Democrats... Rejecting John F. Kennedy

[Wyatt earp]

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

I remember JFK as pro union, quite unlike today's republicans. So was Martin Luther King by the way. I doubt very much that they'd have much in common with today's republican party of the very wealthy.

Unions up to 73 helped the working class, then it all changed. Dont compare Unions today to the past it makes you look like an iddiot

 

[Wyatt earp]

Here is Kennedy's economic agenda in the New Frontier:

1. The addition of a temporary thirteen-week supplement to jobless benefits,
2. The extension of aid to the children of unemployed workers,
3. The redevelopment of distressed areas,
4. An increase in Social Security payments and the encouragement of earlier retirement,
5. An increase in the minimum wage and an extension in coverage,
6. The provision of emergency relief to feed grain farmers, and
7. The financing of a comprehensive homebuilding and slum clearance program.

Now let's hear all you RWnuts pretend that is your agenda.

I can see why he is a conservative icon

They even get the "Ask not" quote wrong

Where and when? You still trying to revise that Inaugural Adress to fit your motives? Do you want me to post the entire one word for word?

 

[Wyatt earp]

If liberals today think like this today where do I sign up to join the democrat party? You are so full of shit

 

[Pogo]

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?

"My policies"?
I believe the subject of the thread title is "Democrats".

Anyway perhaps illiteracy prevails but my question was, and remains unaddressed, how the poster (or anyone) knows that some political party, all by itself, "wants to keep the poor in poverty". As opposed to both party wanting that. And I use the singular intentionally.

It bespeaks a fundamental naïveté about the political system, if not outright partisan wankitudinous hackery.

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.

Since the distinction between Democrat and Liberal apparently sails over your head, you might wanna reconsider tossing the term "stupid" about. Just sayin'.

1. THe Republicans gain no advantage from keeping anyone poor. The poor are least likely to vote for them, as opposed to the party of every greater handouts.

2. I have no problem with the distinction between Democrat and Liberal. You seem to have a problem accepting that there is a lot of overlap between the two groups.

3. And regardless, my point stands. She is judging you libs/dems by the fruits of your labors.

4. If you are rejecting her and my assumption(s) that you are a lib and a dem, then come out and clearly state it instead of beating around the bush.

1 - is not an answer at all. It's your own analysis of what somebody else is thinking, carrying its own strawman ("handouts").

2 - apparently you do, since you morphed the former (a political party, by definition mutable) into the latter (an abstract philosophy, by definition fixed). And I doubt you can articulate it.

3- is not an answer at all, and that's the only thing that "stands". The question was, 'what's the source'. Your rambling tangent is tacit admission that none exists.

4 - I didn't bring up my own perspective at all --- YOU did.

 

[rightwinger]

If liberals today think like this today where do I sign up to join the democrat party? You are so full of shit

Great speech by a great liberal

 

[rightwinger]

Here is Kennedy's economic agenda in the New Frontier:

1. The addition of a temporary thirteen-week supplement to jobless benefits,
2. The extension of aid to the children of unemployed workers,
3. The redevelopment of distressed areas,
4. An increase in Social Security payments and the encouragement of earlier retirement,
5. An increase in the minimum wage and an extension in coverage,
6. The provision of emergency relief to feed grain farmers, and
7. The financing of a comprehensive homebuilding and slum clearance program.

Now let's hear all you RWnuts pretend that is your agenda.

I can see why he is a conservative icon

They even get the "Ask not" quote wrong

Where and when? You still trying to revise that Inaugural Adress to fit your motives? Do you want me to post the entire one word for word?

The part when they try to use a call for public service to be a condemnation of social welfare programs

 

[Correll]

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?

"My policies"?
I believe the subject of the thread title is "Democrats".

Anyway perhaps illiteracy prevails but my question was, and remains unaddressed, how the poster (or anyone) knows that some political party, all by itself, "wants to keep the poor in poverty". As opposed to both party wanting that. And I use the singular intentionally.

It bespeaks a fundamental naïveté about the political system, if not outright partisan wankitudinous hackery.

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.

