Kennedy was a Liberal.

[Sallow]

Like the founders.

Like anyone that's done good for the nation.

Conservatives seek to destroy America.

And turn it into a theocracy.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O3oY93doosg]John F. Kennedy - Defining Liberal - YouTube[/ame]

 

[HenryBHough]

Kennedy made Clinton look like a choirboy.

Thing is, he could maintain a cool poker face whilst spinning tall tales.

 

[Mac1958]

.

I don't see the righties, even the hardcore right, promising to "fundamentally change" America.

Why would someone want to "fundamentally change" something that they like?

.

 

[Sallow]

.

I don't see the righties, even the hardcore right, promising to "fundamentally change" America.

Why would someone want to "fundamentally change" something that they like?

.

"I want to be invisible. I do guerilla warfare. I paint my face and travel at night. You don't know it's over until you're in a body bag. You don't know until election night." --Ralph Reed, The Hill, December 17, 1997.[2].
"What Christians have got to do is take back this country, one precinct at a time, one neighborhood at a time and one state at a time. I honestly believe that in my lifetime, we will see a country once again governed by Christians...and Christian values." --Ralph Reed, Los Angeles Times, April 1990.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ralph_E._Reed,_Jr.

Nuff said.

 

[Mac1958]

.

I don't see the righties, even the hardcore right, promising to "fundamentally change" America.

Why would someone want to "fundamentally change" something that they like?

.

"I want to be invisible. I do guerilla warfare. I paint my face and travel at night. You don't know it's over until you're in a body bag. You don't know until election night." --Ralph Reed, The Hill, December 17, 1997.[2].
"What Christians have got to do is take back this country, one precinct at a time, one neighborhood at a time and one state at a time. I honestly believe that in my lifetime, we will see a country once again governed by Christians...and Christian values." --Ralph Reed, Los Angeles Times, April 1990.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ralph_E._Reed,_Jr.

Nuff said.

Was that meant to be an answer to my question?

.

 

[Sallow]

.

I don't see the righties, even the hardcore right, promising to "fundamentally change" America.

Why would someone want to "fundamentally change" something that they like?

.

"I want to be invisible. I do guerilla warfare. I paint my face and travel at night. You don't know it's over until you're in a body bag. You don't know until election night." --Ralph Reed, The Hill, December 17, 1997.[2].
"What Christians have got to do is take back this country, one precinct at a time, one neighborhood at a time and one state at a time. I honestly believe that in my lifetime, we will see a country once again governed by Christians...and Christian values." --Ralph Reed, Los Angeles Times, April 1990.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ralph_E._Reed,_Jr.

Nuff said.

Was that meant to be an answer to my question?

.

Yeah..it is.

I go on..

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-CAcdta_8I]Falwell and Robertson on The 700 Club after 9/11 - YouTube[/ame]

Both those guys had the ear of President Bush.

As did Ralph Reed.

 

[tinydancer]

President Kennedy felt deeply about religion and it's importance to our free society. That our faith in a higher being and not in the State is what keeps us free and why Communists detested people of faith and religion.

From a speech at Assumption College, 1955. It's awesome and worth the read.

We can barely hear the stern encounter, and thus too often we forget it. Our minds, like the headlines of our newspapers, are intent upon the present and future conflicts of armed might, and upon the brutal, physical side of that ominous war upon which we have bestowed the strange epithet "cold".

We tend to forget the moral and spiritual issues which inhere in the fateful encounter of which the physical war is but one manifestation.

We tend to forget those ideals and faiths and philosophical needs which drive men far more intensively than military and economic objectives.

This is not to say that we have overlooked religion. Too often we have utilized it as a weapon, broadcast it as propaganda, and shouted it as a battle cry.

But in "the stern encounter", in the moral struggle, religion is not simply a weapon- it is the essence of the struggle itself.

The Communist rulers do not fear the phraseology of religion, or the ceremonies and churches and denomination organizations.

