Kennedy was a Liberal.

[Peterf]

Kennedy made Clinton look like a choirboy.

Thing is, he could maintain a cool poker face whilst spinning tall tales.

Jacqueline or Hillary or Marilyn or Monica
As you can tell by their choices, JFK had more class and taste than Bill ever had.

Could be because JFK was a spoil little rich kid. One whose Daddy gave him the ultimate rich boy's toy: the Presidency.

 

[LeftofLeft]

Like the founders.

Like anyone that's done good for the nation.

Conservatives seek to destroy America.

And turn it into a theocracy.

John F. Kennedy - Defining Liberal - YouTube

Kennedy knew how to pay for his social programs lie not in demonizing the wealthy or high income earners through punitive taxes but through tax cuts. He never spoke of taking profits as he was smart enough to realize that economic programs rooted in playing on people's envy is not a sustainable, viable fiscal plan.

 

[eflatminor]

Like the founders.

Classical Liberals, sure. Modern nanny state Progressive Democrats? You're out of your ******* mind.

Show me one modern liberal that advocates for strictly limited federal powers (enumerated in fact!), states rights and that the Constitution means what it says. The only thing the founders had in common with SOME modern liberals is a propensity to avoid overseas conflicts. This of course does not include your current dear leaders who are all to happy to vote yes for military intervention.

Of course, this does not mean the founders are anything like modern Conservatives either, who so often seek to impose their version of big government on others and who also meddle in the affairs of other nations to no end.

You show me any modern liberal or conservative that stands for the ideals of the founding as originally envisioned and I'll prove to you he's neither.

 

[eflatminor]

...his vision for America was one that everyone could relate too.

Except for the Leftist pinko commie that shot him of course...

 

[Sallow]

JFK was EVERYBODY'S president. He stood for things that most people wanted.

He was a dem, but also a centrist and his vision for America was one that everyone could relate too.

Lower taxes, civil rights, pride in America ... that's not liberal - that's American.

America is a liberal and secular nation.

That's a very important concept.

It's inclusive. Not exclusive.

 

[Stephanie]

JFK was EVERYBODY'S president. He stood for things that most people wanted.

He was a dem, but also a centrist and his vision for America was one that everyone could relate too.

Lower taxes, civil rights, pride in America ... that's not liberal - that's American.

America is a liberal and secular nation.

That's a very important concept.

It's inclusive. Not exclusive.

oh brother

 

[Sallow]

Like the founders.

Classical Liberals, sure. Modern nanny state Progressive Democrats? You're out of your ******* mind.

Show me one modern liberal that advocates for strictly limited federal powers (enumerated in fact!), states rights and that the Constitution means what it says. The only thing the founders had in common with SOME modern liberals is a propensity to avoid overseas conflicts. This of course does not include your current dear leaders who are all to happy to vote yes for military intervention.

Of course, this does not mean the founders are anything like modern Conservatives either, who so often seek to impose their version of big government on others and who also meddle in the affairs of other nations to no end.

You show me any modern liberal or conservative that stands for the ideals of the founding as originally envisioned and I'll prove to you he's neither.

First off..you have to "couch" the notion that the founders were "classical" liberals because that kind of language includes conservatives into the mix.

They weren't "classic" anything. They were radically different then the Monarch government that ruled the colonies.

And there is nothing "strictly" limited about the powers of the federal government in the constitution. This has been "settled" many times, most notably during the Whiskey Rebellion and the Civil War.

The Constitution isn't the 10 commandments and can be changed. It was written that way. Because the founders wanted it to be robust. They knew, like most Liberals, governance isn't stagnant. Neither is Liberal thinking.

Conservative thinking is all about stagnation. It's about tradition. It's about exclusiveness.

That's not America.

 

[Sallow]

JFK was EVERYBODY'S president. He stood for things that most people wanted.

He was a dem, but also a centrist and his vision for America was one that everyone could relate too.

Lower taxes, civil rights, pride in America ... that's not liberal - that's American.

America is a liberal and secular nation.

That's a very important concept.

It's inclusive. Not exclusive.

oh brother

Where art thou?

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08e9k-c91E8]Soggy Bottom Boys- I Am A Man Of Constant Sorrow - YouTube[/ame]

Great flick.

