On this day of JFK's birthday, what would he be ashamed of most?

[The Sage of Main Street]

He would be most disappointed in what the democrat party has become.

He would love that we got a universal healthcare program, civil rights, environmental protections.

No one is opposed to stopping pollution. NO ONE. It's only you ignorant liberals that think pollution causes global warming and kills polar bears.

Whoever Biases Language Biases Thought

Up to a certain level, pollution is antiseptic. It kills toxic viruses, bacteria, and insects. The last great plague, which killed 40 to 100 million people, came just before auto "pollution" was strong enough to stop it. Recent epidemics die out as soon as they reach "polluted" industrialized or populated areas. So pollution should be replaced by a neutral term, such as "byproducts" or "particulates." If we ever go completely to "clean" energy, expect plague after plague, just as it was before the internal-combustion engine.

 

[rightwinger]

But I do believe this war started during Eisenhower.

Eisenhower sent the first "advisers" to Vietnam.

escalated by Kennedy and Johnson and ended by Nixon. The USA declared defeat and let 58,000 American die for nothing.

No, actually it was the warmongers who insisted on our getting in the middle of a Civil War that killed 58,000

It was the Jane Fonda's of the world who kept the number from being higher

 

[rightwinger]

Democrat party is a proper name. democrat is an adjective and as such should not be capitalized.

"Democrat party" isn't the name of anything Homer. Not in this language.

What's more, democrat, even with a small D meaning a generic advocate of democracy, isn't an adjective anyway --- it's a NOUN. The adjective would be democratic.

Besides all of which, you used the noun democrat with a small D, which means an advocate of democracy, regardless of political party. Now if you had said Democrat you'd be referring to some member of that party.

Reading is a lost art.

Give me the names of current democrats who would say what Kennedy said, or even believe in the concept he was advocating for.

You want a list of registered Democrats?

Not interested -- do your own research. Contact the DNC.

oh geez, grammar 101. nugatory and histrionic

Not a single democrat believes or would say what Kennedy said. Kennedy would be a republican if he was alive today. Not one of today's democrats would call Russia's bluff and do a Cuban blockade, not one would dedicate the country to putting a man on the moon and bringing him back safely. Today's dems are interested in creating an ever larger dependent class that will keep them and their cronies in power and allow them to get rich at the taxpayers' expense.

Really?

What did Kennedy say that Democrats wouldn't agree with?

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

Eisenhower sent the first "advisers" to Vietnam.

escalated by Kennedy and Johnson and ended by Nixon. The USA declared defeat and let 58,000 American die for nothing.

Chickenhawk-Lovers Shouldn't Be Respected for Their Service

Preppies, their boytoys who ran away to college, and pro sports draft picks didn't have to fight over there. The goal of the war was to kill off or take the fight out of the bravest of those born in the working class. Mission Accomplished.

 

[The Sage of Main Street]

It was the Jane Fonda'sFondas of the world who kept the number from being higher

Sordid Sorority of Preppy Princesses

Just like the other protesters, that Ivy League snob attacked the war only because it was being fought by troops born in the working class. Here's what was going on in their minds, "Daddy, you always told us that the working class was stupid, lazy, and greedy. We've come up with a way to make them seem even more deplorable, Daddy: their sons are baby-killers."

And of course, the "Conservative" preppies were sissyboy traitors who had their Daddies get them out of having to fight. So the whole class must have its privileges abolished. Whether the spoiled scumbags become Commies, Birchers, or RINOs, they are the well-hidden cancer that has been eating away at America since the 60s.

If Easy Rider had represented real-life, it would have shown Miss Jane's Daddy buying her brother an expensive motorcycle and giving Little Peter plenty of money to roam around the country insulting people who had to work for a living.

 

[Fang]

Liberals have turned "ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.” into "demand your country do everything for you and resort to violence if you don't get it.".

 

[rightwinger]

Liberals have turned "ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.” into "demand your country do everything for you and resort to violence if you don't get it.".

Yea...taking care of the sick is so selfish

 

[Fang]

Liberals have turned "ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.” into "demand your country do everything for you and resort to violence if you don't get it.".