Since the distinction between Democrat and Liberal apparently sails over your head, you might wanna reconsider tossing the term "stupid" about. Just sayin'.

1. THe Republicans gain no advantage from keeping anyone poor. The poor are least likely to vote for them, as opposed to the party of every greater handouts.

2. I have no problem with the distinction between Democrat and Liberal. You seem to have a problem accepting that there is a lot of overlap between the two groups.

3. And regardless, my point stands. She is judging you libs/dems by the fruits of your labors.

4. If you are rejecting her and my assumption(s) that you are a lib and a dem, then come out and clearly state it instead of beating around the bush.

1 - is not an answer at all. It's your own analysis of what somebody else is thinking, carrying its own strawman ("handouts").

2 - apparently you do, since you morphed the former (a political party, by definition mutable) into the latter (an abstract philosophy, by definition fixed). And I doubt you can articulate it.

3- is not an answer at all, and that's the only thing that "stands". The question was, 'what's the source'. Your rambling tangent is tacit admission that none exists.

4 - I didn't bring up my own perspective at all --- YOU did.

1. Yes, an answer. NOt a strawman, merely my viewpoint. DO you deny the dems are the party more for social spending than the GOP? You refusal to admit it is answer is just a sophist dodge.

2. Bull. You are quibbling over semantics.

3. SUre it is. WHy do you not want to stand by the dem/lib policies of the last 60 years? Aren't your proud of what your fellow travelers have produced?

4. THat was painfully obvious by my reference to our assumption(s) about you, ie that you are a lib and a dem. Do you deny that you are a liberal and a democrat?

 

[Correll]

If liberals today think like this today where do I sign up to join the democrat party? You are so full of shit

Great speech by a great liberal

If he believed in God Given Rights, he would not be a liberal by todays standards.

 

[rightwinger]

If liberals today think like this today where do I sign up to join the democrat party? You are so full of shit

Great speech by a great liberal

If he believed in God Given Rights, he would not be a liberal by todays standards.

Of course he would

Liberals believe in God, they also allow for liberals who don't

 

[Correll]

If liberals today think like this today where do I sign up to join the democrat party? You are so full of shit

Great speech by a great liberal

If he believed in God Given Rights, he would not be a liberal by todays standards.

Of course he would

Liberals believe in God, they also allow for liberals who don't

If liberals today think like this today where do I sign up to join the democrat party? You are so full of shit

Great speech by a great liberal

If he believed in God Given Rights, he would not be a liberal by todays standards.

Of course he would

Liberals believe in God, they also allow for liberals who don't

If he believed in God Given RIGHTS, he would not be a liberal by today's standards.

Moderns libs look to the All Powerful State as the source of our Rights.

 

[rightwinger]

If liberals today think like this today where do I sign up to join the democrat party? You are so full of shit

Great speech by a great liberal

If he believed in God Given Rights, he would not be a liberal by todays standards.

Of course he would

Liberals believe in God, they also allow for liberals who don't

If liberals today think like this today where do I sign up to join the democrat party? You are so full of shit

Great speech by a great liberal

If he believed in God Given Rights, he would not be a liberal by todays standards.

Of course he would

Liberals believe in God, they also allow for liberals who don't

If he believed in God Given RIGHTS, he would not be a liberal by today's standards.

Moderns libs look to the All Powerful State as the source of our Rights.

Liberals support your rights regardless of where they may have come from

Yes we have to rely on the state to exercise our rights......praying does not seem to have much impact

 

[Pogo]

-- 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?

"My policies"?
I believe the subject of the thread title is "Democrats".

Anyway perhaps illiteracy prevails but my question was, and remains unaddressed, how the poster (or anyone) knows that some political party, all by itself, "wants to keep the poor in poverty". As opposed to both party wanting that. And I use the singular intentionally.

It bespeaks a fundamental naïveté about the political system, if not outright partisan wankitudinous hackery.

-- 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.

Since the distinction between Democrat and Liberal apparently sails over your head, you might wanna reconsider tossing the term "stupid" about. Just sayin'.

1. THe Republicans gain no advantage from keeping anyone poor. The poor are least likely to vote for them, as opposed to the party of every greater handouts.

