Was JFK the last conservative democrat president?

[Political Junky]

Fox has been trying to link JFK with the Right of today.

That's funny JFK's own words link him to being more conservative than liberal.

Link JFK's quote?

 

[Dragonlady]

So you're say the founding fathers went to war for liberty from big government so we could have big government today? Not one but Hamilton would support any liberal policy of today.

They didn't go to war for liberty from big government, they went to war so that they could control their own fate: No taxation without representation. They weren't opposed to government, but rather an heirarchy which saw tax dollars going to support the rich aristocracy in another country.

Contemporary conservatives keep trying to rebrand the founding fathers into their own image but the facts don't support their revisionist history.

Liberals want a level playing field and the founding fathers created a level playing field. The concept that "All men are created equal" is that level playing field. Today's conservatives have taken that level playing field and tilted it to the advantage of the wealthy. In attempting to go back to equal opportunity for all, conservatives rail that liberals want to strip the rich of their wealth.

 

[Pogo]

So you're say the founding fathers went to war for liberty from big government so we could have big government today? Not one but Hamilton would support any liberal policy of today.

They didn't go to war for liberty from big government, they went to war so that they could control their own fate: No taxation without representation. They weren't opposed to government, but rather an heirarchy which saw tax dollars going to support the rich aristocracy in another country.

Contemporary conservatives keep trying to rebrand the founding fathers into their own image but the facts don't support their revisionist history.

Liberals want a level playing field and the founding fathers created a level playing field. The concept that "All men are created equal" is that level playing field. Today's conservatives have taken that level playing field and tilted it to the advantage of the wealthy. In attempting to go back to equal opportunity for all, conservatives rail that liberals want to strip the rich of their wealth.

This Canadian ^^ appears to know more about our history than at least one of us North Carolinians...

 

[Bfgrn]

You are a lying sack of shit.

America was founded on LIBERAL tenets. Conservatives in 1776 were called Tories, Redcoats, Lobsterbacks and Loyalists.

When conservatives ultimately get their hands on any government, they turn it into what conservatism has ALWAYS been about...aristocracies, plutocracies and oligarchies.

You do realize that is the biggest pile of shit one could ever write on the internet?
So you're say the founding fathers went to war for liberty from big government so we could have big government today? Not one but Hamilton would support any liberal policy of today.

There is no sin except stupidity.
Oscar Wilde

You DO realize that our founding fathers went to war for liberty from a small, non-inclusive government, called a Monarchy (supreme power or sovereignty held by a single person) so we could have an INclusive government with representation today?

Hamilton would be a Republican today...BIG business over We, the People.

EPIC fail...

"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

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So you're say the founding fathers went to war for liberty from big government so we could have big government today? Not one but Hamilton would support any liberal policy of today.

They didn't go to war for liberty from big government, they went to war so that they could control their own fate: No taxation without representation. They weren't opposed to government, but rather an heirarchy which saw tax dollars going to support the rich aristocracy in another country.

Contemporary conservatives keep trying to rebrand the founding fathers into their own image but the facts don't support their revisionist history.

Liberals want a level playing field and the founding fathers created a level playing field. The concept that "All men are created equal" is that level playing field. Today's conservatives have taken that level playing field and tilted it to the advantage of the wealthy. In attempting to go back to equal opportunity for all, conservatives rail that liberals want to strip the rich of their wealth.

ok let's begin what liberal policy of today would the founders of America support. Name the founder and the policy?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

America was founded on LIBERAL tenets. Conservatives in 1776 were called Tories, Redcoats, Lobsterbacks and Loyalists.

When conservatives ultimately get their hands on any government, they turn it into what conservatism has ALWAYS been about...aristocracies, plutocracies and oligarchies.

You do realize that is the biggest pile of shit one could ever write on the internet?
So you're say the founding fathers went to war for liberty from big government so we could have big government today? Not one but Hamilton would support any liberal policy of today.

