I want it back: it was Camelot

[Two Thumbs]

There never was a Camelot

The kennedys were all scum. They got their money by being rum runners, criminals.
Pa cheered the nazi as they bombed england
the boys all cheated on their wives, most were drunks, jfk CHOSE war.

it was one big lie generated by the media b/c Bobby and jfk were good looking. nothing more

 

[Harry Dresden]

BULLSHYTTE> The GOP has lost its mind. You're a moderate GOP voter lol.

Frankie learn how to use the quote function.....there are 150 + posts here....

 

[Harry Dresden]

They are back, they're black, and they're better...sorry you're brainwashed and missing it...

who the hell is THEY Frankie?....

 

[Harry Dresden]

If a Democrat today ran and won on JFK's 1960 platform, I'm virtually certain every rightwinger in this thread would shit his or her pants.

i would be shocked too.....Democrats of today aint nothing like the ones in that time...

It's difficult to imagine a Democrat today running on implementing FDR's Second/Economic Bill of Rights, as JFK and the Dems did in 1960.

There are only a few heirs to that tradition in federal elected office today (Teddy Kennedy was obviously the exemplar of that wing of the party for decades) and I'm not sure I see any of them running for president any time soon.

Ted was not in the same league as his brothers....

 

[Sallow]

There never was a Camelot

The kennedys were all scum. They got their money by being rum runners, criminals.
Pa cheered the nazi as they bombed england
the boys all cheated on their wives, most were drunks, jfk CHOSE war.

it was one big lie generated by the media b/c Bobby and jfk were good looking. nothing more

And Bob's your uncle.

That..is what conservatives were saying about the Kennedys.

Never mind that Bobby, John and Ted devoted their lives to public service. The conservatives think they were "scum".

While such "luminaries" as Nixon, Reagan and Bush are not "scum".

Gotta love it.

 

[Sallow]

i would be shocked too.....Democrats of today aint nothing like the ones in that time...

It's difficult to imagine a Democrat today running on implementing FDR's Second/Economic Bill of Rights, as JFK and the Dems did in 1960.

There are only a few heirs to that tradition in federal elected office today (Teddy Kennedy was obviously the exemplar of that wing of the party for decades) and I'm not sure I see any of them running for president any time soon.

Ted was not in the same league as his brothers....

Sure he was.

Even moreso..because he got a great deal of progressive legislation through congress.

The conservatives conflated an auto accident into murder, which essentially squashed him ever running for President.

But I guess he was sorta vindicated when Romney ran.

A man with the same sort of auto accident on his record.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

"Camelot" was a post mortem , public relations fiction brought to you by a romanticized, adoring leftwing press........

Purchased election , bay of pigs, cuban missle crisis, vietnam, cheating womanizer........ah, the "mystique"

 

[NYcarbineer]

If Kennedy was so great, why was he hated by conservatives?

I wasnt aware that I hated him.

If you want to make an argument that Kennedy was not hated by conservatives in his time, by all means do so.

This 'oh we miss Kennedy so much' crap by the inmates in the modern day rightwing asylum is just that,

crap. Kennedy, adjusted for the times, was far more liberal than Obama is.

 

[NYcarbineer]

If Kennedy were president in today's environment, the Right would be calling him a leftist, socialist, communist,

they'd be impugning his war record,

and a GOP Congress would be trying to impeach him for extramarital affairs.

 

[LogikAndReazon]

Poor teddy..........the worthless, incompetent, embarrassing, FREDO of the family..........alcoholic blowhard

 

[Flopper]

i would be shocked too.....Democrats of today aint nothing like the ones in that time...

It's difficult to imagine a Democrat today running on implementing FDR's Second/Economic Bill of Rights, as JFK and the Dems did in 1960.

There are only a few heirs to that tradition in federal elected office today (Teddy Kennedy was obviously the exemplar of that wing of the party for decades) and I'm not sure I see any of them running for president any time soon.

Ted was not in the same league as his brothers....

JFK evoked a sense of security and a spirit of idealism which reassured Americans of their nation's strengths and inspired them. When JFK said we're going to the moon, it had much deeper meaning to Americans than launching a space vehicle. Teddy was just a politician who built his political career on the JFK legacy.

