• We should now be fully online following an overnight outage. Apologies for any inconvenience, we do not expect there to be any further issues.

Poll: Clinton vs JFK

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,873
10,668
147
Originally posted by: digitalsm
His term in office, and his terms in the Senate just dont support that claim. Yes, they do!

You can say that his role in racial issues makes him a liberal democrat, but it doesnt. Oh, YES, it does.

Now if he lived(even if he wasnt assisinated he would not have lived to see the '70s), Your ridiculously unsupported opinion.

he would have had to of changed his views radically to meet todays standard of being a liberal democrat. No, he wouldn't have. He'd be right there with his BROTHER Ted Kennedy.

There were more liberal republicans back then, who stayed republican, when the parties basically flipped on issues over the next two decades. Basically flipped on WHAT issues? Give it up. You're not even making sense here. :roll:
You can bend reality all you want, and you can try as best you can to rewrite history, but you'll be no more successful than the other idiot in this thread in claiming that John Fitzgerald Kennedy was more Republican than Democrat. It ain't flying.

John Kennedy was a life long liberal Democrat, and fiercely proud of it.
 

digitalsm

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2003
5,253
0
0
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: digitalsm
His term in office, and his terms in the Senate just dont support that claim. Yes, they do!

You can say that his role in racial issues makes him a liberal democrat, but it doesnt. Oh, YES, it does.

Now if he lived(even if he wasnt assisinated he would not have lived to see the '70s), Your ridiculously unsupported opinion.

he would have had to of changed his views radically to meet todays standard of being a liberal democrat. No, he wouldn't have. He'd be right there with his BROTHER Ted Kennedy.

There were more liberal republicans back then, who stayed republican, when the parties basically flipped on issues over the next two decades. Basically flipped on WHAT issues? Give it up. You're not even making sense here. :roll:
You can bend reality all you want, and you can try as best you can to rewrite history, but you'll be no more successful than the other idiot in this thread in claiming that John Fitzgerald Kennedy was more Republican than Democrat. It ain't flying.

John Kennedy was a life long liberal Democrat, and fiercely proud of it.

1. Hes actions in the Senate are quit conservative. His actions with the military were quite conservative.

2. More republicans supported his Civil Rights Act than Democrats. Those same republicans stayed republicans.

3. Its not unsupported, his health was detoriating. He was on 18 different drugs when he died. In fact the Soviets saw him as weak and fraile after his meds wore off during negotitations.

4. How so? JFK died before abortion became a big issue. How can you say, he a DEVOTE Catholic would agree to abortion?

5. Flipped on what? You are obviously uneducated. Look at the History of the Republican and Democratic parties, they flipped on issues on several occassions.

6. Kennedy was a life long democrat. He wouldnt have been the rabid liberal his brother is today. Hell you had democrats fighting democrats from the 1920s-1970s.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,873
10,668
147
Originally posted by: NightCrawler
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: NightCrawler
JFK was more a republican then a Democrat
What an idiotic statement! Please back this up.

He cut taxes and moved troops to Vietnam.
You see, folks, THIS is the ahistorical idiocy we have to put up with here.

Please educate yourself. Being a liberal NEVER meant not being a fierce cold warrior. John Kennedy was both. Harry S. Truman was both. Lyndon Baines Johnson was both. Before the cold war, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was both a WARRIOR and a LIBERAL.

You twerps have bought into the more recent right wing propaganda that being a liberal means being soft on our adversaries. As you can see by my repeated examples above, nothing could be further from the truth.

Indeed, historically, American isolationist opposition to getting involved in WWll was led by the Republicans!

Grow up and learn your own country's history. Stop believing in and mindlessly parroting your partisan LIES!
 

digitalsm

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2003
5,253
0
0
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: NightCrawler
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: NightCrawler
JFK was more a republican then a Democrat
What an idiotic statement! Please back this up.

He cut taxes and moved troops to Vietnam.
You see, folks, THIS is the ahistorical idiocy we have to put up with here.

