Who said this about liberals?

[emilynghiem]

The best explanation I've read so far about the difference between today's Liberals and Conservatives
was Allen West in his book on defending the Republic.

He explains that the current liberals follow the Radical Liberal views of Rousseau who believed that the govt imposed the will of the people to force everyone to adhere; while the current conservatives came from the Classic Liberal views of Locke on using the Constitutional laws to limit govt with checks and balances to prevent overreaching and abuse [of collective authority].

the split between black conservative and black liberals began way back with Booker T. Washington pushing for economic independence [to create equality by freedom] while the other crowd pushed to depend on govt and political power to force policy on people [to force equality by taking away freedom, and not trusting people].

He also adds in there about Marxism and other influences from the Progressive push to use govt for support and social programs in the recovery efforts after the war and depression.

so it seems it's always been one group that trusts that freedom comes from God, and govt that limits freedom should itself be kept to a minimum; while the other believes freedom is protected by govt and doesn't trust this business of churches teaching it comes from God which puts church authority in control instead of keeping control by govt to represent the people

One group trusts people to act as the church body to act freely, and does not trust govt which takes freedom away unless you check it by Constitutional limits. while the other doesn't trust the people to manage their own business and especially not the church leadership seen as corrupt and abusive, and trusts govt to represent and enforce the will of the people, so it isn't seen as taking freedom away which is blamed on the church and conservative crowd instead.

The best explanation I've seen so far is from Nobel Prize winner Friedrich August von Hayek...

"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

"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..."
Friedrich August von Hayek-Why I am Not a Conservative

Dear Bfgrn
I think the Greens and Libertarians have more of a sense of blaming the Corporate corruption and abuse of the system,
instead of just blaming Conservatives for promoting the free market which these Corporate interests take advantage of.

I find the liberals lump the Corporate corruption in with the Conservatives and that's where this idea comes from that they support such abuses of govt.

In reality, the Conservatives want limited govt and want Constitutional checks and restrictions.

The Problem, which it seems only the Greens and maybe Libertarians understand
is that Corporations are bypassing the Constitutional checks on govt
but still abusing their collective influence and resources
by invoking the same equal protections as individuals!

the Republicans blame the Democrats for letting their corporate cronies benefit off govt dealings,
the Democrats blame Republicans for deregulating to let corporations run wild,
and only the Greens seem to check both parties saying its the corporations running wild without check.

your above quote doesn't seem to distinguish the Republican push to limit and check govt constitutionally
from the corporate interests taking advantage of personhood to enjoy unchecked advantage.

As long as both parties just chalk off the blame for corporate crookedness onto the other party,
these people pulling the strings and buying out the campaigns of both parties keep getting their way.
this is the argument the Greens have made and it isn't being heard.
the Tea Party is also demonized in the media for going after crony politicians in both parties. which would ruin the game for the media conglomerates adn other interests who profit off the partisan drama that acts as a distraction.
while the corporations keep getting their way unchecked because the parties point fingers at each other.

what would happen if the people in all parties demanded that their party leaders
take all these grievances, all these complaints of corruption by the opposing parties,
and start collecting or crediting back the taxpayers for the costs. why couldn't we track
all the wrongdoing and start chargin g that back to the corporate cronies who ran off with tax money.
how much in credits could we bill to wrongdoers instead of expecting taxpayers to cover these costs?

 

[Bfgrn]

The best explanation I've read so far about the difference between today's Liberals and Conservatives
was Allen West in his book on defending the Republic.

He explains that the current liberals follow the Radical Liberal views of Rousseau who believed that the govt imposed the will of the people to force everyone to adhere; while the current conservatives came from the Classic Liberal views of Locke on using the Constitutional laws to limit govt with checks and balances to prevent overreaching and abuse [of collective authority].

the split between black conservative and black liberals began way back with Booker T. Washington pushing for economic independence [to create equality by freedom] while the other crowd pushed to depend on govt and political power to force policy on people [to force equality by taking away freedom, and not trusting people].

