You mean Islamic
the same ones that the Left fights so hard for in the US
As a side note, a theocracy is really just another form of statism
That is a complete fallacy. The 'center' has been pulled to the right by 40 years of a conservative era. The Democratic Party has shifted to the right. The Republican is SO FAR right that they can only nominate a candidate who appeals to the far right base, the Teapublicans.
Jack Kennedy was a liberal. If you believe different, I offer up his brother Ted. Ted worshiped Jack and Bobby; he dedicated his public life to carry on THEIR agendas. If Jack and Bobby were 'conservative', then so was Ted...
I was alive when JFK was President. One of my Senators in Washington was Jacob Javits, a liberal Republican...
Address of John F. Kennedy upon Accepting the Liberal Party Nomination for President, New York, New York, September 14, 1960
What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label, "Liberal"? If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But, 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 that 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 that I'm a "Liberal." [Applause.]
But first, I would like to say what I understand the word, "Liberal," to mean and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what it means in the presidential election of 1960.
In short, having set forth my views - I hope for all time - 2 nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take this opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:
I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, and the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, this faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith, for liberalism is not so much a party creed or a set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of Justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves. [Applause.]
I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a super state. I see no magic to tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale Federal bureaucracies in this administration, as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and its full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.
Our responsibility is not discharged by an announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons, that liberalism is our best and our only hope in the world today. [Applause.] For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 presidential campaign is whether our Government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility. [Applause.]
Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city and only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.
John F. Kennedy Library
Would you elect this man today? I dont think you would. He is talking tax cuts while your party wants tax increases right now. JFK, like Reagan, understood how to boost the economy, Obama doesn't. The real fallacy here is that you honestly think he could be elected as a Democrat today.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aEdXrfIMdiU]Income Tax Cut, JFK Hopes To Spur Economy 1962/8/13 - YouTube[/ame]
Could John Kennedy be Elected President Today? No Way! | Illinois Conservative Examiner
When President Kennedy proposed lowering the nominal tax rate, it was 91% to pay for WWII. He lowered it to 70%.
"The Revenue Act of 1964 was aimed at the demand, rather than the supply, side of the economy," said Arthur Okun, one of Kennedy's economic advisers.
This distinction, taught in Economics 101, seldom makes it into the Washington sound-bite wars. A demand-side cut rests on the Keynesian theory that public consumption spurs economic activity. Government puts money in people's hands, as a temporary measure, so that they'll spend it. A supply-side cut sees business investment as the key to growth. Government gives money to businesses and wealthy individuals to invest, ultimately benefiting all Americans. Back in the early 1960s, tax cutting was as contentious as it is today, but it was liberal demand-siders who were calling for the cuts and generating the controversy.
When Kennedy ran for president in 1960 amid a sluggish economy, he vowed to "get the country moving again." After his election, his advisers, led by chief economist Walter Heller, urged a classically Keynesian solution: running a deficit to stimulate growth. (The $10 billion deficit Heller recommended, bold at the time, seems laughably small by today's standards.) In Keynesian theory, a tax cut aimed at consumers would have a "multiplier" effect, since each dollar that a taxpayer spent would go to another taxpayer, who would in effect spend it againmeaning the deficit would be short-lived.
At first Kennedy balked at Heller's Keynesianism. He even proposed a balanced budget in his first State of the Union address. But Heller and his team won over the president. By mid-1962 Kennedy had seen the Keynesian light, and in January 1963 he declared that "the enactment this year of tax reduction and tax reform overshadows all other domestic issues in this Congress."
The plan Kennedy's team drafted had many elements, including the closing of loopholes (the "tax reform" Kennedy spoke of). Ultimately, in the form that Lyndon Johnson signed into law, it reduced tax withholding rates, initiated a new standard deduction, and boosted the top deduction for child care expenses, among other provisions. It did lower the top tax bracket significantly, although from a vastly higher starting point than anything we've seen in recent years: 91 percent on marginal income greater than $400,000. And he cut it only to 70 percent, hardly the mark of a future Club for Growth member.
More
You mean Islamic
the same ones that the Left fights so hard for in the US
As a side note, a theocracy is really just another form of statism
The big three read from the same books. I don't really care which nutty kooks they are..
And the left is fighting for religious freedom..not for a religion. Religious freedom is something you conservative hate..unless it's the religion you like.
You mean Islamic
the same ones that the Left fights so hard for in the US
As a side note, a theocracy is really just another form of statism
The big three read from the same books. I don't really care which nutty kooks they are..
And the left is fighting for religious freedom..not for a religion. Religious freedom is something you conservative hate..unless it's the religion you like.
And nowhere in the Constitution will you find the word Democracy.
You mean Islamic
the same ones that the Left fights so hard for in the US
As a side note, a theocracy is really just another form of statism
The big three read from the same books. I don't really care which nutty kooks they are..
And the left is fighting for religious freedom..not for a religion. Religious freedom is something you conservative hate..unless it's the religion you like.
So the recent assault on Christianity by those on the left is considered fighting for religious freedom? Riddle me this, why was there noone in the Democrat party sticking up for Christians during the time when the 7th in heaven sign was being put up in New York city to commemorate the 7 fire fighters who died during 9/11 and the atheists where going apeshit over it?
To the democrats, freedom of religion only applies to everyone but Christians.
ABSOLUTELY...but he may have been too liberal for the Blue Dogs.
Ted Sorensen says: Barack Obama=JFK
"I have long dreamed that our party would produce another president matching John Kennedy's intellect and integrity, his compassion and care for all, his capacity to inspire just at home and peace around the world _ and this week my dream is coming true," Ted Sorenson told the second session of the Democratic Convention.
Passing the Torch: Kennedy's Touch on Obama's Words
It's no accident the Kennedy magic has infused itself into the campaign of Barack Obama.
Theodore "Ted" Sorensen, the adviser whom John F. Kennedy once called his "intellectual blood bank," is lending his unabashed support -- and eloquence -- to the Obama campaign.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hupgC1d-St8]Ted Sorensen on Barack Obama - YouTube[/ame]
You mean Islamic
the same ones that the Left fights so hard for in the US
As a side note, a theocracy is really just another form of statism
The big three read from the same books. I don't really care which nutty kooks they are..
And the left is fighting for religious freedom..not for a religion. Religious freedom is something you conservative hate..unless it's the religion you like.
Really,
because the Left seems to go freely about bashing Christians and Jews
any chance it gets
and yet, the Left is almost silent on the Islamic religion
except to provide Islamic terrorists "more rights"
to many it looks like aiding and abetting the enemy
Oh goody! I just love the cheers from the **** You, I've Got Mine section...
Oh goody! I just love the cheers from the **** You, I've Got Mine section...
?
