President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal.

[Procrustes Stretched]

President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)

I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:

"What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean...someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]

- Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

---

"Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman..."

- A Liberal Definition by JFK

---

as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.

What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?

They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.

If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.

John Fitzgerald Kennedy had something to say about JFK and liberalism.

 

[The Infidel]

people like you killed the Kennedys

and one Kennedy in particular killed a lady

a car accident? laura bush killed somebody in a car accident too.


fuck off troll

No you FUK OFF....

SHE WAS'NT DRUNK


You dumbass!

 

[daveman]

Looking out for the union working man? what is wrong with that? candidates and the elected officials promise pay back to veterans for their votes? what's wrong with that?

the GOP will be paying back the US Chamber of Commerce? what is wrong with that? Oh, you'll see...what is good for American Corporations is NOT always good for the American people -- the American worker. Everyone will get screwed, but union people will get screwed the least -- they have the Democrats to run interference for them when business attacks the middle class..

Democrats don't abuse government power to support the working man; they abuse government power to pay back supporting organizations like unions who make big donations and guarantee Dem votes.

And FTR, I oppose any party doing that. The purpose of government is (supposed to be) fulfilling Constitutional mandates, not ensuring the party currently in power stays in power.

Unions represent working men and women. Fact.

70 years ago, maybe. Not so much any more.

The purpose of government is to do what the people want it to do. Constitutional mandates?

You know, the Constitution? The piece of paper that says what our government can and can't do?

Any of that ring a bell?

 

[Bfgrn]

Democrats don't abuse government power to support the working man; they abuse government power to pay back supporting organizations like unions who make big donations and guarantee Dem votes.

And FTR, I oppose any party doing that. The purpose of government is (supposed to be) fulfilling Constitutional mandates, not ensuring the party currently in power stays in power.

Unions represent working men and women. Fact.

70 years ago, maybe. Not so much any more.

The purpose of government is to do what the people want it to do. Constitutional mandates?

You know, the Constitution? The piece of paper that says what our government can and can't do?

Any of that ring a bell?

The only enemies of the Constitution are those who try to wield it as a weapon against the living, by using the words of the dead.

"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

"I willingly acquiesce in the institutions of my country, perfect or imperfect, and think it a duty to leave their modifications to those who are to live under them and are to participate of the good or evil they may produce. The present generation has the same right of self-government which the past one has exercised for itself." --Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:29

 

[Tom Clancy]

Liberal = Progressive.

Liberal does not = Progressive.


goodbye

Ahhhyup.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Democrats don't abuse government power to support the working man; they abuse government power to pay back supporting organizations like unions who make big donations and guarantee Dem votes.

And FTR, I oppose any party doing that. The purpose of government is (supposed to be) fulfilling Constitutional mandates, not ensuring the party currently in power stays in power.

Unions represent working men and women. Fact.

70 years ago, maybe. Not so much any more.

The purpose of government is to do what the people want it to do. Constitutional mandates?

You know, the Constitution? The piece of paper that says what our government can and can't do?

Any of that ring a bell?

I'm not a scholar, but I'm pretty well read on the Colonists, the Constitution, what the revolutionary colonists read and what they thought of a future society.

It amazes me how little even I know with all that reading. It horrifies me what most other people do not know -- especially when they expound on things they only know from uninformed readings and pronouncements they repeat from ideologues and partisan demagogues.

The first few decades of the US after the Us Constitution saw battles over just what the Constitution meant. It's not only disingenuous, but hilariously stupid for people today to say they know exactly what the constitution says just by a reading of it.

there are strict constitutionalists, strict textualists, and many others with view points on what the Constitution says and means.

 

[crpravens]

Kennedy...used his brother...

people like you killed the Kennedys

Wrong, leftists killed the Kennedy's

 

[crpravens]

JFK thought the Federal government had a responsibility in the areas of health, housing, schools, jobs, as well as civil rights.

He was right about civil rights.