He also adds in there about Marxism and other influences from the Progressive push to use govt for support and social programs in the recovery efforts after the war and depression.

so it seems it's always been one group that trusts that freedom comes from God, and govt that limits freedom should itself be kept to a minimum; while the other believes freedom is protected by govt and doesn't trust this business of churches teaching it comes from God which puts church authority in control instead of keeping control by govt to represent the people

One group trusts people to act as the church body to act freely, and does not trust govt which takes freedom away unless you check it by Constitutional limits. while the other doesn't trust the people to manage their own business and especially not the church leadership seen as corrupt and abusive, and trusts govt to represent and enforce the will of the people, so it isn't seen as taking freedom away which is blamed on the church and conservative crowd instead.

The best explanation I've seen so far is from Nobel Prize winner Friedrich August von Hayek...

"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

"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..."
Friedrich August von Hayek-Why I am Not a Conservative

Dear Bfgrn
I think the Greens and Libertarians have more of a sense of blaming the Corporate corruption and abuse of the system,
instead of just blaming Conservatives for promoting the free market which these Corporate interests take advantage of.

I find the liberals lump the Corporate corruption in with the Conservatives and that's where this idea comes from that they support such abuses of govt.

In reality, the Conservatives want limited govt and want Constitutional checks and restrictions.

The Problem, which it seems only the Greens and maybe Libertarians understand
is that Corporations are bypassing the Constitutional checks on govt
but still abusing their collective influence and resources
by invoking the same equal protections as individuals!

the Republicans blame the Democrats for letting their corporate cronies benefit off govt dealings,
the Democrats blame Republicans for deregulating to let corporations run wild,
and only the Greens seem to check both parties saying its the corporations running wild without check.

your above quote doesn't seem to distinguish the Republican push to limit and check govt constitutionally
from the corporate interests taking advantage of personhood to enjoy unchecked advantage.

As long as both parties just chalk off the blame for corporate crookedness onto the other party,
these people pulling the strings and buying out the campaigns of both parties keep getting their way.
this is the argument the Greens have made and it isn't being heard.
the Tea Party is also demonized in the media for going after crony politicians in both parties. which would ruin the game for the media conglomerates adn other interests who profit off the partisan drama that acts as a distraction.
while the corporations keep getting their way unchecked because the parties point fingers at each other.

what would happen if the people in all parties demanded that their party leaders
take all these grievances, all these complaints of corruption by the opposing parties,
and start collecting or crediting back the taxpayers for the costs. why couldn't we track
all the wrongdoing and start chargin g that back to the corporate cronies who ran off with tax money.
how much in credits could we bill to wrongdoers instead of expecting taxpayers to cover these costs?

Libertarian is a wide term. As a liberal my views are perfectly in line with many civil libertarians and diametrically opposed to laissez-faire libertarians.

The very best and deep explanation of what free market capitalism must be to create a democratic society comes from a liberal from a great liberal family who is also an environmental lawyer.

If you are interested, please read this speech...

Transcript of RFK Jr Speech at Sierra Club Summit 9-10-05

 

[Howey]

Sounds good but it's bullshit, whoever said it. Liberals don't want anything for anybody unless they get something out of it.

It was John F Kennedy, whom some people claim was a neocon.

This is why.

Stealing Kennedy Conservatives Try To Hijack The JFK Legacy Blog Media Matters for America

And really, emilynghiem?

Allen West? You are a special sort of crazy!

 

[S.J.]

Again, what Kennedy described is not a liberal. He described a conservative. Liberals like to CLAIM those values but their policies do not REFLECT those values. They are, in fact, the opposite. So, either Kennedy was a conservative, or he was trying to change the meaning of the word "liberal". Sort of like ultra liberal Bill Maher calling his tv show "Politically Incorrect" when in fact it was the epitome of political correctness.

 

[Bfgrn]

Again, what Kennedy described is not a liberal. He described a conservative. Liberals like to CLAIM those values but their policies do not REFLECT those values. They are, in fact, the opposite. So, either Kennedy was a conservative, or he was trying to change the meaning of the word "liberal". Sort of like ultra liberal Bill Maher calling his tv show "Politically Incorrect" when in fact it was the epitome of political correctness.

You truly are an idiot.

President Harry S. Truman, a liberal, succinctly defined conservatives and Republicans way back in 1948...


