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.

when dealing with the House trolls it is often necessary to get back on topic without all the personal attacks and cheap shot bullshit posing as substance...

 

[Trajan]

I don't look to people like you

"like me"...? the cousin too; " you people"....



what am I like?

 

[Liability]

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.

when dealing with the House trolls it is often necessary to get back on topic without all the personal attacks and cheap shot bullshit posing as substance...

Wow. imagine that. Dainty being dishonest. Who'd have ever imagined THAT?

<<everyone raises hands>>

Anyway, a specific reply to the premise of your flawed OP, Dainty, doesn't make me a "troll." You also suck at the meaning of words other than "liberal," it seems. You moron.

Liberals of today are NOT akin to liberals of JFK's day; and even JFK's definition quoted by you in your OP was pretty dishonest for the reasons I stated. Further, JFK would NOT be embraced by libs of today because he would not hold to the liberal orthodoxy of today in ALL things.

(By the way, stupid, Bobby Kennedy is still offended by your use of his image as your avie.)

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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

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

ignoring the troll...

 

[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.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

That is an unfair opinion but it is a popular one. Depending on what union people look at and at what actions, unions can be a godsend. Many places I worked at as I traveled around had dumb union rules. Many were well meaning protections that ended up getting abused.

Unions pay out retirement benefits. Many companies like Polaroid stole people's retirement benefits. Many previously good companies became just as bad or worse, than the worst unions. What changed?

Corporate raiders. The investors, the wealthy, the private wealth firms cannibalized good companies and not only threw people out of work, they killed companies and stole the pension plans of generations.

Go to Massachusetts and meet people who worked for Polaroid.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

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.

 

[Trajan]

poor dante,being you must be a full time thankless job.

...when you cannot craft a reply to your own trolling OP, like most net kiddies you retreat to grandmas basement and use the shadowed halls of neg. rep., making nasty remarks in private.....thats so punk, really....man up or go home......

I'd hit you back but you're not worth it. so neg away jeeves.

 

[Liability]

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

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

ignoring the troll...

No trolls here, Dainty. I'm just rebutting your thread's bullshit premise. My posts have been on topic and to the point.

Fact is, as always, you can't handle that. You pussy.

I understand that complete pussies like you don't like it when your boring unpersuasive monologues get challenged.

Too bad.

 

[Liability]

poor dante,being you must be a full time thankless job.

...when you cannot craft a reply to your own trolling OP, like most net kiddies you retreat to grandmas basement and use the shadowed halls of neg. rep., making nasty remarks in private.....thats so punk, really....man up or go home......

I'd hit you back but you're not worth it. so neg away jeeves.

I negged the pussy back! It was entertaining. You should too. Everyone should.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Distortions of history aside, JFK is, was, and will always be considered a liberal Democrat.

Conservative spin aside, JFK is the spiritual as well as ideological father of today's liberals.

To say JFK would not be welcome into the Democratic party today is like saying Democrats don't like Bill Clinton.

reality is not the strong suit of today's conservatism. the evidence is that they keep saying every conservative President of the later half of the Twentieth Century was not a true conservative. They even have a name for it - RHINO

 

[goldcatt]

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.

Actually, JFK's quote reveals that he was rhetorically asking if that's what conservatives meant by the use of the term "liberal."

And it was a horseshit definition employed by JFK, anyway.

...

The difference between libs and conservatives is NOT found in the false dichotomy that only libs "care" about the people. This is now and always was bullshit. The real difference is found in HOW the problems are seen as being properly addressed, if at all, by the Federal Government, and upon what principles.

That's point one.

Point two is simpler. JFK would NOT be considered liberal ENOUGH in today's world, much like the clearly liberal Lieberman is seen as not nearly liberal enough by the liberal kooks in the Democrat parody. For there is a great deal more to being a "true liberal," in today's world, than merely advocating for the intrusive involvement of the central government in matters of social concern.

JFK's principles are Democratic principles. JFK was a liberal.