There is no sin except stupidity.
Oscar Wilde

You DO realize that our founding fathers went to war for liberty from a small, non-inclusive government, called a Monarchy (supreme power or sovereignty held by a single person) so we could have an INclusive government with representation today?

Hamilton would be a Republican today...BIG business over We, the People.

EPIC fail...

"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

The KING was big government he represented tyranny which is what we have today.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So you're say the founding fathers went to war for liberty from big government so we could have big government today? Not one but Hamilton would support any liberal policy of today.

They didn't go to war for liberty from big government, they went to war so that they could control their own fate: No taxation without representation. They weren't opposed to government, but rather an heirarchy which saw tax dollars going to support the rich aristocracy in another country.

Contemporary conservatives keep trying to rebrand the founding fathers into their own image but the facts don't support their revisionist history.

Liberals want a level playing field and the founding fathers created a level playing field. The concept that "All men are created equal" is that level playing field. Today's conservatives have taken that level playing field and tilted it to the advantage of the wealthy. In attempting to go back to equal opportunity for all, conservatives rail that liberals want to strip the rich of their wealth.

This Canadian ^^ appears to know more about our history than at least one of us North Carolinians...

Horse shit. she doesn't know a fucking thing about this country. If she persist she's about to get debunked

 

[Bfgrn]

So you're say the founding fathers went to war for liberty from big government so we could have big government today? Not one but Hamilton would support any liberal policy of today.

They didn't go to war for liberty from big government, they went to war so that they could control their own fate: No taxation without representation. They weren't opposed to government, but rather an heirarchy which saw tax dollars going to support the rich aristocracy in another country.

Contemporary conservatives keep trying to rebrand the founding fathers into their own image but the facts don't support their revisionist history.

Liberals want a level playing field and the founding fathers created a level playing field. The concept that "All men are created equal" is that level playing field. Today's conservatives have taken that level playing field and tilted it to the advantage of the wealthy. In attempting to go back to equal opportunity for all, conservatives rail that liberals want to strip the rich of their wealth.

Even one of the right's icons knows that the history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

“If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.”
Douglas Adams

Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Fox has been trying to link JFK with the Right of today.

That's funny JFK's own words link him to being more conservative than liberal.

Link JFK's quote?

The Growth of American Government: A Morphology of the Welfare State page 158

 

[Pogo]

They didn't go to war for liberty from big government, they went to war so that they could control their own fate: No taxation without representation. They weren't opposed to government, but rather an heirarchy which saw tax dollars going to support the rich aristocracy in another country.

Contemporary conservatives keep trying to rebrand the founding fathers into their own image but the facts don't support their revisionist history.

Liberals want a level playing field and the founding fathers created a level playing field. The concept that "All men are created equal" is that level playing field. Today's conservatives have taken that level playing field and tilted it to the advantage of the wealthy. In attempting to go back to equal opportunity for all, conservatives rail that liberals want to strip the rich of their wealth.

This Canadian ^^ appears to know more about our history than at least one of us North Carolinians...

Horse shit. she doesn't know a fucking thing about this country. If she persist she's about to get debunked

Like you "debunked" all those other posts with "you're full of shit" and and "shut the fuck up"?

I'd hate to be on the receiving end of those zingers. That's gotta leave a mark.

She's exactly right. She knows your history better than you do.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

So you're say the founding fathers went to war for liberty from big government so we could have big government today? Not one but Hamilton would support any liberal policy of today.

They didn't go to war for liberty from big government, they went to war so that they could control their own fate: No taxation without representation. They weren't opposed to government, but rather an heirarchy which saw tax dollars going to support the rich aristocracy in another country.

Contemporary conservatives keep trying to rebrand the founding fathers into their own image but the facts don't support their revisionist history.

Liberals want a level playing field and the founding fathers created a level playing field. The concept that "All men are created equal" is that level playing field. Today's conservatives have taken that level playing field and tilted it to the advantage of the wealthy. In attempting to go back to equal opportunity for all, conservatives rail that liberals want to strip the rich of their wealth.