Please educate yourself. Being a liberal NEVER meant not being a fierce cold warrior. John Kennedy was both. Harry S. Truman was both. Lyndon Baines Johnson was both. Before the cold war, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was both a WARRIOR and a LIBERAL.

You twerps have bought into the more recent right wing propaganda that being a liberal means being soft on our adversaries. As you can see by my repeated examples above, nothing could be further from the truth.

Indeed, historically, American isolationist opposition to getting involved in WWll was led by the Republicans!

Grow up and learn your own country's history. Stop believing in and mindlessly parroting your partisan LIES!

It seems to me your history is a bit warped too... Not from just this one thread either... The left on this forum(you included) is just as equally guilty of trying to rewrite history.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,873
10,668
147
Originally posted by: digitalsm
1. Hes actions in the Senate are quit conservative. Really? Please list all the right wing, conservative legislation that John Kennedy voted for during his time in the Senate. I'll be waiting right here.

His actions with the military were quite conservative. Says YOU, because you remain defiantly ignorant of your own country's history. His actions were the actions of a liberal cold warrior Democrat, no different than those of Truman, Johnson, or Roosevelt. Now you know. Please don't repeat this lie again, EVER>

2. More republicans supported his Civil Rights Act than Democrats. Wrong. More Democrats supported the act. A higher percentage of Republicans did, though. This was entirely due to the prevalence of Souther Dixiecrat segregationists. These same people now form the backbone of the modern Republican party's "Southern" strategy, and are the core "social conservatives" who back Bush. But, you knew that, right?

In any event, it is JFK's political leanings that are being debated here, and he proposed the legislation, even though he knew it would cost him Southern troglodyte support. It was a gutsy TRUE LIBERAL move.


Those same republicans stayed republicans. Uh, 40 years later, not a one of them holds any political office of any kind. Besides, we were debating KENNEDY, remember?

3. Its not unsupported, his health was detoriating. He was on 18 different drugs when he died. In fact the Soviets saw him as weak and fraile after his meds wore off during negotitations.Your flat out statement that he would not have lived 6 1/2 years until the 1970's is pure speculation on your part, and, again, not germane to our debate. Please try to stay on topic, and make useful points, and back them up with facts, as you will now do concerining JFK's "conservative" Senate voting record.

4. How so? JFK died before abortion became a big issue. How can you say, he a DEVOTE Catholic would agree to abortion?The word is "devout". JFK the playboy serial fornicator was undoubtedly no more or less devout than his equally Catholic brothers Ted or Robert, both of whom support/supported a woman's right to chose. John Kerry is the same, a practicing Catholic no more or less devout, and supports a woman's right to chose. Please stop trying to project your socially conservative viewpoints on the socially liberal John Kennedy without one damn shred of evidence, and with all indications pointing against you.

5. Flipped on what? You are obviously uneducated. Look at the History of the Republican and Democratic parties, they flipped on issues on several occassions. Your earlier statement, and I quote, was, "when the parties basically flipped on issues over the next two decades." Please now DOCUMENT that statement with a list of issues on which the two parties flipped in the two decades following Kennedy's death. Again, I'll be waiting right here.


6. Kennedy was a life long democrat. He wouldnt have been the rabid liberal his brother is today. Hell you had democrats fighting democrats in the late 1960s. John Kennedy was never the most liberal of Democrats, true. He may never have been a clone of his brother Teddy, or even of his brother Robert, but he was a Democrat and a proud Liberal to his dying day, despite your desperate and factually unsupported efforts to paint him otherwise. Your support of the assertion that he was more Republican than Democrat is as baseless as it is ludicrous.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,873
10,668
147
Originally posted by: Perknose

You see, folks, THIS is the ahistorical idiocy we have to put up with here.

Please educate yourself. Being a liberal NEVER meant not being a fierce cold warrior. John Kennedy was both. Harry S. Truman was both. Lyndon Baines Johnson was both. Before the cold war, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was both a WARRIOR and a LIBERAL.