JFK would not be accepted as easily by the left. The left rarely loves liberals. The far left like the far right (your homeland) are fringe lunatics,

There's something to this. Liberals are not progressives are not democratic socialists. JFK was a liberal. Today's Democratic Party is dominated mostly by progressives. What we tend to consider the Far Left is primarily progressives and democratic socialists. They're all on the same side of the spectrum, but at very different points.

I'm not sure whether a JFK could rise to power in today's DNC. There are certainly some liberals around, but the leadership has a different agenda. He would fare even less well with the RNC though. These things always go in cycles.

 

[Liability]

Dainty's basic dishonesty aside, JFK was clearly a liberal Democrat as that was defined IN HIS DAY.

But the meanings of such political terms tend not to remain static.

The ATTEMPT to pretend that they do remain static is dishonest of cretins like the always unpersuasive Dainty.

JFK is admired on SOME grounds by today's conservatives PRECISELY because of the things I've mentioned. Dainty cannot honestly address those points and considerations. That's not entirely his fault. He happens to just be flatly wrong.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Actually, JFK's quote reveals that he was rhetorically asking if that's what conservatives meant by the use of the term "liberal."

And it was a horseshit definition employed by JFK, anyway.

...

The difference between libs and conservatives is NOT found in the false dichotomy that only libs "care" about the people. This is now and always was bullshit. The real difference is found in HOW the problems are seen as being properly addressed, if at all, by the Federal Government, and upon what principles.

That's point one.

Point two is simpler. JFK would NOT be considered liberal ENOUGH in today's world, much like the clearly liberal Lieberman is seen as not nearly liberal enough by the liberal kooks in the Democrat parody. For there is a great deal more to being a "true liberal," in today's world, than merely advocating for the intrusive involvement of the central government in matters of social concern.

JFK's principles are Democratic principles. JFK was a liberal.

JFK would not be accepted as easily by the left. The left rarely loves liberals. The far left like the far right (your homeland) are fringe lunatics,

There's something to this. Liberals are not progressives are not democratic socialists. JFK was a liberal. Today's Democratic Party is dominated mostly by progressives. What we tend to consider the Far Left is primarily progressives and democratic socialists. They're all on the same side of the spectrum, but at very different points.

I'm not sure whether a JFK could rise to power in today's DNC. There are certainly some liberals around, but the leadership has a different agenda. He would fare even less well with the RNC though. These things always go in cycles.

The DNC and the GOP used to be dominated by various groups. The fringe types went after key posts within the parties. Progressives in the DNC fought Hillary Clinton in 2008. It was a fierce battle. It showed that the progressives do not control everything. I left the Democratic party over some of these issues.

The socialism people tend to disparage is a straw man. We have had a mixed socialist/capitalist society since the middle of the 20th century -- when America's middle class grew.

The American middle class did well, ups and downs for decades. Then conservative voodoo economics entered the picture. Starting with Reagan the American middle class has lost ground as the wealthiest class has made substantial gains.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/revie...vie-devastating-indictment-on-our-system.html

 

[goldcatt]

Dainty's basic dishonesty aside, JFK was clearly a liberal Democrat as that was defined IN HIS DAY.

But the meanings of such political terms tend not to remain static.

The ATTEMPT to pretend that they do remain static is dishonest of cretins like the always unpersuasive Dainty.

JFK is admired on SOME grounds by today's conservatives PRECISELY because of the things I've mentioned. Dainty cannot honestly address those points and considerations. That's not entirely his fault. He happens to just be flatly wrong.

I'm not a conservative, so I can't speak as to why conservatives admire JFK. But by any definition, he was not a conservative. He was a liberal and in some ways very much a pragmatist, in others not so much, but overall firmly in the liberal camp.

He wouldn't really belong in either main Party today, IMO. I agree that definitions of the Parties change as the different sub-categories of "Left" and "Right" cycle through. People like JFK, or Nixon, or Ike, or Johnson, or Reagan for that matter would be out of synch with partisan mainstreams today.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

Dainty's basic dishonesty aside, JFK was clearly a liberal Democrat as that was defined IN HIS DAY.

But the meanings of such political terms tend not to remain static.

The ATTEMPT to pretend that they do remain static is dishonest of cretins like the always unpersuasive Dainty.