 

[blackhawk]

My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

John F. Kennedy

When was the last time you heard a liberal say anything like that?

| United We Serve

The challenges we face are unprecedented in their size and scope, and we cannot rely on quick fixes or easy answers to put us on the road to recovery. In this new century, we need to a build a new foundation for economic growth in America.

My Administration has already begun this work with dramatic new investments in education, health care and clean energy – investments that will create new jobs and lay the foundation for lasting prosperity.

But we cannot do this alone here in Washington. We can rebuild our schools, but we need people to be mentors and tutors in those schools. We can modernize our health care system, but we need volunteers in our hospitals and communities to help care for the sick and help people lead healthier lives. We can invest in clean energy, but we need people to use energy-efficient products in their homes and train for the green jobs of the future.

Economic recovery is as much about what you're doing in your communities as what we're doing in Washington – and it’s going to take all of us, working together.

The difference is Kennedy actually believed what he said Obamas record shows he does not.

 

[eflatminor]

Like the founders.

Classical Liberals, sure. Modern nanny state Progressive Democrats? You're out of your ******* mind.

Show me one modern liberal that advocates for strictly limited federal powers (enumerated in fact!), states rights and that the Constitution means what it says. The only thing the founders had in common with SOME modern liberals is a propensity to avoid overseas conflicts. This of course does not include your current dear leaders who are all to happy to vote yes for military intervention.

Of course, this does not mean the founders are anything like modern Conservatives either, who so often seek to impose their version of big government on others and who also meddle in the affairs of other nations to no end.

You show me any modern liberal or conservative that stands for the ideals of the founding as originally envisioned and I'll prove to you he's neither.

First off..you have to "couch" the notion that the founders were "classical" liberals because that kind of language includes conservatives into the mix.

They weren't "classic" anything. They were radically different then the Monarch government that ruled the colonies.

Actually, they were the very definition of Classical Liberal. And yes, that means being radically different from the Monarch...and every bit as different to the big government nanny state ***** that rule today.

And there is nothing "strictly" limited about the powers of the federal government in the constitution.

Spoken like a Progressive, NOT a founder. The entire idea of the founding was to limit the powers of federal government those specifically enumerated. What in the **** do you think the 10th amendment was for?!

The Constitution isn't the 10 commandments and can be changed. It was written that way. Because the founders wanted it to be robust.

And that process is called an AMENDMENT, something your dear leaders can't be bothered with...the antithesis of the founding principals. Thanks for proving my point!

They knew, like most Liberals, governance isn't stagnant. Neither is Liberal thinking.

Then why do modern liberals keep banging on with the same central planning policies despite the disastrous consequences? Sounds like stagnant thinking to me. Free markets and free minds, as the founders envisioned, is FAR from stagnant. It's what made America the greatest nation on earth with the highest standard of living for all..but you know better, we all understand...

Conservative thinking is all about stagnation.

As is modern liberal thinking. Same central planning bullshit over and over again. Never works, but hey, it's the INTENTION that counts, right?

That's not America

When you express even a modicum of the ideals of the founding, you can talk about what is and what is not America. Until then, you're no better than the big government Conservatives that are just sure they know what's best for everyone else and you're NOTHING like the founders.

 

[Mad_Cabbie]

The difference is Kennedy actually believed what he said Obamas record shows he does not.

Not true, but then when you make broad-blanket statements like this, I can't really even begin to pick through it, now can I?

That's the wonderful thing about Obama hate; it isn't necessary to pin anything down.

You can fill it all in with but, but, but, Benghazi! The BC! Kenya!!! No need to prove any of it - too much, so something must be true, right?

 

[blackhawk]

My fellow Americans, ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country.

John F. Kennedy

When was the last time you heard a liberal say anything like that?

The difference is Kennedy actually believed what he said Obamas record shows he does not.

Not true, but then when you make broad-blanket statements like this, I can't really even begin to pick through it, now can I?

That's the wonderful thing about Obama hate; it isn't necessary to pin anything down.

You can fill it all in with but, but, but, Benghazi! The BC! Kenya!!! No need to prove any of it - too much, so something must be true, right?