"Republicans approve of the American farmer, but they are willing to help him go broke. They stand four-square for the American home--but not for housing. They are strong for labor--but they are stronger for restricting labor's rights. They favor minimum wage--the smaller the minimum wage the better. They endorse educational opportunity for all--but they won't spend money for teachers or for schools. They approve of social security benefits-so much so that they took them away from almost a million people. They think modern medical care and hospitals are fine--for people who can afford them. They believe in international trade--so much so that they crippled our reciprocal trade program, and killed our International Wheat Agreement. They favor the admission of displaced persons--but only within shameful racial and religious limitations.They consider electrical power a great blessing--but only when the private power companies get their rake-off. They say TVA is wonderful--but we ought never to try it again. They condemn "cruelly high prices"--but fight to the death every effort to bring them down. They think American standard of living is a fine thing--so long as it doesn't spread to all the people. And they admire of Government of the United States so much that they would like to buy it."
President Harry S. Truman - October 13, 1948

 

[Pogo]

Again, what Kennedy described is not a liberal. He described a conservative. Liberals like to CLAIM those values but their policies do not REFLECT those values. They are, in fact, the opposite. So, either Kennedy was a conservative, or he was trying to change the meaning of the word "liberal".

Actually that was brought about by McCarthy and his ilk, who tried to equate "liberal" with "communist", which was the slur of the day at the time. Some of the unwashed who didn't know any better bought it, which is why JFK and others had to essplain what it actually does mean.

Sort of like ultra liberal Bill Maher calling his tv show "Politically Incorrect" when in fact it was the epitome of political correctness.

Maher got fired by "the liberal media" for failing to toe the national emotional party line when he contradicted the mandatory characterization of 9/11 terrorists as "cowards". So once again your claim stands ass-backward to reality.

 

[S.J.]

Again, what Kennedy described is not a liberal. He described a conservative. Liberals like to CLAIM those values but their policies do not REFLECT those values. They are, in fact, the opposite. So, either Kennedy was a conservative, or he was trying to change the meaning of the word "liberal".

Actually that was brought about by McCarthy and his ilk, who tried to equate "liberal" with "communist", which was the slur of the day at the time. Some of the unwashed who didn't know any better bought it, which is why JFK and others had to essplain what it actually does mean.

Sort of like ultra liberal Bill Maher calling his tv show "Politically Incorrect" when in fact it was the epitome of political correctness.

Maher got fired by "the liberal media" for failing to toe the national emotional party line when he contradicted the mandatory characterization of 9/11 terrorists as "cowards". So once again your claim stands ass-backward to reality.

"who tried to equate "liberal" with "communist", which was the slur of the day at the time."

And liberals like you, who consistently defend every known communist in the world, prove he was right.

"Maher got fired by "the liberal media" for failing to toe the national emotional party line when he contradicted the mandatory characterization of 9/11 terrorists as "cowards"."

Maher didn't get fired, his show was cancelled because no one would sponsor it after his offensive comments. You're a liar.

 

[daveman]

As this is history I will spare the politics and thank billo and bf for introducing a piece of eloquence seldom found on USMB. It is a very layered piece even in today's context. Kennedy still holds the award, by a country mile, for the best piece of oratory in any inauguration speech in my lifetime, a statement that resonates today even more so than in 1961.

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

And for that line alone, JFK would be hounded out of today's Democratic Party.

 

[Pogo]

Again, what Kennedy described is not a liberal. He described a conservative. Liberals like to CLAIM those values but their policies do not REFLECT those values. They are, in fact, the opposite. So, either Kennedy was a conservative, or he was trying to change the meaning of the word "liberal".

Actually that was brought about by McCarthy and his ilk, who tried to equate "liberal" with "communist", which was the slur of the day at the time. Some of the unwashed who didn't know any better bought it, which is why JFK and others had to essplain what it actually does mean.

Sort of like ultra liberal Bill Maher calling his tv show "Politically Incorrect" when in fact it was the epitome of political correctness.

Maher got fired by "the liberal media" for failing to toe the national emotional party line when he contradicted the mandatory characterization of 9/11 terrorists as "cowards". So once again your claim stands ass-backward to reality.

"who tried to equate "liberal" with "communist", which was the slur of the day at the time."

And liberals like you, who consistently defend every known communist in the world, prove he was right.

Link(s)?

And don't forget to explain how "defense" (against what? ) equates to being the same thing. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath, since you can't even understand what your own sigline or what "audience demographics" mean.