 

[JoeBlam]

We got HOPE back when Reagan took over....won the Olypic Gold in hockey, the mullahs in Iran cringed and gave us back our hostages, the "shining city on the hill" gave us all a new pride and they spruced up the Statue of Liberty and it looked like a new beginning. Then JFK's brother Tedward decided to side with Breshnev to stop Dutch from rebuilding our Armed Forces and the jackals followed his lead....Camelot was always fiction....JFK didn't even win that election fair and square. What are the chances of another Camelot? Sorry, what never was can never be again.

 

[Borillar]

With "loyal opposition" like the Repugs, who openly undermine, oppose, disparage, and obstruct anything and everything he tries to accomplish - who needs enemies? It isn't poor leadership skills. Repugs simply won't accept that Obama is the duly elected leader.

bullshit...Clinton had plenty of opposition from those asswipes and he managed to keep the gap between the 2 parties from splintering like this guy and Bush have let happen....Bush and Obama are the first 2 Presidents that i have experienced that seemed to be just talking to the People who support them,everyone else ....fuck you.... that's ...piss poor leadership skills.....

. Repugs simply won't accept that Obama is the duly elected leader.

what does that mean?....that everyone is supposed to follow the guy even if you don't want what he wants?......just let him decide?....that's what guys like Franco and Lakota do....and the hacks on the right did it with Bush....

You know how people know who a leader is?

Because he's got the people following him.

Whoops, that wouldn't be the big 0.

Well, he has more people following him than the Repug candidate managed. Maybe you don't recognize leadership unless Rush tells you so.

 

[Little-Acorn]

I want people back that I knew as Democrats. I want good men and women who believed in chasing a dream. I want my liberals back.

I want Camelot not Communist dreams. I want real hope and change not dime store bullies from Chicago.

I want the real deal.

The problem with Democrats even back then is that, though the did not intend it, any move toward letting government do "just a little to help" people with the ordinary problems of life (instead of sticking strictly to protecting their rights and no more, which is government's real purpose)... once government is allowed to do "just a little", the next batch of politicians will ALWAYS gravitate toward "doing just a little more". And the next batch to doing more, etc. etc.

Liberalism, no matter how mildly started or with whatever good intentions, ALWAYS turns into a "race to the bottom" as politicians try to out-goodguy the others and spend more and more tax money on trinkets and goodies for the voters.

And you wind up with exactly the government we have today: Wallowing in debt, pouring out vast sums to people whose life doesn't get any better as a result, and screaming at the people who actually earn that money, for not being "generous enough". IN the meantime, actual charities who used to do that, shrink steadily, unable to compete with government's "free" money taken from people by force (ever seen what happens when you don't pay your taxes?)

Conservatives knew this back then, and resisted the plans of Kennedy et. al. as much as possible. To no avail.

You want Camelot back? Kennedy took it from you and redistributed it. Followed by more and more extreme versions of the same.

 

[Wry Catcher]

I want people back that I knew as Democrats. I want good men and women who believed in chasing a dream. I want my liberals back.

I want Camelot not Communist dreams. I want real hope and change not dime store bullies from Chicago.

I want the real deal.

Your best chance to get what you want is two-fold. Get a competent therapist you trust and examine with her/him why you fear Communism. In reality the threat of Communism has long past and only the RED SCAREexists. You have fallen prey to the hate and fear promulgated by the haves - and those who do their bidding - who themselves fear the hoi polloi and thus must 'demonize' them and keep them in their place.

Concurrently study history, the story of the never ending struggle of people exploited, terrorized and murdered. Leave contemporary 'bloggers' and novelists (some so-called non fiction is in fact little more than a novel) out at first. Until you've looked at the struggle of people - just like you and me - for the past 1,000 years, then you can read the propaganda - left and right - which impacts all of us today as dogmatic ideology has replaced ideas.

 

[Sallow]

Poor teddy..........the worthless, incompetent, embarrassing, FREDO of the family..........alcoholic blowhard

One of the most successful legislators in the history of the United States.

 

[Borillar]

bullshit...Clinton had plenty of opposition from those asswipes and he managed to keep the gap between the 2 parties from splintering like this guy and Bush have let happen....Bush and Obama are the first 2 Presidents that i have experienced that seemed to be just talking to the People who support them,everyone else ....fuck you.... that's ...piss poor leadership skills.....