Even one of the right's icons knows that the history of mankind has been a struggle between those who want to increase freedom, opportunity and rights to all people and those who want to restrict them. The people who have always fought to increase freedom, opportunity and rights are liberals. The people who have fought to restrict them are conservatives.

“If it looks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, we have at least to consider the possibility that we have a small aquatic bird of the family anatidae on our hands.”
Douglas Adams

Why I am Not a Conservative by F. A. Hayek

In general, it can probably be said that the conservative does not object to coercion or arbitrary power so long as it is used for what he regards as the right purposes. He believes that if government is in the hands of decent men, it ought not to be too much restricted by rigid rules. Since he is essentially opportunist and lacks principles, his main hope must be that the wise and the good will rule - not merely by example, as we all must wish, but by authority given to them and enforced by them.

When I say that the conservative lacks principles, I do not mean to suggest that he lacks moral conviction. The typical conservative is indeed usually a man of very strong moral convictions. What I mean is that he has no political principles which enable him to work with people whose moral values differ from his own for a political order in which both can obey their convictions. It is the recognition of such principles that permits the coexistence of different sets of values that makes it possible to build a peaceful society with a minimum of force. The acceptance of such principles means that we agree to tolerate much that we dislike.

To live and work successfully with others requires more than faithfulness to one's concrete aims. It requires an intellectual commitment to a type of order in which, even on issues which to one are fundamental, others are allowed to pursue different ends.

It is for this reason that to the liberal neither moral nor religious ideals are proper objects of coercion, while both conservatives and socialists recognize no such limits.

In the last resort, the conservative position rests on the belief that in any society there are recognizably superior persons whose inherited standards and values and position ought to be protected and who should have a greater influence on public affairs than others. The liberal, of course, does not deny that there are some superior people - he is not an egalitarian - but he denies that anyone has authority to decide who these superior people are. While the conservative inclines to defend a particular established hierarchy and wishes authority to protect the status of those whom he values, the liberal feels that no respect for established values can justify the resort to privilege or monopoly or any other coercive power of the state in order to shelter such people against the forces of economic change. Though he is fully aware of the important role that cultural and intellectual elites have played in the evolution of civilization, he also believes that these elites have to prove themselves by their capacity to maintain their position under the same rules that apply to all others.

Closely connected with this is the usual attitude of the conservative to democracy. I have made it clear earlier that I do not regard majority rule as an end but merely as a means, or perhaps even as the least evil of those forms of government from which we have to choose. But I believe that the conservatives deceive themselves when they blame the evils of our time on democracy. The chief evil is unlimited government, and nobody is qualified to wield unlimited power. The powers which modern democracy possesses would be even more intolerable in the hands of some small elite.

Nobel laureate F. A. Hayek is a founder of America?

 

[Dragonlady]

The King wasn't big government. He was the aristrocracy, and above the citizens, hence the "all men are created equal", which was in the Declaration of Independence.

The founding fathers were rebelling against a system of government which held that the aristocracy was better than the people and more deserving of wealth and power. They said that everyone was equal and as such, they all had the right to create a government which recognized them as such.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

This Canadian ^^ appears to know more about our history than at least one of us North Carolinians...

Horse shit. she doesn't know a fucking thing about this country. If she persist she's about to get debunked

Like you "debunked" all those other posts with "you're full of shit" and and "shut the fuck up"?

I'd hate to be on the receiving end of those zingers. That's gotta leave a mark.

You're full of shit is suitable use when what you said is nothing but shit. Go figure.

 

[Bfgrn]

You do realize that is the biggest pile of shit one could ever write on the internet?
So you're say the founding fathers went to war for liberty from big government so we could have big government today? Not one but Hamilton would support any liberal policy of today.