2. I have no problem with the distinction between Democrat and Liberal. You seem to have a problem accepting that there is a lot of overlap between the two groups.

3. And regardless, my point stands. She is judging you libs/dems by the fruits of your labors.

4. If you are rejecting her and my assumption(s) that you are a lib and a dem, then come out and clearly state it instead of beating around the bush.

1 - is not an answer at all. It's your own analysis of what somebody else is thinking, carrying its own strawman ("handouts").

2 - apparently you do, since you morphed the former (a political party, by definition mutable) into the latter (an abstract philosophy, by definition fixed). And I doubt you can articulate it.

3- is not an answer at all, and that's the only thing that "stands". The question was, 'what's the source'. Your rambling tangent is tacit admission that none exists.

4 - I didn't bring up my own perspective at all --- YOU did.

1. Yes, an answer. NOt a strawman, merely my viewpoint. DO you deny the dems are the party more for social spending than the GOP? You refusal to admit it is answer is just a sophist dodge.

2. Bull. You are quibbling over semantics.

3. SUre it is. WHy do you not want to stand by the dem/lib policies of the last 60 years? Aren't your proud of what your fellow travelers have produced?

4. THat was painfully obvious by my reference to our assumption(s) about you, ie that you are a lib and a dem. Do you deny that you are a liberal and a democrat?

1 - as a general rule, no I would not. But again that has nothing to do with the question. As doesn't the rest of your post.

2 - no, I'm pointing out a conflation on your part that tells me you don't know the difference between "Liberal" and "Democrat".

3 - again, cacophonous bullshit.

4 - I am a Liberal; I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a "joiner". If that's the only way you can get through life, with some organization telling you what to do, then you deserve my pity. And you have it.

 

[HenryBHough]

It is true that it is not necessary for liberals to be Democrats.

They might simply believe in socialism.
They might simply be closet communists.
They might have no "ism" at all.

We have to stop thinking of liberals as exclusively associated with any one party.

Think, instead, of liberals as being, in their own way, very, very, indeed even fanatically religious.

 

[Kosh]

JFK would not ever make it through the primaries of today's far left regime.

 

[Correll]

If liberals today think like this today where do I sign up to join the democrat party? You are so full of shit

Great speech by a great liberal

If he believed in God Given Rights, he would not be a liberal by todays standards.

Of course he would

Liberals believe in God, they also allow for liberals who don't

If liberals today think like this today where do I sign up to join the democrat party? You are so full of shit

Great speech by a great liberal

If he believed in God Given Rights, he would not be a liberal by todays standards.

Of course he would

Liberals believe in God, they also allow for liberals who don't

If he believed in God Given RIGHTS, he would not be a liberal by today's standards.

Moderns libs look to the All Powerful State as the source of our Rights.

Liberals support your rights regardless of where they may have come from

Yes we have to rely on the state to exercise our rights......praying does not seem to have much impact

Mmm, ridiculing the very idea of prayer...

Tell me again how welcoming you libs are to people of Faith...

And if you accept that Rights are GRANTED by the State, then what is given can be taken away.

 

[rightwinger]

JFK would not ever make it through the primaries of today's far left regime.

Really?

Based on what political position?

 

[rightwinger]

Great speech by a great liberal

If he believed in God Given Rights, he would not be a liberal by todays standards.

Of course he would

Liberals believe in God, they also allow for liberals who don't

Great speech by a great liberal

If he believed in God Given Rights, he would not be a liberal by todays standards.

Of course he would

Liberals believe in God, they also allow for liberals who don't

If he believed in God Given RIGHTS, he would not be a liberal by today's standards.

Moderns libs look to the All Powerful State as the source of our Rights.

Liberals support your rights regardless of where they may have come from

Yes we have to rely on the state to exercise our rights......praying does not seem to have much impact

Mmm, ridiculing the very idea of prayer...

Tell me again how welcoming you libs are to people of Faith...

And if you accept that Rights are GRANTED by the State, then what is given can be taken away.

If your prayer is so powerful, who even needs a Constitution?