"Maher got fired by "the liberal media" for failing to toe the national emotional party line when he contradicted the mandatory characterization of 9/11 terrorists as "cowards"."

Maher didn't get fired, his show was cancelled because no one would sponsor it after his offensive comments. You're a liar.

When your show is cancelled, it means you're fired. What are you going to do -- go to work hosting a show that no longer exists? Dumbass.

 

[Pogo]

As this is history I will spare the politics and thank billo and bf for introducing a piece of eloquence seldom found on USMB. It is a very layered piece even in today's context. Kennedy still holds the award, by a country mile, for the best piece of oratory in any inauguration speech in my lifetime, a statement that resonates today even more so than in 1961.

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

And for that line alone, JFK would be hounded out of today's Democratic Party.

Non sequitur...

 

[S.J.]

Again, what Kennedy described is not a liberal. He described a conservative. Liberals like to CLAIM those values but their policies do not REFLECT those values. They are, in fact, the opposite. So, either Kennedy was a conservative, or he was trying to change the meaning of the word "liberal".

Actually that was brought about by McCarthy and his ilk, who tried to equate "liberal" with "communist", which was the slur of the day at the time. Some of the unwashed who didn't know any better bought it, which is why JFK and others had to essplain what it actually does mean.

Sort of like ultra liberal Bill Maher calling his tv show "Politically Incorrect" when in fact it was the epitome of political correctness.

Maher got fired by "the liberal media" for failing to toe the national emotional party line when he contradicted the mandatory characterization of 9/11 terrorists as "cowards". So once again your claim stands ass-backward to reality.

"who tried to equate "liberal" with "communist", which was the slur of the day at the time."

And liberals like you, who consistently defend every known communist in the world, prove he was right.

Link(s)?

And don't forget to explain how "defense" (against what? ) equates to being the same thing. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath, since you can't even understand what your own sigline or what "audience demographics" mean.

"Maher got fired by "the liberal media" for failing to toe the national emotional party line when he contradicted the mandatory characterization of 9/11 terrorists as "cowards"."

Maher didn't get fired, his show was cancelled because no one would sponsor it after his offensive comments. You're a liar.

When your show is cancelled, it means you're fired. What are you going to do -- go to work hosting a show that no longer exists? Dumbass.

Still butthurt over being exposed as a conspiracy theorist, I see. Love that free rent.

As for your second idiotic comment, there was no one to pay for Maher's show, that's why it was cancelled, and that was his fault. Do you expect the network to pay for it out of their own pockets, you idiot? Wait, of course you do, you're a stupid liberal, you think everything should be free. Oh well, back to living inside your empty head for free.

 

[Friends]

Liberalism is the most damaging force facing America and the world. It will lead down the rat hole to tyranny, suffering, and mass murder.

Yeah sure.

As the term is usually used, Sweden is more "liberal" than the United States. It is easier for me to imagine "tyranny, suffering, and mass murder" there than here.

 

[Pogo]

Again, what Kennedy described is not a liberal. He described a conservative. Liberals like to CLAIM those values but their policies do not REFLECT those values. They are, in fact, the opposite. So, either Kennedy was a conservative, or he was trying to change the meaning of the word "liberal".

Actually that was brought about by McCarthy and his ilk, who tried to equate "liberal" with "communist", which was the slur of the day at the time. Some of the unwashed who didn't know any better bought it, which is why JFK and others had to essplain what it actually does mean.

Sort of like ultra liberal Bill Maher calling his tv show "Politically Incorrect" when in fact it was the epitome of political correctness.

Maher got fired by "the liberal media" for failing to toe the national emotional party line when he contradicted the mandatory characterization of 9/11 terrorists as "cowards". So once again your claim stands ass-backward to reality.

"who tried to equate "liberal" with "communist", which was the slur of the day at the time."

And liberals like you, who consistently defend every known communist in the world, prove he was right.

Link(s)?

And don't forget to explain how "defense" (against what? ) equates to being the same thing. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath, since you can't even understand what your own sigline or what "audience demographics" mean.

"Maher got fired by "the liberal media" for failing to toe the national emotional party line when he contradicted the mandatory characterization of 9/11 terrorists as "cowards"."