There is no sin except stupidity.
Oscar Wilde

You DO realize that our founding fathers went to war for liberty from a small, non-inclusive government, called a Monarchy (supreme power or sovereignty held by a single person) so we could have an INclusive government with representation today?

Hamilton would be a Republican today...BIG business over We, the People.

EPIC fail...

"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

The KING was big government he represented tyranny which is what we have today.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson

Tyranny? REALLY?? What next pea brain, Godwin's law??? Is this how you talked when Bush was in office????

The ONLY ones who want to take away people's voting rights (representation) are on the right, not the left.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The King wasn't big government. He was the aristrocracy, and above the citizens, hence the "all men are created equal", which was in the Declaration of Independence.

The founding fathers were rebelling against a system of government which held that the aristocracy was better than the people and more deserving of wealth and power. They said that everyone was equal and as such, they all had the right to create a government which recognized them as such.

Irrelevant let's get back to which founder would support the mordern day liberal policy? I'm waiting.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

There is no sin except stupidity.
Oscar Wilde

You DO realize that our founding fathers went to war for liberty from a small, non-inclusive government, called a Monarchy (supreme power or sovereignty held by a single person) so we could have an INclusive government with representation today?

Hamilton would be a Republican today...BIG business over We, the People.

EPIC fail...

"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

The KING was big government he represented tyranny which is what we have today.

The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants.

Thomas Jefferson

Tyranny? REALLY?? What next pea brain, Godwin's law??? Is this how you talked when Bush was in office????

The ONLY ones who want to take away people's voting rights (representation) are on the right, not the left.

peabrain don't quote Jefferson unless you want it back your way.

 

[Bfgrn]

The King wasn't big government. He was the aristrocracy, and above the citizens, hence the "all men are created equal", which was in the Declaration of Independence.

The founding fathers were rebelling against a system of government which held that the aristocracy was better than the people and more deserving of wealth and power. They said that everyone was equal and as such, they all had the right to create a government which recognized them as such.

DL...don't forget who you are arguing with...

Liberals believe people are basically good, conservatives believe people are basically evil.
Liberals believe in raising people up, conservatives believe in pushing people down.
Liberals believe in encouragement, conservatives believe in scorn.
Liberals always stand up for the little guy, conservatives always stand up for the big guy.

 

[Bfgrn]

The KING was big government he represented tyranny which is what we have today.


Thomas Jefferson

Tyranny? REALLY?? What next pea brain, Godwin's law??? Is this how you talked when Bush was in office????

The ONLY ones who want to take away people's voting rights (representation) are on the right, not the left.

peabrain don't quote Jefferson unless you want it back your way.

Your getting hammered on this thread PEA BRAIN...

Classical liberals assume a natural equality of humans; conservatives assume a natural hierarchy.
James M. Buchanan

 

[Pogo]

The King wasn't big government. He was the aristrocracy, and above the citizens, hence the "all men are created equal", which was in the Declaration of Independence.

The founding fathers were rebelling against a system of government which held that the aristocracy was better than the people and more deserving of wealth and power. They said that everyone was equal and as such, they all had the right to create a government which recognized them as such.

Irrelevant let's get back to which founder would support the mordern day liberal policy? I'm waiting.

First it's "your opinion doesn't count because you're Canadian" and now after she handed you your history lesson ass it's "irrelevant" because you can't counter it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The King wasn't big government. He was the aristrocracy, and above the citizens, hence the "all men are created equal", which was in the Declaration of Independence.

The founding fathers were rebelling against a system of government which held that the aristocracy was better than the people and more deserving of wealth and power. They said that everyone was equal and as such, they all had the right to create a government which recognized them as such.

Irrelevant let's get back to which founder would support the mordern day liberal policy? I'm waiting.

First it's "your opinion doesn't count because you're Canadian" and now after she handed you your history lesson ass it's "irrelevant" because you can't counter it.

trolling I guess that's allowed or do you have something to offer other than trolling?