If you truly feel my statement about the Obama record is untrue you could point to polices that prove otherwise yet you didn't. Since you want a example or two unemployment benefits used to be 26 weeks under Obama now 99 weeks food stamp use on the rise under Obama and of course Obamacare these all fall under the heading of ask what the government can do for you not the other way around.

 

[Freewill]

JFK was EVERYBODY'S president. He stood for things that most people wanted.

He was a dem, but also a centrist and his vision for America was one that everyone could relate too.

Lower taxes, civil rights, pride in America ... that's not liberal - that's American.

We you alive at the time? He was not that popular. His fame came because he was assassinated then the ledged grew.

 

[Sallow]

Classical Liberals, sure. Modern nanny state Progressive Democrats? You're out of your ******* mind.

Show me one modern liberal that advocates for strictly limited federal powers (enumerated in fact!), states rights and that the Constitution means what it says. The only thing the founders had in common with SOME modern liberals is a propensity to avoid overseas conflicts. This of course does not include your current dear leaders who are all to happy to vote yes for military intervention.

Of course, this does not mean the founders are anything like modern Conservatives either, who so often seek to impose their version of big government on others and who also meddle in the affairs of other nations to no end.

You show me any modern liberal or conservative that stands for the ideals of the founding as originally envisioned and I'll prove to you he's neither.

First off..you have to "couch" the notion that the founders were "classical" liberals because that kind of language includes conservatives into the mix.

They weren't "classic" anything. They were radically different then the Monarch government that ruled the colonies.

Actually, they were the very definition of Classical Liberal. And yes, that means being radically different from the Monarch...and every bit as different to the big government nanny state ***** that rule today.



Spoken like a Progressive, NOT a founder. The entire idea of the founding was to limit the powers of federal government those specifically enumerated. What in the **** do you think the 10th amendment was for?!



And that process is called an AMENDMENT, something your dear leaders can't be bothered with...the antithesis of the founding principals. Thanks for proving my point!



Then why do modern liberals keep banging on with the same central planning policies despite the disastrous consequences? Sounds like stagnant thinking to me. Free markets and free minds, as the founders envisioned, is FAR from stagnant. It's what made America the greatest nation on earth with the highest standard of living for all..but you know better, we all understand...

Conservative thinking is all about stagnation.

As is modern liberal thinking. Same central planning bullshit over and over again. Never works, but hey, it's the INTENTION that counts, right?

That's not America

When you express even a modicum of the ideals of the founding, you can talk about what is and what is not America. Until then, you're no better than the big government Conservatives that are just sure they know what's best for everyone else and you're NOTHING like the founders.

Nothing but laughable bullshit.

 

[Sallow]

JFK was EVERYBODY'S president. He stood for things that most people wanted.

He was a dem, but also a centrist and his vision for America was one that everyone could relate too.

Lower taxes, civil rights, pride in America ... that's not liberal - that's American.

We you alive at the time? He was not that popular. His fame came because he was assassinated then the ledged grew.

I was alive at the time.

And yeah..he was pretty popular.

And well liked.

 

[TemplarKormac]

First off..you have to "couch" the notion that the founders were "classical" liberals because that kind of language includes conservatives into the mix.

They weren't "classic" anything. They were radically different then the Monarch government that ruled the colonies.

Actually, they were the very definition of Classical Liberal. And yes, that means being radically different from the Monarch...and every bit as different to the big government nanny state ***** that rule today.



Spoken like a Progressive, NOT a founder. The entire idea of the founding was to limit the powers of federal government those specifically enumerated. What in the **** do you think the 10th amendment was for?!



And that process is called an AMENDMENT, something your dear leaders can't be bothered with...the antithesis of the founding principals. Thanks for proving my point!



Then why do modern liberals keep banging on with the same central planning policies despite the disastrous consequences? Sounds like stagnant thinking to me. Free markets and free minds, as the founders envisioned, is FAR from stagnant. It's what made America the greatest nation on earth with the highest standard of living for all..but you know better, we all understand...



As is modern liberal thinking. Same central planning bullshit over and over again. Never works, but hey, it's the INTENTION that counts, right?

That's not America

When you express even a modicum of the ideals of the founding, you can talk about what is and what is not America. Until then, you're no better than the big government Conservatives that are just sure they know what's best for everyone else and you're NOTHING like the founders.