. Repugs simply won't accept that Obama is the duly elected leader.

what does that mean?....that everyone is supposed to follow the guy even if you don't want what he wants?......just let him decide?....that's what guys like Franco and Lakota do....and the hacks on the right did it with Bush....

Were you alive during the Clinton administration? Republicans tried to destroy his presidency just like they are trying to destroy Obama's presidency. They put his entire life under a microscope and endless investigations. Then they impeached him. If anything, they were even bigger assholes then, if that is even possible.

What I mean is that Repugs need to let the man do his job. They don't like his proposals? Fine, vote against them, but at least let things come up for a vote. It would be nice if they would work on jobs like they promised to do instead of devote all their time and energy in muckraking, investigating, and naysaying.

do you know how to read?.....i said......"Clinton had plenty of opposition from those asswipes and he managed to keep the gap between the 2 parties from splintering like this guy and Bush have let happen"......Clinton had some leadership ability.....Obama does not....Clinton was able to make a lot of people on the right give him the benefit of the doubt and let him do his job....Obama does not have that ability.....when i was delivering Mail there were an awful lot of Democrats on my route who were pretty unsure of Obama after he got in....and they claimed they voted for him....there aint nothing like a leader who can lead....

Bullshit. They didn't give Clinton the benefit of the doubt. They were too busy shutting down the government and sniffing underwear. When Clinton responded to terrorism, they called it "wagging the dog." Anything Clinton accomplished during his terms was in spite of Republicans efforts - same as Obama.

 

[Sallow]

We got HOPE back when Reagan took over....won the Olypic Gold in hockey, the mullahs in Iran cringed and gave us back our hostages, the "shining city on the hill" gave us all a new pride and they spruced up the Statue of Liberty and it looked like a new beginning. Then JFK's brother Tedward decided to side with Breshnev to stop Dutch from rebuilding our Armed Forces and the jackals followed his lead....Camelot was always fiction....JFK didn't even win that election fair and square. What are the chances of another Camelot? Sorry, what never was can never be again.

Oh bullshit.

Reagan engaged in treason when he made deals with the Iranians to get back the hostages in exchange for weapons.

And used that money to equip death squads in Central America.

Real pop tart.

 

[Flopper]

I want people back that I knew as Democrats. I want good men and women who believed in chasing a dream. I want my liberals back.

I want Camelot not Communist dreams. I want real hope and change not dime store bullies from Chicago.

I want the real deal.

The problem with Democrats even back then is that, though the did not intend it, any move toward letting government do "just a little to help" people with the ordinary problems of life (instead of sticking strictly to protecting their rights and no more, which is government's real purpose)... once government is allowed to do "just a little", the next batch of politicians will ALWAYS gravitate toward "doing just a little more". And the next batch to doing more, etc. etc.

Liberalism, no matter how mildly started or with whatever good intentions, ALWAYS turns into a "race to the bottom" as politicians try to out-goodguy the others and spend more and more tax money on trinkets and goodies for the voters.

And you wind up with exactly the government we have today: Wallowing in debt, pouring out vast sums to people whose life doesn't get any better as a result, and screaming at the people who actually earn that money, for not being "generous enough". IN the meantime, actual charities who used to do that, shrink steadily, unable to compete with government's "free" money taken from people by force (ever seen what happens when you don't pay your taxes?)

Conservatives knew this back then, and resisted the plans of Kennedy et. al. as much as possible. To no avail.

You want Camelot back? Kennedy took it from you and redistributed it. Followed by more and more extreme versions of the same.

Although Johnson did much to expand the social welfare system, JFK actually did little. Had he been able to serve a second term, he may have been able to do a lot more. His administration was focused on dealing with Russia and Civil Rights.

Like most presidents in their first term, his agenda was dictated by events he had little control over such as the Bay of Pigs debacle, the Cuban Missile Crises, open rebellion in the South in response to integration court orders, and Soviet expansion.

 

[Circe]

[Although Johnson did much to expand the social welfare system, JFK actually did little. Had he been able to serve a second term, he may have been able to do a lot more. His administration was focused on dealing with Russia and Civil Rights.

Yeah, it was definitely Johnson who created our out-of-control Welfare State.

Also Vietnam. JFK had said he would not escalate that war. As soon as Johnson took over, he did.