Yea...taking care of the sick is so selfish

Nice job making a point no one is arguing. lol

 

[blastoff]

I'd say it'd be a toss-up between finding out Bobby was also screwing Marilyn and Teddy didn't win the regatta before killing Mary Jo.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Yep, it was the handul of advisers Eisenhower had in country not the 12-15,000 "non combatants" JFK enlisted which marked our entrance into Vietnam.

Comical

 

[Richard-H]

Without a doubt the resurgence of fascism in America.

Second only to Trump being President.

do you even know what fascism means? give us a definition.

fas·cism
ˈfaSHˌizəm/
noun

1. an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

Any other stupid questions?

Fascism is a socialist form of government. Derived from the Italian word "fascio" meaning a bundle of sticks.

Mussolini created fascism to oppose the threat of socialism in Italy at that time. It's strongly rooted in creating a permanent class system that absolutely protects the wealthy and keeps the workers in abject poverty. It allows for a tiny middle class whose function is being sycophants for the wealthy. It could not be more opposite from socialism.

Mussolini used nationalism in order to win the support of disgruntled Italian, but what he was really for was defeating socialism and establishing his class society.

Franco was the same - absolutely against socialism and absolutely for a strict class society.

Hitler was beyond fascism. He was a whole magnitude more of a nut case. But he was also extremely anti-socialist.

The recent narrative that socialists are fascists is a bunch of bunk!

 

[rightwinger]

Liberals have turned "ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.” into "demand your country do everything for you and resort to violence if you don't get it.".

Yea...taking care of the sick is so selfish

Nice job making a point no one is arguing. lol

Republicans have argued it for eight years

 

[Richard-H]

Without a doubt the resurgence of fascism in America.

Second only to Trump being President.

do you even know what fascism means? give us a definition.

fas·cism
ˈfaSHˌizəm/
noun

1. an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

Any other stupid questions?

would it be fascist to have a government where every citizen was dependent on it for the basic necessities of life? Would it be fascist to riot and prevent citizens from expressing their freedom of speech? your definition is a good one and it describes the exact form of government that you on the left are asking for. Rewriting history, removing monuments, only allowing one viewpoint, the media as an arm of the government.

the Russians and Chinese and North Koreans practice what you say you want.

Having a social safety net for those in need is a long way from having every citizen dependent on the government for their basic necessities. Another example of fascist paranoid delusions perhaps?

When your expressions of "freedom of speech" include the profession of persecuting other people and of denying them there rights, you can bet that people are going to riot. All rights are limited rights. When your exercise of rights suppresses other people's rights your rights end.

We liberals allow many viewpoints, but when some people's viewpoints advocate suppressing other people rights we draw the line.

Removing monuments that honor traitors is absolutely justified. Those monuments should never have been allowed to have been erected. They are an insult to all those people who have fought for the freedoms that we all enjoy in this country. Honoring slavers and those that protected slavery is anti-American.

With freedom comes responsibility and those who try to exercise freedoms irresponsibly do not deserve those freedoms.

you are sadly misinformed on many things. Let me see if I can help

conservatives WANT a social safety net for those who are physically or mentally unable to care for themselves. We want it for all needy people regardless of race, religion, age, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. BUT, we believe that voluntary charities do a much better job of providing those services than the government. Yes, the government has a role but it has gotten out of control when we have generations of families on welfare when they are able to work, when we reward women for having children with no father in the home.

Did what happened at Berkley equal freedom of speech in your mind? Destroying public and private property in order to prevent a conservative viewpoint from being heard? Those rioters were suppressing the first amendment rights of others, are you OK with that?

The civil war was not about slavery. It was about taxation. There were more slaves in New York state than in Georgia. There were slaves in Illinois (land of Lincoln) AFTER the civil war. The largest slaveowner in the USA was a black man. The monuments to confederate generals were put up to honor the people who died fighting for what they believed in, they are part of American history. Removing them is equivalent to the Taliban removing Buddhas in Afghanistan.