JFK is admired on SOME grounds by today's conservatives PRECISELY because of the things I've mentioned. Dainty cannot honestly address those points and considerations. That's not entirely his fault. He happens to just be flatly wrong.

I'm not a conservative, so I can't speak as to why conservatives admire JFK. But by any definition, he was not a conservative. He was a liberal and in some ways very much a pragmatist, in others not so much, but overall firmly in the liberal camp.

He wouldn't really belong in either main Party today, IMO. I agree that definitions of the Parties change as the different sub-categories of "Left" and "Right" cycle through. People like JFK, or Nixon, or Ike, or Johnson, or Reagan for that matter would be out of synch with partisan mainstreams today.

Bill Clinton mixed with Ted Kennedy most resembled JFK in the last few decades. The DNC mainstream is not progressive. Many leadership posts within the DNC are held by progressives. It is a strategy where a minority can hold part of the reins of power.

The differences between the GOP and the DNC over the last 50 years or so can best be viewed by examining how the fringes of each party were treated within and in their platforms.

one thing that comes to mind is: Where is the Pat Buchanan equivalent within the DNC?

sure the base of each party, the part of a party that votes heavily in primaries, is highly partisan ad ideological, but...what power does the base wield?

An argument can be made that the GOP is always getting screwed by the GOP leadership...but on what? social issues? On economic philosophy? The GOP economic philosophy that conservatives now claim they dislike is what they demanded of party leaders and voted for. Reaganomics brought us to where we are today.

I think this is the 3rd economic crisis that resulted from the denial of reality of just what supply side is.

 

[goldcatt]

JFK's principles are Democratic principles. JFK was a liberal.

JFK would not be accepted as easily by the left. The left rarely loves liberals. The far left like the far right (your homeland) are fringe lunatics,

There's something to this. Liberals are not progressives are not democratic socialists. JFK was a liberal. Today's Democratic Party is dominated mostly by progressives. What we tend to consider the Far Left is primarily progressives and democratic socialists. They're all on the same side of the spectrum, but at very different points.

I'm not sure whether a JFK could rise to power in today's DNC. There are certainly some liberals around, but the leadership has a different agenda. He would fare even less well with the RNC though. These things always go in cycles.

The DNC and the GOP used to be dominated by various groups. The fringe types went after key posts within the parties. Progressives in the DNC fought Hillary Clinton in 2008. It was a fierce battle. It showed that the progressives do not control everything. I left the Democratic party over some of these issues.

The socialism people tend to disparage is a straw man. We have had a mixed socialist/capitalist society since the middle of the 20th century -- when America's middle class grew.

The American middle class did well, ups and downs for decades. Then conservative voodoo economics entered the picture. Starting with Reagan the American middle class has lost ground as the wealthiest class has made substantial gains.

http://www.usmessageboard.com/revie...vie-devastating-indictment-on-our-system.html

We've had a mixed economy for longer than the mid-20th Century. And I can't think of anybody beyond the fringes on either side who really want to change that, although we can and probably should argue over the proportions in the mix. Pure capitalism and pure socialism both have serious flaws that can be addressed in a mixed system. Not many question that.

No, Progressives don't control everything within the DNC. But right now they hold most of the positions of power and therefore control the agenda. I'm a liberal, not a progressive. So I'm not a fan of much of what the DNC is doing at the moment. That doesn't make me a conservative though. If anything, liberals have more in common with libertarians (not Libertarian Party reactionaries but old school libertarians) in a lot of areas than they do with conservatives. Hence my affinity for some libertarian positions, especially in foreign policy and civil rights.

What we really need are principled pragmatists, honestly. Leaders who have general ideas they want to support but are willing to compromise and utilize ideas that work wherever they find them in order to attain their goals. I get so irritated at the Parties with their litmus tests and ideological purity questionnaires. Nothing as complex as a hot dog stand let alone the USA can be run on ideology alone.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We've had a mixed economy for longer than the mid-20th Century. And I can't think of anybody beyond the fringes on either side who really want to change that, although we can and probably should argue over the proportions in the mix. Pure capitalism and pure socialism both have serious flaws that can be addressed in a mixed system. Not many question that.