JFK also praised ...omg...... union Bosses!!!

Unions have become that which they were created to protect against: Organizations that exploit workers for money and power.

They also protect the lazy and incompetent.

I campaigned for the Kennedy family. Most all held true to the memories and values of JFK. They were all mostly liberal to moderate depending n the issue. Some were more conservative than others on how fiscal issues.

I've always believed oversight and regulation of government programs, as well as business practices, should minimize the abuse that follows human nature.

What values?

Values like screwing hundreds of women behind your wife back. Those type of values?

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

He was right about civil rights.

Unions have become that which they were created to protect against: Organizations that exploit workers for money and power.

They also protect the lazy and incompetent.

I campaigned for the Kennedy family. Most all held true to the memories and values of JFK. They were all mostly liberal to moderate depending n the issue. Some were more conservative than others on how fiscal issues.

I've always believed oversight and regulation of government programs, as well as business practices, should minimize the abuse that follows human nature.

What values?

Values like screwing hundreds of women behind your wife back. Those type of values?

not talking about personal morality and marriage vows. In America we all know conservatives lead more moral personal lives than liberals. Reagan and Newt Gingrich come to mind. Then there are the conservative Christian preachers who used to raise funds from dipshits like you.

 

[mdn2000]

The more I study the more I grow impatient with socialist welfare morons....

...THEY ARE NEVER LONG TERM.

look at:
france
greece
and now the UK

just for some recent examples.

Is that what you want? Rioting? Violence?

The liberals of today are nothing more than confused, insolent, and lazy people who want something for nothing, or openly want theft and violence committed against their fellow citizen at the threat of government force. And when you don't get your way? You attack the government. It is the liberals who are violent, the people who would rather earn nothing but have everything rather than earn everything themselves.

Makes me want to throw up my oatmeal to be honest. Get a fucking life.

I was able to copy the democrat party wagon, thats funny because there is truth in it.

 

[mdn2000]

Unions represent working men and women. Fact.

70 years ago, maybe. Not so much any more.

The purpose of government is to do what the people want it to do. Constitutional mandates?

You know, the Constitution? The piece of paper that says what our government can and can't do?

Any of that ring a bell?

I'm not a scholar, but I'm pretty well read on the Colonists, the Constitution, what the revolutionary colonists read and what they thought of a future society.

It amazes me how little even I know with all that reading. It horrifies me what most other people do not know -- especially when they expound on things they only know from uninformed readings and pronouncements they repeat from ideologues and partisan demagogues.

The first few decades of the US after the Us Constitution saw battles over just what the Constitution meant. It's not only disingenuous, but hilariously stupid for people today to say they know exactly what the constitution says just by a reading of it.

there are strict constitutionalists, strict textualists, and many others with view points on what the Constitution says and means.

It doesnt amaze us how little you know after all that reading.

Kennedy is like the Republicans, Kennedy was the first president to sell weapons to Israel.

Name a liberal that is advocating selling weapons to Israel.


The 1968 Sale of Phantom Jets to Israel

The 1968 Sale of Phantom Jets to Israel

By Mitchell G. Bard

The United States and Israel are joined in a de facto alliance, with each nation sharing intelligence with the other, and both cooperating in joint military exercises. In Fiscal 1997, Israel received from the United States more economic aid — $1.2 billion — than any other nation, and more military assistance — $1.8 billion — than any other non-NATO nation.

Contrary to conventional wisdom, the relationship has not always been so close. For most of Israel’s first two decades of independence, the United States was not a close ally and did not provide Israel with significant amounts of either financial or military aid. All that changed, however, with President Lyndon Johnson's decision to sell Phantom jets to Israel in 1968.

The U.S. Keeps Its Distance

Harry Truman is given much of the credit for the creation of Israel, but his unwillingness to supply arms to the Jews fighting for independence undermined the diplomatic support he gave to the UN-sponsored partition of Palestine. The United States continued its arms embargo, despite persistent pressure from Israel and her supporters, until the Kennedy Administration.