Maher didn't get fired, his show was cancelled because no one would sponsor it after his offensive comments. You're a liar.

When your show is cancelled, it means you're fired. What are you going to do -- go to work hosting a show that no longer exists? Dumbass.

Still butthurt over being exposed as a conspiracy theorist, I see. Love that free rent.

As for your second idiotic comment

... You haven't answered the first. I see you can't count any better than you can read.

, there was no one to pay for Maher's show, that's why it was cancelled, and that was his fault. Do you expect the network to pay for it out of their own pockets, you idiot?

And what you posted, still sitting right above, is that what he was doing was, and I quote, "the epitome of political correctness". Can't have it both ways. Either you were lying then or you're lying now.

Oh wait, I forgot your handicap. Get Nurse Ratchet to read that to you out loud.

Wait, of course you do, you're a stupid liberal, you think everything should be free. Oh well, back to living inside your empty head for free.

 

[S.J.]

Again, what Kennedy described is not a liberal. He described a conservative. Liberals like to CLAIM those values but their policies do not REFLECT those values. They are, in fact, the opposite. So, either Kennedy was a conservative, or he was trying to change the meaning of the word "liberal".

Actually that was brought about by McCarthy and his ilk, who tried to equate "liberal" with "communist", which was the slur of the day at the time. Some of the unwashed who didn't know any better bought it, which is why JFK and others had to essplain what it actually does mean.

Sort of like ultra liberal Bill Maher calling his tv show "Politically Incorrect" when in fact it was the epitome of political correctness.

Maher got fired by "the liberal media" for failing to toe the national emotional party line when he contradicted the mandatory characterization of 9/11 terrorists as "cowards". So once again your claim stands ass-backward to reality.

"who tried to equate "liberal" with "communist", which was the slur of the day at the time."

And liberals like you, who consistently defend every known communist in the world, prove he was right.

Link(s)?

And don't forget to explain how "defense" (against what? ) equates to being the same thing. Forgive me if I don't hold my breath, since you can't even understand what your own sigline or what "audience demographics" mean.

"Maher got fired by "the liberal media" for failing to toe the national emotional party line when he contradicted the mandatory characterization of 9/11 terrorists as "cowards"."

Maher didn't get fired, his show was cancelled because no one would sponsor it after his offensive comments. You're a liar.

When your show is cancelled, it means you're fired. What are you going to do -- go to work hosting a show that no longer exists? Dumbass.

Still butthurt over being exposed as a conspiracy theorist, I see. Love that free rent.

As for your second idiotic comment

... You haven't answered the first. I see you can't count any better than you can read.

, there was no one to pay for Maher's show, that's why it was cancelled, and that was his fault. Do you expect the network to pay for it out of their own pockets, you idiot?

And what you posted, still sitting right above, is that what he was doing was, and I quote, "the epitome of political correctness". Can't have it both ways. Either you were lying then or you're lying now.

Oh wait, I forgot your handicap. Get Nurse Ratchet to read that to you out loud.

Wait, of course you do, you're a stupid liberal, you think everything should be free. Oh well, back to living inside your empty head for free.

"You haven't answered the first."
There was no question.

"And what you posted, still sitting right above, is that what he was doing was, and I quote, "the epitome of political correctness". Can't have it both ways. Either you were lying then or you're lying now."
Are you drunk or something? You make absolutely no sense. I know 1 beer is too much for your tiny brain, so you can wait until tomorrow when you sober up.

 

[Shrimpbox]

The best explanation I've read so far about the difference between today's Liberals and Conservatives
was Allen West in his book on defending the Republic.

He explains that the current liberals follow the Radical Liberal views of Rousseau who believed that the govt imposed the will of the people to force everyone to adhere; while the current conservatives came from the Classic Liberal views of Locke on using the Constitutional laws to limit govt with checks and balances to prevent overreaching and abuse [of collective authority].

the split between black conservative and black liberals began way back with Booker T. Washington pushing for economic independence [to create equality by freedom] while the other crowd pushed to depend on govt and political power to force policy on people [to force equality by taking away freedom, and not trusting people].