Libertarians could and do.

No, Progressives don't control everything within the DNC. But right now they hold most of the positions of power and therefore control the agenda. I'm a liberal, not a progressive. So I'm not a fan of much of what the DNC is doing at the moment. That doesn't make me a conservative though. If anything, liberals have more in common with libertarians (not Libertarian Party reactionaries but old school libertarians) in a lot of areas than they do with conservatives. Hence my affinity for some libertarian positions, especially in foreign policy and civil rights.

The record of libertarian philosophy is mixed. Many isolationists and fiscal conservatives hide behind the label of libertarian.

What we really need are principled pragmatists, honestly.

Leaders who have general ideas they want to support but are willing to compromise and utilize ideas that work wherever they find them in order to attain their goals. I get so irritated at the Parties with their litmus tests and ideological purity questionnaires.

Nothing as complex as a hot dog stand let alone the USA can be run on ideology alone.

the problem is deep. media and money. their interests are not the interests of the public.

 

[goldcatt]

We've had a mixed economy for longer than the mid-20th Century. And I can't think of anybody beyond the fringes on either side who really want to change that, although we can and probably should argue over the proportions in the mix. Pure capitalism and pure socialism both have serious flaws that can be addressed in a mixed system. Not many question that.

Libertarians could and do.

There are libertarians, small-l, and modern Libertarian Party libertarians, big-L. Although economics is one area where I have strong disagreements with both types, since even the little-l libertarians come close to that view. I am convinced balance is needed.

No, Progressives don't control everything within the DNC. But right now they hold most of the positions of power and therefore control the agenda. I'm a liberal, not a progressive. So I'm not a fan of much of what the DNC is doing at the moment. That doesn't make me a conservative though. If anything, liberals have more in common with libertarians (not Libertarian Party reactionaries but old school libertarians) in a lot of areas than they do with conservatives. Hence my affinity for some libertarian positions, especially in foreign policy and civil rights.

The record of libertarian philosophy is mixed. Many isolationists and fiscal conservatives hide behind the label of libertarian.

True. But noninterventionsim =/= isolationism, claiming such is similar to those who claim liberalism is the same as socialism and just as false. And as I already stated I don't agree with the libertarians on fiscal and economic policy. If I did I'd be libertarian rather than liberal.

What we really need are principled pragmatists, honestly.

Leaders who have general ideas they want to support but are willing to compromise and utilize ideas that work wherever they find them in order to attain their goals. I get so irritated at the Parties with their litmus tests and ideological purity questionnaires.

Nothing as complex as a hot dog stand let alone the USA can be run on ideology alone.

the problem is deep. media and money. their interests are not the interests of the public.

We are in 100% agreement on that one.

 

[Procrustes Stretched]

We've had a mixed economy for longer than the mid-20th Century. And I can't think of anybody beyond the fringes on either side who really want to change that, although we can and probably should argue over the proportions in the mix. Pure capitalism and pure socialism both have serious flaws that can be addressed in a mixed system. Not many question that.

Libertarians could and do.

There are libertarians, small-l, and modern Libertarian Party libertarians, big-L. Although economics is one area where I have strong disagreements with both types, since even the little-l libertarians come close to that view. I am convinced balance is needed.



True. But noninterventionsim =/= isolationism, claiming such is similar to those who claim liberalism is the same as socialism and just as false. And as I already stated I don't agree with the libertarians on fiscal and economic policy. If I did I'd be libertarian rather than liberal.

What we really need are principled pragmatists, honestly.

Leaders who have general ideas they want to support but are willing to compromise and utilize ideas that work wherever they find them in order to attain their goals. I get so irritated at the Parties with their litmus tests and ideological purity questionnaires.

Nothing as complex as a hot dog stand let alone the USA can be run on ideology alone.

the problem is deep. media and money. their interests are not the interests of the public.

We are in 100% agreement on that one.

IMNSHO, balance is overrated, but it is desirable in small doses.
Isolationists can and do hide behind non-interventionsim. I see little difference in their (isolationist's') distinctions. Non-interventionism as a policy amounts to isolationism.