Was JFK the last conservative democrat president?

[bigrebnc1775]

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

How am I getting hammered? Saying it doesn't make it happen. What planet do you live on?

 

[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.

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

ALL of them would support today's liberal policies. They DESPISED one entity even more than the King...the British East India Company.

They would have shut down insurance cartels, gun manufacturers and polluters...ALL the entities you worship, PEA BRAIN.

 

[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.

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.

It's hammer time
Who bailed out the banks and allowed the CEO's to keep their bonuses?

 

[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.

ALL of them would support today's liberal policies. They DESPISED one entity even more than the King...the British East India Company.

They would have shut down insurance cartels, gun manufacturers and polluters...ALL the entities you worship, PEA BRAIN.

Not a god damn founding father would support an modern day liberal policy. You fucking lying sack of shit.

 

[Bfgrn]

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?

I will let another conservative icon explain it to you...

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

I will let another conservative icon explain it to you...

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

Again he's a founder of America? what year?

 

[Pogo]

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?

Last time I offered something I got turned into a Norwegian.

What the fuck's the point if you're just gonna run away from the questions?

 

[regent]

Why do conservative on occasion try to take possession of a Democratic president and declare the man a conservative and worse, offer as evidence a few quotes. To read a book or two on JFK there is no doubt JFK was a liberal. This trying to make a Democrat into a Republican has been done with other Democratic presidents, I remember an argument with one poster that declared Truman to be a conservative because he used the bomb.
If conservatives like JFK's political philosophy they should be voting Democratic.

 

[Bfgrn]

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

I will let another conservative icon explain it to you...

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

Again he's a founder of America? what year?

Doubling down, 'eh PEA BRAIN?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

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?

Last time I offered something I got turned into a Norwegian.

What the fuck's the point if you're just gonna run away from the questions?

Who ran I'm still here but you're trolling. True story.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I will let another conservative icon explain it to you...

Reading without reflecting is like eating without digesting.
Edmund Burke

Again he's a founder of America? what year?

Doubling down, 'eh PEA BRAIN?

deflecting on your part isn't answering the question. So when was he a founding father of America?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Why do conservative on occasion try to take possession of a Democratic president and declare the man a conservative and worse, offer as evidence a few quotes. To read a book or two on JFK there is no doubt JFK was a liberal. This trying to make a Democrat into a Republican has been done with other Democratic presidents, I remember an argument with one poster that declared Truman to be a conservative because he used the bomb.
If conservatives like JFK's political philosophy they should be voting Democratic.

JFK's own words shows that he was not as liberal as you think. He wouldn't be a democrat today if he was still alive.

 

[Pogo]

Why do conservative on occasion try to take possession of a Democratic president and declare the man a conservative and worse, offer as evidence a few quotes. To read a book or two on JFK there is no doubt JFK was a liberal. This trying to make a Democrat into a Republican has been done with other Democratic presidents, I remember an argument with one poster that declared Truman to be a conservative because he used the bomb.
If conservatives like JFK's political philosophy they should be voting Democratic.

There are those obsessed with historical revision. Hitler morphs from the right to the left... the KKK morphs into a Democratic Party creation..... FDR morphs into the guy who "prolonged the depression"... Joe McCarthy morphs into a rational human being.... JFK morphs into a "conservative"... I even saw a thread recently where John Lennon morphed into a Republican (even though he was a Brit) while simultaneously authoring what the same OP called "the most disgusting song every written".

It's the Big Lie approach -- keep the echo chamber churning it out, and eventually those trapped inside the echo chamber start to swallow it...

I think some of them actually think it works outside the chamber as well...

 

[Dragonlady]

It's almost funny to watch conservatives tie themselves into knots trying to claim the Founding Fathers were conservative, or that someone they admired politically is a conservative, because they have so demonized liberal thinking that they cannot admit that they admire a liberal.

My current favourite piece of conservative bullshit is the notion that public schools are indoctrinating children into becoming liberal. It's the media has a liberal bias, schools have a liberal bias, everything is biased to negate conservatism. The reality is that facts will always favour liberals. Conservative economic policies lead to a transfer of wealth upward, and tilt the playing field in favour of the wealthy.

Thirty years of conservative economic policies have created exactly the kind of country that the Founding Fathers sought to prevent: a country where the wealthy have all of the advantages, and the rest struggle to get by, to the point that they are becoming dependent on government handouts to provide basic needs.

 

[Pogo]

It's almost funny to watch conservatives tie themselves into knots trying to claim the Founding Fathers were conservative, or that someone they admired politically is a conservative, because they have so demonized liberal thinking that they cannot admit that they admire a liberal.

My current favourite piece of conservative bullshit is the notion that public schools are indoctrinating children into becoming liberal. It's the media has a liberal bias, schools have a liberal bias, everything is biased to negate conservatism. The reality is that facts will always favour liberals. Conservative economic policies lead to a transfer of wealth upward, and tilt the playing field in favour of the wealthy.

Thirty years of conservative economic policies have created exactly the kind of country that the Founding Fathers sought to prevent: a country where the wealthy have all of the advantages, and the rest struggle to get by, to the point that they are becoming dependent on government handouts to provide basic needs.

IOU yet another rep for outstanding astuteness. You nailed it like a railroad tie.

 

[rdean]

The Democratic Party has moved so far left that JFK couldn't even win the nomination today.

So has the republican party.

Actually, the Republican Party has moved to the very, very extreme right. They are 90% white and that will keep them on the very far right.

Democrats are a coalition party and that very fact moves them much closer to the center.

There are conservatives in the Democratic Party.

There are no liberals in the Republican Party. And probably no Muslims. Very few blacks, gays, Hispanics, teachers, college professors, artists, singers, writers, composers, scientists.........well........you get the picture.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It's almost funny to watch conservatives tie themselves into knots trying to claim the Founding Fathers were conservative, or that someone they admired politically is a conservative, because they have so demonized liberal thinking that they cannot admit that they admire a liberal.

My current favourite piece of conservative bullshit is the notion that public schools are indoctrinating children into becoming liberal. It's the media has a liberal bias, schools have a liberal bias, everything is biased to negate conservatism. The reality is that facts will always favour liberals. Conservative economic policies lead to a transfer of wealth upward, and tilt the playing field in favour of the wealthy.

Thirty years of conservative economic policies have created exactly the kind of country that the Founding Fathers sought to prevent: a country where the wealthy have all of the advantages, and the rest struggle to get by, to the point that they are becoming dependent on government handouts to provide basic needs.

Who claimed they were conservative? I said they were modern day liberals.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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.

No, it doesn't, you goof ball.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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?

False equivalency. Bad question. Stay on topic.

 

[JakeStarkey]

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

No we don't. We have representation, the majority voted in who they wanted.

it's called representation, which we did not have as colonists

where in hell did you go to school?