United States policy for denying American arms to Israel was based on the following arguments: 1) the country was strong enough to defend itself without U.S. arms; this belief was reinforced by Israel's success during the Suez campaign; 2) Israel had access to arms from other sources; 3) the United States did not want to appear to be starting an arms race in the Middle East; 4) the U.S. sales of arms to Israel would lead the Arabs to ask the Russians and Chinese for arms; 5) the U.S. did not want to risk a Middle East confrontation with the Soviet Union; and 6) U.S. military aid to Israel would alienate the Arabs.

Not until 1962 did Israel receive its first major weapons system from the United States when Kennedy agreed to sell HAWK anti-aircraft missiles to Israel. That sale was opposed by the State Department, but Kennedy felt justified in ordering its execution after he failed to dissuade Egyptian President Nasser from escalating the arms race and after he learned that the Soviet Union had supplied Nasser with long-range bombers. The HAWK sale was significant not only because it was the first major direct arms transfer to Israel but also because that system required that Israeli soldiers be given extensive training in the United States and that spare parts be supplied to Israel. These were the first steps on a path which made Israel increasingly dependent on U.S. arms

 

[mdn2000]

Kennedy was a catholic, how many liberals are proud to be catholic

 

[Bfgrn]

Kennedy was a catholic, how many liberals are proud to be catholic

Kennedy died in 1963, how could he sell anything to anyone in 1968?

Many liberals are proud Catholics. WHO had a problem with Kennedy being a Catholic in the 1960 election? Here's a hint: conservatives.

 

[code1211]

President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)

I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:

"What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean...someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]

- Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

---

"Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman..."

- A Liberal Definition by JFK

---

as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.

What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?

They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.

If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.

With respect, you have chosen two quotes from addresses to first the parisan hacks at the convention and second to the union boss at a fund raiser.

If this is all he had ever said, he would be swept aside as summarily as the Big 0 is about to be. Ad men are forgotten long before their products leave the shelves.

When he challenged the American people to do great things like land a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth and to "Ask NOT what your county can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country", these captured the imagination and reflected the spirit of the times and the public consciousness.

That you find the two quotes you present to be reflective of his memory says far more about your inability to recognize greatness than it does about the actual greatness of this man and his vision for America.

As a follow up question to yours, what Liberal politician today proposes a cut in taxes saying that a rising tide lifts all boats? The trouble with taking things out of context, in this case the context of his life of service, sacrifice and dutiful responsibility, is that the context remains and only mind numbed fools bereft of any inteligence are fooled by this kind of deciet.

 

[Bfgrn]

If Kennedy is 'like the Republicans', then tell me how much you support his statements in this speech given a month before his assassination, or show me one Republican that talks this way:

Many years ago, Woodrow Wilson said, what good is a political party unless it is serving a great national purpose? And what good is a private college or university unless it is serving a great national purpose? The Library being constructed today, this college, itself--all of this, of course, was not done merely to give this school's graduates an advantage, an economic advantage, in the life struggle. It does do that. But in return for that, in return for the great opportunity which society gives the graduates of this and related schools, it seems to me incumbent upon this and other schools' graduates to recognize their responsibility to the public interest.

Privilege is here, and with privilege goes responsibility. And I think, as your president said, that it must be a source of satisfaction to you that this school's graduates have recognized it. I hope that the students who are here now will also recognize it in the future. Although Amherst has been in the forefront of extending aid to needy and talented students, private colleges, taken as a whole, draw 50 percent of their students from the wealthiest 10 percent of our Nation. And even State universities and other public institutions derive 25 percent of their students from this group. In March 1962, persons of 18 years or older who had not completed high school made up 46 percent of the total labor force, and such persons comprised 64 percent of those who were unemployed. And in 1958, the lowest fifth of the families in the United States had 4 1/2 percent of the total personal income, the highest fifth, 44 1/2 percent. There is inherited wealth in this country and also inherited poverty. And unless the graduates of this college and other colleges like it who are given a running start in life--unless they are willing to put back into our society, those talents, the broad sympathy, the understanding, the compassion--unless they are willing to put those qualities back into the service of the Great Republic, then obviously the presuppositions upon which our democracy are based are bound to be fallible.