On the contrary, they leave no stone unturned in seeking to turn these aspects of religion to their own advantage and to use the trappings of religion in order to cement the obedience of their people.

What they fear is the profound consequences of a religion that is lived and not merely acknowledged. They fear especially man's response to spiritual and ethical stimuli, not merely material.

A society which seeks to make the worship of the State the ultimate objective of life cannot permit a higher loyalty, a faith in God, a belief in a religion that elevates the individual, acknowledges his true value and teaches him devotion and responsibility to something beyond the here and now.

The communist fear Christianity more as a way of life than as a weapon.

In short, there is room in a totalitarian system for churches- but there is no room for God.

The claim of the State most be total, and no other loyalty, and no other philosophy of life can be tolerated.

The Kennedy Legacy at Assumption College

Here's where he just nails it.

Here at Assumption we are taught that Christianity is a way of life, not a means to an end: that eternal truths and the problems of this world cannot be kept separate.

You who are graduating from this College today know this to be true and it is your responsibility as well as your opportunity by your works and example to stimulate a revival of our religious faith, to renew the battle against weary indifference and inertia, against the washing away of our religious, ethical and cultural foundations.

 

[Mac1958]

.

Okay.

(?)

Perhaps you could explain to me, in your own words, why you would want to fundamentally change something that you like.

.

 

[Rocko]

Right, because liberals love cutting taxes and increasing defense spending.

 

[whitehall]

You can't apply today's political standards to fifty year old administrations. Everything you think you know about JFK is a myth made up by the fawning slobbering media. Kennedy was a lying S.O.B. and a degenerate philanderer. He may have been a drug addict with a chronic painful back condition. His brother Bobby was hired as A.G. to cover his back and that's what he did until Bobby and the CIA or the FBI tried to turn Oswald into a spy and it backfired big time.

 

[Sallow]

.

Okay.

(?)

Perhaps you could explain to me, in your own words, why you would want to fundamentally change something that you like.

.

Change is the nature of liberalism.

It's also the nature of life.

You don't evolve and adapt? You die.

Simple as that.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Like the founders.

Like anyone that's done good for the nation.

Conservatives seek to destroy America.

And turn it into a theocracy.

John F. Kennedy - Defining Liberal - YouTube

Kennedy was a Liberal.

True.

And again, that anyone would contest this is idiocy.

 

[Desperado]

Kennedy made Clinton look like a choirboy.

Thing is, he could maintain a cool poker face whilst spinning tall tales.

Jacqueline or Hillary or Marilyn or Monica
As you can tell by their choices, JFK had more class and taste than Bill ever had.

 

[Sallow]

Like the founders.

Like anyone that's done good for the nation.

Conservatives seek to destroy America.

And turn it into a theocracy.

John F. Kennedy - Defining Liberal - YouTube

Kennedy was a Liberal.

True.

And again, that anyone would contest this is idiocy.

They've been trying to claim Martin Luther King Jr. too.

It's hilarious.

 

[Freewill]

.

I don't see the righties, even the hardcore right, promising to "fundamentally change" America.

Why would someone want to "fundamentally change" something that they like?

.

Best come back I have read in some time!!

 

[Mac1958]

.

Okay.

(?)

Perhaps you could explain to me, in your own words, why you would want to fundamentally change something that you like.

.

Change is the nature of liberalism.

It's also the nature of life.

You don't evolve and adapt? You die.

Simple as that.

Why do you suppose it is that whenever the Left wants to "change" something, we can count on that "change" to involve a much stronger centralized authority, a stronger and stronger federal government, and less authority to the individual?

Is an all-powerful central government an indication that a country has "evolved" enough?

And if the Founding Fathers were so liberal, why are we a republic? And why would Obama complain about the Bill of Rights being "negative liberties"?

.

 

[Freewill]

Jefferson Davis was a liberal.

 

[Freewill]

.

Okay.

(?)

Perhaps you could explain to me, in your own words, why you would want to fundamentally change something that you like.