You twerps have bought into the more recent right wing propaganda that being a liberal means being soft on our adversaries. As you can see by my repeated examples above, nothing could be further from the truth.

Indeed, historically, American isolationist opposition to getting involved in WWll was led by the Republicans!

Grow up and learn your own country's history. Stop believing in and mindlessly parroting your partisan LIES!

It seems to me your history is a bit warped too... Not from just this one thread either... The left on this forum(you included) is just as equally guilty of trying to rewrite history.[/quote]Please show me where my history is warped. Back up your accusations with documented facts, or STFU.
 

digitalsm

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2003
5,253
0
0
Where have I called JFK more republican than democrat?

I said moderate. Fact of the matter is, the Kennedys were never outright liberal until RFK and Teddy,

Joesph P. Kennedy was a conservative isolationist democrat. JFK was a moderately liberal democrat. JFK would never have been like RFK or Teddy.

As for oh say what changed?

Lets take a look at Jimmy Carter and the democrats from the late '60s and '70s. I recall JFK and whole "America will pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and success of liberty" speech.

Carter did a complete 180 from that. Liberal hippes did a 180 from that. The democratic party, sans union democrates, did a complete 180 as well.

You can't honestly compare JFK or the democrats before him and LBJ, to Carter, Clinton and most of the current elected democrats. The ties are non existint, just in name only.

And if you did Kennedy would be more of a John Breaux than a Teddy Kennedy.
 

digitalsm

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2003
5,253
0
0
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: Perknose

You see, folks, THIS is the ahistorical idiocy we have to put up with here.

Please educate yourself. Being a liberal NEVER meant not being a fierce cold warrior. John Kennedy was both. Harry S. Truman was both. Lyndon Baines Johnson was both. Before the cold war, Franklin Delano Roosevelt was both a WARRIOR and a LIBERAL.

You twerps have bought into the more recent right wing propaganda that being a liberal means being soft on our adversaries. As you can see by my repeated examples above, nothing could be further from the truth.

Indeed, historically, American isolationist opposition to getting involved in WWll was led by the Republicans!

Grow up and learn your own country's history. Stop believing in and mindlessly parroting your partisan LIES!

It seems to me your history is a bit warped too... Not from just this one thread either... The left on this forum(you included) is just as equally guilty of trying to rewrite history.
Please show me where my history is warped. Back up your accusations with documented facts, or STFU.[/quote]


You seemingly forget Joe P. Kennedy, and several other prominent democrats were isolationists, just like the vast majority of america.

You also said "You twerps have bought into the more recent right wing propaganda that being a liberal means being soft on our adversaries. As you can see by my repeated examples above, nothing could be further from the truth."

Which, no Jimmy Carter did that. He and his fellow democrats, along with the liberal hippies did a complete 180. The only democrats that stayed true to JFK's words were the union Democrats, who well, were conservative democrats, then, and now.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,873
10,668
147
Originally posted by: digitalsm
You seemingly forget Joe P. Kennedy, and several other prominent democrats were isolationists, just like the vast majority of america.

You also said "You twerps have bought into the more recent right wing propaganda that being a liberal means being soft on our adversaries. As you can see by my repeated examples above, nothing could be further from the truth."

Which, no Jimmy Carter did that. He and his fellow democrats, along with the liberal hippies did a complete 180. The only democrats that stayed true to JFK's words were the union Democrats, who well, were conservative democrats, then, and now.
Yep, ol' Joe was a staunch isolationist. He also wasn't a liberal, but more of a cutthroat amoral robber baron. Hell, he was only a Democrat because he was Irish Catholic, and the Republicans wouldn't have had him if he had tried to join.

In Delaware County, Pa., my Uncle Ed graduated from (the then) West Chester State Teacher's College and tried to get a job at several (Republican controlled) school distiricts and WAS TOLD they wouldn't hire him because he was Catholic.