The problems which this country now faces are staggering, both at home and abroad. We need the service, in the great sense, of every educated man or woman to find 10 million jobs in the next 2 1/2 years, to govern our relations--a country which lived in isolation for 150 years, and is now suddenly the leader of the free world--to govern our relations with over 100 countries, to govern those relations with success so that the balance of power remains strong on the side of freedom, to make it possible for Americans of all different races and creeds to live together in harmony, to make it possible for a world to exist in diversity and freedom. All this requires the best of all of us.

Therefore, I am proud to come to this college, whose graduates have recognized this obligation and to say to those who are now here that the need is endless, and I am confident that you will respond.

Remarks at Amherst College

President John F. Kennedy
Amherst, Massachusetts
October 26, 1963

 

[Bfgrn]

President John F. Kennedy's Definition of a Liberal. (sorry Right Wing World, you lose)

I know many kooks and cons keep saying that JFK would not be a Democrat or a Liberal today. But kooks and cons have warped memories if they truly believe this bullcrap. I suggest they know right well JFK would be a liberal Democrat today. How do I know this? JFK in his own words:

"What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"...if by a "Liberal," they mean...someone who cares about the welfare of the people - their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties...if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say that I'm a "Liberal." "[Applause.]

- Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960 - John F. Kennedy Presidential Library & Museum

---

"Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day...And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman..."

- A Liberal Definition by JFK

---

as you can see, the kooks and cons would have you believe they think a conservative would salute those two fine gentlemen JFK saluted.

What conservative politician today ran on or dares to admit wanting to care about the people's "...health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties." as a politician?

They kept telling us for decades now that it is not the government's or a politician's business.

If they cared they'd have to do something about it. You can't do something when you say the government has no role.

With respect, you have chosen two quotes from addresses to first the parisan hacks at the convention and second to the union boss at a fund raiser.

If this is all he had ever said, he would be swept aside as summarily as the Big 0 is about to be. Ad men are forgotten long before their products leave the shelves.

When he challenged the American people to do great things like land a man on the Moon and return him safely to Earth and to "Ask NOT what your county can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country", these captured the imagination and reflected the spirit of the times and the public consciousness.

That you find the two quotes you present to be reflective of his memory says far more about your inability to recognize greatness than it does about the actual greatness of this man and his vision for America.

As a follow up question to yours, what Liberal politician today proposes a cut in taxes saying that a rising tide lifts all boats? The trouble with taking things out of context, in this case the context of his life of service, sacrifice and dutiful responsibility, is that the context remains and only mind numbed fools bereft of any inteligence are fooled by this kind of deciet.

President Obama. He cut taxes for 95% of the American public. Not the top 5% Republicans cater to. The ones that took the money for a decade and drained the swamp.

Kennedy's tax cut was not based on supply side, it was based on demand side. It was exactly what Obama just did.

 

[mdn2000]

Kennedy was a catholic, how many liberals are proud to be catholic

Kennedy died in 1963, how could he sell anything to anyone in 1968?

Many liberals are proud Catholics. WHO had a problem with Kennedy being a Catholic in the 1960 election? Here's a hint: conservatives.

Read to the bottom, last paragraph, I guess I should of cut/paste just a little, the Arms deal was in 1962, delivered during the Johnson administration.

Kennedy supported Israel, Kennedy never even considered a partition or two state solution.

I did not say somebody had a problem with Kennedy being what today they call the "christian right".

Who are the Liberals who state they are Christians? Kennedy had no problems with the Ten Commandments in a court house.