I agree with your last statement 100%. Today its those on the left who are trying to deprive others who disagree with them of their basic constitutional freedoms. A biased left wing media does not represent freedom of speech, it represents indoctrination. Something that Hitler and Stalin did very well in the 1930s.

You seem like a smart guy, please get some education on American and world history.

The Confederate Generals had all sworn to uphold the Constitution and to protect the federal government. Many were West Point grads. They betrayed that oath and were by definition 'Traitors'.

The Civil war was about taxation and about slavery...and a handful of other issues. But it was primarily about dividing and destroying the Union and returning to the failed system that existed before the U.S. Constitution created the federal government.

Voluntary charities DO NOT do a better jobs of caring for those in need. They do not guarantee that needy people will get the basics that they need. They often depend on church membership or other criteria. They also depend on voluntary contributions, which in turn depend on the economic conditions at the time...just when there are the most needy people is when contributions are at their minimum. It just doesn't work.

The social safety net should not be just for the disbaled. What about people who've worked for many years, living pay check to pay check, and suddenly lose their jobs? Should they just be kicked to the curb?

When private industry is willing to guarantee 100% employment at decent wages and benefits, then we will no longer need government assistance programs. But I wouldn't recommend holding your breath.

 

[Redfish]

But I do believe this war started during Eisenhower.

Eisenhower sent the first "advisers" to Vietnam.

escalated by Kennedy and Johnson and ended by Nixon. The USA declared defeat and let 58,000 American die for nothing.

No, actually it was the warmongers who insisted on our getting in the middle of a Civil War that killed 58,000

It was the Jane Fonda's of the world who kept the number from being higher

amazingly stupid and uninformed. Jane Fonda was a traitor who should have been sent to jail for the rest of her life. Were Kennedy and Johnson war mongers?

It was the liberals who believed that we in the USA should tell everyone else in the world how to live and who should be their leaders. USA intervention has been the direct of liberal mindsets that believe that only we have the answers. Its the height or arrogance and the direct cause of 58,000 American deaths in viet nam.

 

[Redfish]

Democrat party is a proper name. democrat is an adjective and as such should not be capitalized.

"Democrat party" isn't the name of anything Homer. Not in this language.

What's more, democrat, even with a small D meaning a generic advocate of democracy, isn't an adjective anyway --- it's a NOUN. The adjective would be democratic.

Besides all of which, you used the noun democrat with a small D, which means an advocate of democracy, regardless of political party. Now if you had said Democrat you'd be referring to some member of that party.

Reading is a lost art.

Give me the names of current democrats who would say what Kennedy said, or even believe in the concept he was advocating for.

You want a list of registered Democrats?

Not interested -- do your own research. Contact the DNC.

oh geez, grammar 101. nugatory and histrionic

Not a single democrat believes or would say what Kennedy said. Kennedy would be a republican if he was alive today. Not one of today's democrats would call Russia's bluff and do a Cuban blockade, not one would dedicate the country to putting a man on the moon and bringing him back safely. Today's dems are interested in creating an ever larger dependent class that will keep them and their cronies in power and allow them to get rich at the taxpayers' expense.

Really?

What did Kennedy say that Democrats wouldn't agree with?

already told you "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country"

can you imagine Pelosi, Schumer, Franken, or crazy Maxine Waters saying that today? Don't be such a fricken partisan fool, winger. you have little credibility here as it is.

 

[Redfish]

do you even know what fascism means? give us a definition.

fas·cism
ˈfaSHˌizəm/
noun

1. an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

Any other stupid questions?

would it be fascist to have a government where every citizen was dependent on it for the basic necessities of life? Would it be fascist to riot and prevent citizens from expressing their freedom of speech? your definition is a good one and it describes the exact form of government that you on the left are asking for. Rewriting history, removing monuments, only allowing one viewpoint, the media as an arm of the government.

the Russians and Chinese and North Koreans practice what you say you want.

Having a social safety net for those in need is a long way from having every citizen dependent on the government for their basic necessities. Another example of fascist paranoid delusions perhaps?