Nothing but laughable bullshit.

Cover for 'I got nothin'

 

[Sallow]

Actually, they were the very definition of Classical Liberal. And yes, that means being radically different from the Monarch...and every bit as different to the big government nanny state ***** that rule today.



Spoken like a Progressive, NOT a founder. The entire idea of the founding was to limit the powers of federal government those specifically enumerated. What in the **** do you think the 10th amendment was for?!



And that process is called an AMENDMENT, something your dear leaders can't be bothered with...the antithesis of the founding principals. Thanks for proving my point!



Then why do modern liberals keep banging on with the same central planning policies despite the disastrous consequences? Sounds like stagnant thinking to me. Free markets and free minds, as the founders envisioned, is FAR from stagnant. It's what made America the greatest nation on earth with the highest standard of living for all..but you know better, we all understand...



As is modern liberal thinking. Same central planning bullshit over and over again. Never works, but hey, it's the INTENTION that counts, right?



When you express even a modicum of the ideals of the founding, you can talk about what is and what is not America. Until then, you're no better than the big government Conservatives that are just sure they know what's best for everyone else and you're NOTHING like the founders.

Nothing but laughable bullshit.

Cover for 'I got nothin'

Naw.

It's pretty simple.

-Monarchy and Theocracy are the most conservative forms of government. Each dispenses with any vote at all and operates under the theory that power is derived from a deity.

-The founders were all progressive. And the 10th Amendment is the most misunderstood Amendment. It's a catch all. It's does not say that the state is more powerful than the Federal government. In fact, the Constitution says that the Federal government, via the Constitution is supreme.

-The fact remains, there is a way to change the constitution. Something conservatives would have never have included.

-Conservatives don't advocate for free markets. They advocate for Corporatism.

-"The Central Planning" conservatives talk about is generally regulations meant to keep the powerful from overwhelming the weak. This is each and every time. The only interest a conservative has is the promotion of power..that's it.

-Conservatives had nothing to do with the founding of this country.

Done.

 

[AmericanFirst]

.

I don't see the righties, even the hardcore right, promising to "fundamentally change" America.

Why would someone want to "fundamentally change" something that they like?

.

"I want to be invisible. I do guerilla warfare. I paint my face and travel at night. You don't know it's over until you're in a body bag. You don't know until election night." --Ralph Reed, The Hill, December 17, 1997.[2].
"What Christians have got to do is take back this country, one precinct at a time, one neighborhood at a time and one state at a time. I honestly believe that in my lifetime, we will see a country once again governed by Christians...and Christian values." --Ralph Reed, Los Angeles Times, April 1990.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Ralph_E._Reed,_Jr.

Nuff said.

Well said. This is what was used as text books in school back when this country was what it was meant to be; The New England Primer - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. It is the libtards and socialists pukes like obamaturd that want to change America. Obamaturd is a lying puke.

 

[daveman]

Nothing but laughable bullshit.

Cover for 'I got nothin'

Naw.

It's pretty simple.

-Monarchy and Theocracy are the most conservative forms of government. Each dispenses with any vote at all and operates under the theory that power is derived from a deity.

-The founders were all progressive. And the 10th Amendment is the most misunderstood Amendment. It's a catch all. It's does not say that the state is more powerful than the Federal government. In fact, the Constitution says that the Federal government, via the Constitution is supreme.

-The fact remains, there is a way to change the constitution. Something conservatives would have never have included.

-Conservatives don't advocate for free markets. They advocate for Corporatism.

-"The Central Planning" conservatives talk about is generally regulations meant to keep the powerful from overwhelming the weak. This is each and every time. The only interest a conservative has is the promotion of power..that's it.

-Conservatives had nothing to do with the founding of this country.

Done.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Nothing but laughable bullshit.

Cover for 'I got nothin'

Naw.

It's pretty simple.

-Monarchy and Theocracy are the most conservative forms of government. Each dispenses with any vote at all and operates under the theory that power is derived from a deity.

-The founders were all progressive. And the 10th Amendment is the most misunderstood Amendment. It's a catch all. It's does not say that the state is more powerful than the Federal government. In fact, the Constitution says that the Federal government, via the Constitution is supreme.

