

And indeed, that UN Declaration is quite clear that Human Rights are Inherent and NOT granted by the UN or any other Governmental organization.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,"

Inherent, inalienable,

"Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,"

Here to help you out.

"fun·da·men·tal
ˌfəndəˈmen(t)əl/
adjective

1. 1.
   forming a necessary base or core; of central importance."

This is not a edict GRANTING rights to people, but an announcement of their belief in Human Rights as ALREADY being part of the Human Condition.

By your belief that the State is GRANTING rights, you libs reveal yourself to be extreme reactionaries trying to turn the clock back to BEFORE the Age of Enlightenment, to the late Medieval Period, where the King granted Rights and Privileges.

With the slight adjustment of replace the Divine Right of Kings, with the All Powerful State.

You brought it up. I proved you wrong.

I'm waiting for proof that rights are God given.

And by that I mean proof beyond quoting some other HUMAN's opinion that they are God given.

 

[Correll]

And you just shit canned 300 years of philosophical advancement.

JFK clearly stated the opposite of what you just said.

Liberals, they claim to be progressive, but they are turning the clock back 300 years, literally to the end of the Medieval Period.

There are no God given rights. If there were, God would have told us so.

And you just put yourself on the other side of the Age of Enlightenment, THe Founding Fathers, JFK, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, The UN Declaration of Human RIghts, and modern conservatives.

There is no mention of God in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Hee Hee, I love that you ignored the Age of Enlightenment, THe Founding Fathers, JFK, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights and focused on the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

I purposefully para phrased God Given to Inherent out of respect for your lib intolerance of religion.

And indeed, that UN Declaration is quite clear that Human Rights are Inherent and NOT granted by the UN or any other Governmental organization.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,"

Inherent, inalienable,

"Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,"

Here to help you out.

"fun·da·men·tal
ˌfəndəˈmen(t)əl/
adjective

1. 1.
   forming a necessary base or core; of central importance."

This is not a edict GRANTING rights to people, but an announcement of their belief in Human Rights as ALREADY being part of the Human Condition.

By your belief that the State is GRANTING rights, you libs reveal yourself to be extreme reactionaries trying to turn the clock back to BEFORE the Age of Enlightenment, to the late Medieval Period, where the King granted Rights and Privileges.

With the slight adjustment of replace the Divine Right of Kings, with the All Powerful State.

Do you even realize what the word 'divine' means in the term?

Hint: it means God given.

Wow. Just wow.

You ignore everything about how your modern lefty belief regarding Rights is reactionary to the tune of over 300 years, to focus on "Divine".

And yes, I do realize what it means.

Note I specifically mentioned that there was a slight adjustment where as you libs replace the Divine RIght of Kings with the All Powerful State.

I did not claim that you believe in God.

You believe that Rights are granted by a the Government, just like the Medieval Monarchists did. The only difference is that you replace the King with a Prime Minister or a President.

 

[Correll]

And you just shit canned 300 years of philosophical advancement.

JFK clearly stated the opposite of what you just said.

Liberals, they claim to be progressive, but they are turning the clock back 300 years, literally to the end of the Medieval Period.

There are no God given rights. If there were, God would have told us so.

And you just put yourself on the other side of the Age of Enlightenment, THe Founding Fathers, JFK, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, The UN Declaration of Human RIghts, and modern conservatives.

There is no mention of God in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Hee Hee, I love that you ignored the Age of Enlightenment, THe Founding Fathers, JFK, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights and focused on the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

I purposefully para phrased God Given to Inherent out of respect for your lib intolerance of religion.

And indeed, that UN Declaration is quite clear that Human Rights are Inherent and NOT granted by the UN or any other Governmental organization.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,"

Inherent, inalienable,

"Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,"

Here to help you out.

"fun·da·men·tal
ˌfəndəˈmen(t)əl/
adjective

1. 1.
   forming a necessary base or core; of central importance."

This is not a edict GRANTING rights to people, but an announcement of their belief in Human Rights as ALREADY being part of the Human Condition.

By your belief that the State is GRANTING rights, you libs reveal yourself to be extreme reactionaries trying to turn the clock back to BEFORE the Age of Enlightenment, to the late Medieval Period, where the King granted Rights and Privileges.

With the slight adjustment of replace the Divine Right of Kings, with the All Powerful State.

You brought it up. I proved you wrong.

I'm waiting for proof that rights are God given.

And by that I mean proof beyond quoting some other HUMAN's opinion that they are God given.

My point was not to prove to you that my philosophy was correct, but simply to point out to you that JFK shared it.

As per the OP.

And also to reveal just how reactionary your philosophy is. As a bonus.

 

[NYcarbineer]

There are no God given rights. If there were, God would have told us so.

And you just put yourself on the other side of the Age of Enlightenment, THe Founding Fathers, JFK, the Constitution, the Bill of Rights, The UN Declaration of Human RIghts, and modern conservatives.

There is no mention of God in the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

Hee Hee, I love that you ignored the Age of Enlightenment, THe Founding Fathers, JFK, the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights and focused on the UN Declaration of Human Rights.

I purposefully para phrased God Given to Inherent out of respect for your lib intolerance of religion.

And indeed, that UN Declaration is quite clear that Human Rights are Inherent and NOT granted by the UN or any other Governmental organization.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights

"Whereas recognition of the inherent dignity and of the equal and inalienable rights of all members of the human family is the foundation of freedom, justice and peace in the world,"

Inherent, inalienable,

"Whereas the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom,"

Here to help you out.

"fun·da·men·tal
ˌfəndəˈmen(t)əl/
adjective

1. 1.
   forming a necessary base or core; of central importance."

This is not a edict GRANTING rights to people, but an announcement of their belief in Human Rights as ALREADY being part of the Human Condition.

By your belief that the State is GRANTING rights, you libs reveal yourself to be extreme reactionaries trying to turn the clock back to BEFORE the Age of Enlightenment, to the late Medieval Period, where the King granted Rights and Privileges.

With the slight adjustment of replace the Divine Right of Kings, with the All Powerful State.

You brought it up. I proved you wrong.

I'm waiting for proof that rights are God given.

And by that I mean proof beyond quoting some other HUMAN's opinion that they are God given.

My point was not to prove to you that my philosophy was correct, but simply to point out to you that JFK shared it.

As per the OP.

And also to reveal just how reactionary your philosophy is. As a bonus.

So you're retracting your claim that we have God given rights, thus concurring that I was right all along.