When your expressions of "freedom of speech" include the profession of persecuting other people and of denying them there rights, you can bet that people are going to riot. All rights are limited rights. When your exercise of rights suppresses other people's rights your rights end.

We liberals allow many viewpoints, but when some people's viewpoints advocate suppressing other people rights we draw the line.

Removing monuments that honor traitors is absolutely justified. Those monuments should never have been allowed to have been erected. They are an insult to all those people who have fought for the freedoms that we all enjoy in this country. Honoring slavers and those that protected slavery is anti-American.

With freedom comes responsibility and those who try to exercise freedoms irresponsibly do not deserve those freedoms.

you are sadly misinformed on many things. Let me see if I can help

conservatives WANT a social safety net for those who are physically or mentally unable to care for themselves. We want it for all needy people regardless of race, religion, age, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. BUT, we believe that voluntary charities do a much better job of providing those services than the government. Yes, the government has a role but it has gotten out of control when we have generations of families on welfare when they are able to work, when we reward women for having children with no father in the home.

Did what happened at Berkley equal freedom of speech in your mind? Destroying public and private property in order to prevent a conservative viewpoint from being heard? Those rioters were suppressing the first amendment rights of others, are you OK with that?

The civil war was not about slavery. It was about taxation. There were more slaves in New York state than in Georgia. There were slaves in Illinois (land of Lincoln) AFTER the civil war. The largest slaveowner in the USA was a black man. The monuments to confederate generals were put up to honor the people who died fighting for what they believed in, they are part of American history. Removing them is equivalent to the Taliban removing Buddhas in Afghanistan.

I agree with your last statement 100%. Today its those on the left who are trying to deprive others who disagree with them of their basic constitutional freedoms. A biased left wing media does not represent freedom of speech, it represents indoctrination. Something that Hitler and Stalin did very well in the 1930s.

You seem like a smart guy, please get some education on American and world history.

The Confederate Generals had all sworn to uphold the Constitution and to protect the federal government. Many were West Point grads. They betrayed that oath and were by definition 'Traitors'.

The Civil war was about taxation and about slavery...and a handful of other issues. But it was primarily about dividing and destroying the Union and returning to the failed system that existed before the U.S. Constitution created the federal government.

Voluntary charities DO NOT do a better jobs of caring for those in need. They do not guarantee that needy people will get the basics that they need. They often depend on church membership or other criteria. They also depend on voluntary contributions, which in turn depend on the economic conditions at the time...just when there are the most needy people is when contributions are at their minimum. It just doesn't work.

The social safety net should not be just for the disbaled. What about people who've worked for many years, living pay check to pay check, and suddenly lose their jobs? Should they just be kicked to the curb?

When private industry is willing to guarantee 100% employment at decent wages and benefits, then we will no longer need government assistance programs. But I wouldn't recommend holding your breath.

I agree that people who are laid off through no fault of their own should get some TEMPORARY help from society as a whole. But if they are fired for not showing up, showing up drunk or drugged, or just not doing the job as required they should be on their own. The government is not your momma, it is not a charity, it is a business.

and you are wrong about charities. they do a much more efficient job of providing help to the needy than the government, and have more compassion. Ever hear of St Judes children's hospital? It does wonderful things for sick kids and is funded by donations. Now, lets compare that to the VA, which does a shitty job of providing help to needy American veterans.

 

[Redfish]

Liberals have turned "ask not what your country can do for you—ask what you can do for your country.” into "demand your country do everything for you and resort to violence if you don't get it.".

Yea...taking care of the sick is so selfish

Nice job making a point no one is arguing. lol

Republicans have argued it for eight years

not true. no republican wants the sick to not be cared for. Where do you get this crap?

 

[Redfish]

do you even know what fascism means? give us a definition.

fas·cism
ˈfaSHˌizəm/
noun

1. an authoritarian and nationalistic right-wing system of government and social organization.