 

[Correll]

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?

"My policies"?
I believe the subject of the thread title is "Democrats".

Anyway perhaps illiteracy prevails but my question was, and remains unaddressed, how the poster (or anyone) knows that some political party, all by itself, "wants to keep the poor in poverty". As opposed to both party wanting that. And I use the singular intentionally.

It bespeaks a fundamental naïveté about the political system, if not outright partisan wankitudinous hackery.

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.

Since the distinction between Democrat and Liberal apparently sails over your head, you might wanna reconsider tossing the term "stupid" about. Just sayin'.

1. THe Republicans gain no advantage from keeping anyone poor. The poor are least likely to vote for them, as opposed to the party of every greater handouts.

2. I have no problem with the distinction between Democrat and Liberal. You seem to have a problem accepting that there is a lot of overlap between the two groups.

3. And regardless, my point stands. She is judging you libs/dems by the fruits of your labors.

4. If you are rejecting her and my assumption(s) that you are a lib and a dem, then come out and clearly state it instead of beating around the bush.

1 - is not an answer at all. It's your own analysis of what somebody else is thinking, carrying its own strawman ("handouts").

2 - apparently you do, since you morphed the former (a political party, by definition mutable) into the latter (an abstract philosophy, by definition fixed). And I doubt you can articulate it.

3- is not an answer at all, and that's the only thing that "stands". The question was, 'what's the source'. Your rambling tangent is tacit admission that none exists.

4 - I didn't bring up my own perspective at all --- YOU did.

1. Yes, an answer. NOt a strawman, merely my viewpoint. DO you deny the dems are the party more for social spending than the GOP? You refusal to admit it is answer is just a sophist dodge.

2. Bull. You are quibbling over semantics.

3. SUre it is. WHy do you not want to stand by the dem/lib policies of the last 60 years? Aren't your proud of what your fellow travelers have produced?

4. THat was painfully obvious by my reference to our assumption(s) about you, ie that you are a lib and a dem. Do you deny that you are a liberal and a democrat?

1 - as a general rule, no I would not. But again that has nothing to do with the question. As doesn't the rest of your post.

2 - no, I'm pointing out a conflation on your part that tells me you don't know the difference between "Liberal" and "Democrat".

3 - again, cacophonous bullshit.

4 - I am a Liberal; I'm not a Democrat. I'm not a "joiner". If that's the only way you can get through life, with some organization telling you what to do, then you deserve my pity. And you have it.

1. Nonsense. You suggested that NOT just the Dems are purposefully keeping people poor. Why would the GOP purposefully keep people poor when poor people want "social spending" and thus vote for dems? COmpletely on topic. Stop playing stupid games.

2. Bullshit. Sophist games to dodge and obfuscate.

3. Bullshit. Judging dems/libs by the results of their policies is completely reasonable. I understand why you are resistant to the idea, what with the long record of failure.

4. oooooooh, you are soooo cooool and such a rebel. I had no idea. Yep. YOu're a lib as we assume, and I bet that when the chips are down, you vote dem, despite what your voting card might say.

 

[HenryBHough]

Today's Democrats would organize a Lee Harvey Oswald defense fund.

 

[Correll]

If he believed in God Given Rights, he would not be a liberal by todays standards.

Of course he would

Liberals believe in God, they also allow for liberals who don't

If he believed in God Given Rights, he would not be a liberal by todays standards.

Of course he would

Liberals believe in God, they also allow for liberals who don't

If he believed in God Given RIGHTS, he would not be a liberal by today's standards.

Moderns libs look to the All Powerful State as the source of our Rights.

Liberals support your rights regardless of where they may have come from

Yes we have to rely on the state to exercise our rights......praying does not seem to have much impact

Mmm, ridiculing the very idea of prayer...

Tell me again how welcoming you libs are to people of Faith...

And if you accept that Rights are GRANTED by the State, then what is given can be taken away.

If your prayer is so powerful, who even needs a Constitution?

My point was not about the power of prayer but about your intolerance of viewpoints that are different than your own.

It is not surprising that you pretended to misunderstand.

I bet some of your best friends are Religious.