.

Change is the nature of liberalism.

It's also the nature of life.

You don't evolve and adapt? You die.

Simple as that.

Why do you suppose it is that whenever the Left wants to "change" something, we can count on that "change" to involve a much stronger centralized authority, a stronger and stronger federal government, and less authority to the individual?

Is an all-powerful central government a sign that a country has progressed enough?

And if the Founding Fathers were so liberal, why are we a republic?

.

Can't rep you again but you certainly are hitting on all cylinders.

People like Swollow seem to forget how 7 years of progressive/liberal power has ruined this country. Nothing is right in the country. They have had their way for 7 years, although they lie about it, and look at the state of things. They are like Captain Edward Smith bragging about his great sea record standing on the deck of the sinking Titanic.

 

[Freewill]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zz6MMIZErp0&feature=youtu.be]MLK Was A Republican - YouTube[/ame]

What's she know?

 

[Freewill]

I will admit since LBJ said that the democrats had to give the n....rs a little something but not enough to make a difference, the propaganda of the liberal left has been quite effective. If only the RNC could tell the true story instead of trying to become democrats. Compare this record to what Obama has done to the black community.

The good that Reagan did for black America

But the reality is, the 1980s, with a conservative, free-market Republican in the White House, were a boom time for black America.

Indeed, Andrew Brimmer, the Harvard-trained black economist, the former Federal Reserve Board member, estimated that total black business receipts increased from $12.4 billion in 1982 to $18.1 billion in 1987, translating into an annual average growth rate of 7.9 percent (compared to 5 percent for all U.S. businesses.

The success of the black entrepreneurial class during the Reagan era was rivaled only by the gains of the black middle class.

In fact, black social scientist Bart Landry estimated that that upwardly mobile cohort grew by a third under Reagan's watch, from 3.6 million in 1980 to 4.8 million in 1988. His definition was based on employment in white-collar jobs as well as on income levels.

All told, the middle class constituted more than 40 percent of black households by the end of Reagan's presidency, which was larger than the size of black working class, or the black poor.

The impressive growth of the black middle class during the 1980s was attributable in no small part to the explosive growth of jobs under Reagan, which benefited blacks disproportionately.

Indeed, between 1982 and 1988, total black employment increased by 2 million, a staggering sum. That meant that blacks gained 15 percent of the new jobs created during that span, while accounting for only 11 percent of the working-age population.

Meanwhile, the black jobless rate was cut by almost half between 1982 and 1988. Over the same span, the black employment rate – the percentage of working-age persons holding jobs – increased to record levels, from 49 percent to 56 percent.

The black executive ranks especially prospered under Reagan. The Equal Employment Opportunity Commission reported that the number of black managers and officers in corporations with 100 or more employees increased by 30 percent between 1980 and 1985.

During the same period, the number of black professionals increased by an astounding 63 percent.

The burgeoning of the black professional, managerial and executive ranks during the 1980s coincided with a steady growth of the black student population at the nation's colleges and universities in the 1980s.

Even though the number of college-aged blacks decreased during much of the decade, black college enrollment increased by 100,000 between 1980 and 1987, according to the Census Bureau.

Meanwhile, the 1980s saw an improvement in the black high school graduation rate, as the proportion of blacks 18 to 24 years old earning high school diplomas increased from 69.7 percent in 1980 to 76 percent by 1987.

On balance, then, the majority of black Americans made considerable progress in the 1980s.

More of us stayed in high school, graduated and went on to college. More of us were working than ever before, in better jobs and for higher wages.

The black middle class burgeoned to unprecedented size, emerging as the dominant income group in black America. And black business flourished, creating wealth in the black community.

Reps. Owens, Wynn and Watson may think that all of those wondrous developments were simply happenstance.

But the credit goes to Ronald Reagan, who initiated the policies that fostered the economic growth and job creation of the 1980s, which produced the prosperity that most black Americans enjoyed.