Any other stupid questions?

would it be fascist to have a government where every citizen was dependent on it for the basic necessities of life? Would it be fascist to riot and prevent citizens from expressing their freedom of speech? your definition is a good one and it describes the exact form of government that you on the left are asking for. Rewriting history, removing monuments, only allowing one viewpoint, the media as an arm of the government.

the Russians and Chinese and North Koreans practice what you say you want.

Having a social safety net for those in need is a long way from having every citizen dependent on the government for their basic necessities. Another example of fascist paranoid delusions perhaps?

When your expressions of "freedom of speech" include the profession of persecuting other people and of denying them there rights, you can bet that people are going to riot. All rights are limited rights. When your exercise of rights suppresses other people's rights your rights end.

We liberals allow many viewpoints, but when some people's viewpoints advocate suppressing other people rights we draw the line.

Removing monuments that honor traitors is absolutely justified. Those monuments should never have been allowed to have been erected. They are an insult to all those people who have fought for the freedoms that we all enjoy in this country. Honoring slavers and those that protected slavery is anti-American.

With freedom comes responsibility and those who try to exercise freedoms irresponsibly do not deserve those freedoms.

you are sadly misinformed on many things. Let me see if I can help

conservatives WANT a social safety net for those who are physically or mentally unable to care for themselves. We want it for all needy people regardless of race, religion, age, sexual orientation, or ethnicity. BUT, we believe that voluntary charities do a much better job of providing those services than the government. Yes, the government has a role but it has gotten out of control when we have generations of families on welfare when they are able to work, when we reward women for having children with no father in the home.

Did what happened at Berkley equal freedom of speech in your mind? Destroying public and private property in order to prevent a conservative viewpoint from being heard? Those rioters were suppressing the first amendment rights of others, are you OK with that?

The civil war was not about slavery. It was about taxation. There were more slaves in New York state than in Georgia. There were slaves in Illinois (land of Lincoln) AFTER the civil war. The largest slaveowner in the USA was a black man. The monuments to confederate generals were put up to honor the people who died fighting for what they believed in, they are part of American history. Removing them is equivalent to the Taliban removing Buddhas in Afghanistan.

I agree with your last statement 100%. Today its those on the left who are trying to deprive others who disagree with them of their basic constitutional freedoms. A biased left wing media does not represent freedom of speech, it represents indoctrination. Something that Hitler and Stalin did very well in the 1930s.

You seem like a smart guy, please get some education on American and world history.

The Confederate Generals had all sworn to uphold the Constitution and to protect the federal government. Many were West Point grads. They betrayed that oath and were by definition 'Traitors'.

The Civil war was about taxation and about slavery...and a handful of other issues. But it was primarily about dividing and destroying the Union and returning to the failed system that existed before the U.S. Constitution created the federal government.

Voluntary charities DO NOT do a better jobs of caring for those in need. They do not guarantee that needy people will get the basics that they need. They often depend on church membership or other criteria. They also depend on voluntary contributions, which in turn depend on the economic conditions at the time...just when there are the most needy people is when contributions are at their minimum. It just doesn't work.

The social safety net should not be just for the disbaled. What about people who've worked for many years, living pay check to pay check, and suddenly lose their jobs? Should they just be kicked to the curb?

When private industry is willing to guarantee 100% employment at decent wages and benefits, then we will no longer need government assistance programs. But I wouldn't recommend holding your breath.

to your last point. the constitution does not guarantee 100% employment at decent wages and benefits. It guarantees equal opportunity, not equal results. What you make of your life is up to you, your results are not society's responsibility. Life is not fair, grow up and understand that basic concept or you will forever be wallowing in self pity.

 

[Markle]

Well, ya know how trumps "Doctor" said he was, you know, "healthy"?

As it happens, JFK had some severe health problems too and he paid off a doctor to lie for him.

Just like the pussy grabber did.

[emoji37]


Sent from my iPad using USMessageBoard.com

 

[Markle]

I think he would be saddened to see that his party actually considered running a Socialist.

Sure he came with baggage (but in all fairness who wouldn't want to nail Marilyn Monroe?), but he also owned up to his mistakes in office, was a war hero, and had respect for his opposition.

President Kennedy couldn't be a Democrat today.