He also adds in there about Marxism and other influences from the Progressive push to use govt for support and social programs in the recovery efforts after the war and depression.

so it seems it's always been one group that trusts that freedom comes from God, and govt that limits freedom should itself be kept to a minimum; while the other believes freedom is protected by govt and doesn't trust this business of churches teaching it comes from God which puts church authority in control instead of keeping control by govt to represent the people

One group trusts people to act as the church body to act freely, and does not trust govt which takes freedom away unless you check it by Constitutional limits. while the other doesn't trust the people to manage their own business and especially not the church leadership seen as corrupt and abusive, and trusts govt to represent and enforce the will of the people, so it isn't seen as taking freedom away which is blamed on the church and conservative crowd instead.

The best explanation I've seen so far is from Nobel Prize winner Friedrich August von Hayek...

"Conservatism, though a necessary element in any stable society, is not a social program; in its paternalistic, nationalistic and power adoring tendencies it is often closer to socialism than true liberalism; and with its traditionalistic, anti-intellectual, and often mystical propensities it will never, except in short periods of disillusionment, appeal to the young and all those others who believe that some changes are desirable if this world is to become a better place."
Friedrich August von Hayek-The Road to Serfdom

"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..."
Friedrich August von Hayek-Why I am Not a Conservative

Well the second quote is a complete indictment of Obama. The first quote is mind boggling in its conceit. Liberals are the only ones to have any ideas and liberals are so smart no one else needs to speak up. What liberals cannot tolerate are people who think for themselves and are not convinced of liberal intellectual superiority. Bf Gruber, please stop telling us how smart you are and how dumb we are. It doesn't wash.

 

[gipper]

Liberalism is the most damaging force facing America and the world. It will lead down the rat hole to tyranny, suffering, and mass murder.

Yeah sure.

As the term is usually used, Sweden is more "liberal" than the United States. It is easier for me to imagine "tyranny, suffering, and mass murder" there than here.

Doesn't work that way. Sweden has no opposition to liberalism. The USA does.

Modern liberalism is just another form of authoritarianism. History clearly shows authoritarianism leads to tyranny, suffering, and mass murder.

 

[Bfgrn]

Liberalism is the most damaging force facing America and the world. It will lead down the rat hole to tyranny, suffering, and mass murder.

Yeah sure.

As the term is usually used, Sweden is more "liberal" than the United States. It is easier for me to imagine "tyranny, suffering, and mass murder" there than here.

Doesn't work that way. Sweden has no opposition to liberalism. The USA does.

Modern liberalism is just another form of authoritarianism. History clearly shows authoritarianism leads to tyranny, suffering, and mass murder.

And 88 different psychological studies conducted between 1958 and 2002 that involved 22,818 people from 12 different countries have proven beyond a doubt that:
While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

 

[Bfgrn]

As this is history I will spare the politics and thank billo and bf for introducing a piece of eloquence seldom found on USMB. It is a very layered piece even in today's context. Kennedy still holds the award, by a country mile, for the best piece of oratory in any inauguration speech in my lifetime, a statement that resonates today even more so than in 1961.

Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

And for that line alone, JFK would be hounded out of today's Democratic Party.

Really Dave? Please explain what President Kennedy meant when he said those words?

 

[PredFan]

What famous person in US history said the following?

“What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label ‘Liberal’? If by a ‘Liberal’ they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a ‘Liberal,’ then I’m proud to say I’m a ‘Liberal.’”

Who gives a shit. There are no more of that kind of liberal these days, there are only progressives and none if that matters to a progressive.

 

[gipper]

Liberalism is the most damaging force facing America and the world. It will lead down the rat hole to tyranny, suffering, and mass murder.

Yeah sure.

As the term is usually used, Sweden is more "liberal" than the United States. It is easier for me to imagine "tyranny, suffering, and mass murder" there than here.

Doesn't work that way. Sweden has no opposition to liberalism. The USA does.

Modern liberalism is just another form of authoritarianism. History clearly shows authoritarianism leads to tyranny, suffering, and mass murder.

And 88 different psychological studies conducted between 1958 and 2002 that involved 22,818 people from 12 different countries have proven beyond a doubt that:
While not all conservatives are authoritarians; all highly authoritarian personalities are political conservatives.
Robert Altmeyer - The Authoritarians

While it is true many cons are authoritarian, the fundamentals of modern conservatism are limited government, rule of law, and individual liberty...all things antithetical to modern liberalism.