Is that a definition of a Liberal

 

[mdn2000]

If Kennedy is 'like the Republicans', then tell me how much you support his statements in this speech given a month before his assassination, or show me one Republican that talks this way:

The problems which this country now faces are staggering, both at home and abroad. We need the service, in the great sense, of every educated man or woman to find 10 million jobs in the next 2 1/2 years, to govern our relations--a country which lived in isolation for 150 years, and is now suddenly the leader of the free world--to govern our relations with over 100 countries, to govern those relations with success so that the balance of power remains strong on the side of freedom, to make it possible for Americans of all different races and creeds to live together in harmony, to make it possible for a world to exist in diversity and freedom. All this requires the best of all of us.
.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Remarks at Amherst College

President John F. Kennedy
Amherst, Massachusetts
October 26, 1963

Reagan, Reagan fulfilled the dreams of Kennedy

Ronald Reagan... Farewell Address to the Nation

The fact is, from Grenada to the Washington and Moscow summits, from the recession of '81 to '82, to the expansion that began in late '82 and continues to this day, we've made a difference. They way I see it, there were two great triumphs, two things that I'm proudest of. One is the economic recovery, in which the people of America created - and filled - 19 million new jobs. The other is the recovery of our morale. America is respected again in the world and looked to for leadership.

 

[mdn2000]

Kennedy's view on tax cuts are the same as Reagan,

John F. Kennedy on taxes

"It is a paradoxical truth that tax rates are too high and tax revenues are too low and the soundest way to raise the revenues in the long run is to cut the rates now ... Cutting taxes now is not to incur a budget deficit, but to achieve the more prosperous, expanding economy which can bring a budget surplus."

– John F. Kennedy, Nov. 20, 1962, president's news conference

"Lower rates of taxation will stimulate economic activity and so raise the levels of personal and corporate income as to yield within a few years an increased – not a reduced – flow of revenues to the federal government."

– John F. Kennedy, Jan. 17, 1963, annual budget message to the Congress, fiscal year 1964

 

[Bfgrn]

If Kennedy is 'like the Republicans', then tell me how much you support his statements in this speech given a month before his assassination, or show me one Republican that talks this way:

The problems which this country now faces are staggering, both at home and abroad. We need the service, in the great sense, of every educated man or woman to find 10 million jobs in the next 2 1/2 years, to govern our relations--a country which lived in isolation for 150 years, and is now suddenly the leader of the free world--to govern our relations with over 100 countries, to govern those relations with success so that the balance of power remains strong on the side of freedom, to make it possible for Americans of all different races and creeds to live together in harmony, to make it possible for a world to exist in diversity and freedom. All this requires the best of all of us.
.[/SIZE][/FONT]

Remarks at Amherst College

President John F. Kennedy
Amherst, Massachusetts
October 26, 1963

Reagan, Reagan fulfilled the dreams of Kennedy

Ronald Reagan... Farewell Address to the Nation

The fact is, from Grenada to the Washington and Moscow summits, from the recession of '81 to '82, to the expansion that began in late '82 and continues to this day, we've made a difference. They way I see it, there were two great triumphs, two things that I'm proudest of. One is the economic recovery, in which the people of America created - and filled - 19 million new jobs. The other is the recovery of our morale. America is respected again in the world and looked to for leadership.

WTF did you cut out President Kennedy's words? There are NO Republicans that talk about 'inherited wealth and inherited poverty in this country', 'a responsibility of the privileged to give back and put forth service to the Great Republic'.

You are being disingenuous and deceitful.

"Privilege is here, and with privilege goes responsibility. And I think, as your president said, that it must be a source of satisfaction to you that this school's graduates have recognized it. I hope that the students who are here now will also recognize it in the future.

"There is inherited wealth in this country and also inherited poverty. And unless the graduates of this college and other colleges like it who are given a running start in life--unless they are willing to put back into our society, those talents, the broad sympathy, the understanding, the compassion--unless they are willing to put those qualities back into the service of the Great Republic, then obviously the presuppositions upon which our democracy are based are bound to be fallible."