-The fact remains, there is a way to change the constitution. Something conservatives would have never have included.

-Conservatives don't advocate for free markets. They advocate for Corporatism.

-"The Central Planning" conservatives talk about is generally regulations meant to keep the powerful from overwhelming the weak. This is each and every time. The only interest a conservative has is the promotion of power..that's it.

-Conservatives had nothing to do with the founding of this country.

Done.

Really? Sallow, prepare for the butt kicking of your life. Your points are rebutted in the order you gave them:

1) Monarchy: A monarchy is a form of government in which sovereignty is actually or nominally embodied in a single individual.

Theocracy: A government whose laws and edicts are predicated on mono or polytheistic beliefs. Examples include Egypt, Greece (in antiquity), Rome, and the Modern Middle East.

2) The founders were not progressive.

First, the Founding Fathers believed all men are created equal (see The Declaration of Independence) and that men are not created with the same abilities or circumstances, nor should it be the government's role to make them the same. They believed that all men were born with the same inherent rights.

Progessives on the other hand believe it is the government's responsibility to correct inequality through redistribution and/or control. Strike One.

Second, the Founding Fathers believed that rights were given men by a higher power. Men were free to do as they please. They asserted that men were born and endowed with 'certain unalienable rights.' They posited that happiness is not guaranteed; that property rights and economic freedom are an integral and essential part of a man's natural rights. They believed in hard work and providing for one's own family as well as the right to keep the fruits of one's labor.

Progressives? They believe a "right" is something you are given and not something that you have naturally. They assert that one man's right to keep certain things: a home, income, and healthcare supersede the right of another man to keep the property he has earned. Government is the sole purveyor of rights and freedom; who is allowed to take those rights away on a whim. They believe in economic equality, not economic freedom. Strike two.

Thirdly, The founding fathers believed in a government instituted among men, that derive their just power from the governed. James Madison wrote: "If men were angels, no government would be necessary." While the Founding Fathers believed that men were in no way perfect, some government was necessary to secure the people's natural rights, they also understood that they needed a government constrained by the consent of the people.

Progressives? They believe that the uninformed masses need an elite group of people to lead them. Dissent is quashed and alternative views are discouraged. That's strike three.

The Founding Fathers knew economic freedom could not be separated from other freedoms. They believed that the moral superiority of economic freedom is proven by the outcome. A centralized government produces shortages, waste, laziness a lack of creativity and entrepreneurship. Government does not provide adequately nor abundantly for those it claims to help; so instead, it decreases the living standard for all. If a man cannot enjoy the product of his hard work, he isn't free. Tyranny and loss of rights will soon take hold.

There were three main principles the Founding Fathers believed in to remain free:

a) People need to be knowledgeable enough to elect good representatives that will preserve their freedoms.

b) People must be moral enough to possess self-restraint to live responsibly and not tread on the rights of others.

c) People must be vigilant enough to protect their rights. (The Declaration of Independence states that men have a right and a duty to overthrow a government that tramples on their natural rights so they can pursue happiness and ensure security for their rights.)

Lastly, the 10th Amendment is pretty straightforward. Any rights not delegated to the Government is thereby relegated to the states. The states act as a counterweight to government excesses.

3)

The Founders were republicans (with a small 'r'). This means they believed that successful representative governments required the subordination of individual personal interests to the welfare of the community. They believed that the political process was all about identifying the common good. It was not about competition and disagreement; politics was a process in which rational voters and officials calmly sorted out what best served the entire community. The end result was not one camp of winners and another of losers, but the entire electorate united behind a common vision.

The Founding Fathers & Political Parties

4) What part of, "a man shall not be deprived of life, liberty, nor property" do you not understand?

5) If conservatives were all about power, they would be the ones who eliminated the rights of a minority party in the Senate to filibuster judicial nominees and appointments.

6) You're partially correct. Most of the Founding Fathers principles, freedom, prosperity, independence are conservative in nature. Most of the principles you believe in Sallow, government, entitlement, suppression of opinion, centralized leadership... are progressive. They believed that political parties were factions and would destroy the fabric of the union. They were right. Here we are. But they were Federalists and anti-Federalsts, none of them were conservative nor liberal.