Jimmy Carter was an officer in the United States Navy, and was no more of a communist molly coddler than you or I, IMHO. Your assertion that "Jimmy Carter did that. He and his fellow democrats, along with the liberal hippies did a complete 180" is a rabid overstatement unworthy of your more substantive points.

Nevertheless, however you view him does not prove the partisan Republican lie that being a liberal means you are soft on our adversaries, as my repeated examples, JFK included, prove. . . and it was JFK that we were debating. He was a cold warrior and a liberal, as were Truman, LBJ, FDR et al. Get over it.

The man who dragged the rest of the USA kicking and screaming into WWll is the most famous liberal of them all. You just cannot deny this.


The tactic of using JFK's cold warrior credentials to disprove that he was a liberal just doesn't fly. While you digitalism may understand this, many others here don't.
 

digitalsm

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2003
5,253
0
0
Nevertheless, however you view him does not prove the partisan Republican lie that being a liberal means you are soft on our adversaries, as my repeated examples, JFK included, prove. . . and it was JFK that we were debating. He was a cold warrior and a liberal, as were Truman, LBJ, FDR et al. Get over it.

I dont recall ever saying being liberal means you are automatically soft on our adversaries. That said, I have said you cant really compare most of todays elected democrats to JFK, LBJ, FDR or Truman. Because you cant. The democratic party is highly fragmented, you have the far left liberals, the liberals, the moderate liberals, the union democrats and moderate democrats.

In reality you have six major distinct groups in america, that are forced into a two party system

the far left liberals
the liberals
the social moderates
the fiscial moderates
the conservatives
the far right conservatives

If you cut away the far left liberals, the far right covservatives and somehow got the middle groups to come to a concensus, we could have a solid three party system. The extremists of each party give both parties a bad name. As it is now we will continue to have Gore vs Bush or Kerry vs Bush. Bascially unless something changes we will continue have a polarized country(both sides are guilty), and substandard presidents.
 

magomago

Lifer
Sep 28, 2002
10,973
14
76
I would say JFK (even though his private life is pretty trashy) because while he was president, he did face the Cuban Missile Crisis.
Bill Clinton on the other hand...didn't face anything.

Most American presidents end up mediocre at best, because there is nothing they really face that would "Test" them

And nothing really tested Clinton-->he had a fairly smooth 8 years, wheras the Cuban Missile Crisis is defnitely something worth noting (and interestingly enough becaues of the declassifacation of Sovet Documents it turns out we were a lot closer to Nuclear War than people would have thought. Don't quote me on this though because I remember reading this in an article atleast a y ear ago)

So JFK wins
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,873
10,668
147
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Nevertheless, however you view him does not prove the partisan Republican lie that being a liberal means you are soft on our adversaries, as my repeated examples, JFK included, prove. . . and it was JFK that we were debating. He was a cold warrior and a liberal, as were Truman, LBJ, FDR et al. Get over it.

I dont recall ever saying being liberal means you are automatically soft on our adversaries. That said, I have said you cant really compare most of todays elected democrats to JFK, LBJ, FDR or Truman. Because you cant. The democratic party is highly fragmented, you have the far left liberals, the liberals, the moderate liberals, the union democrats and moderate democrats.
Fair enough, but the argument was whether JFK was a liberal or not. He was. You started out saying that he was a moderate. Later, you admitted that he was a "moderate liberal". He was a liberal, my point, and I will agree with you that he was a moderate liberal.

In the course of our debate, you have made several statements which I would hope you will now repudiate.

1. You said that JFK's Senate voting record was "quit (sic) conservative". This is simply untrue, and you have not seen fit to offer any examples of his support of conservative measures, despite my having asked you to. Given that you yourself have later admitted that JFK was a moderate liberal, will you now be prepared to repudiate this statement?

2. You said that Kennedy's "devot (sic)" Catholicism meant that he would have opposed a woman's right to chose. I countered that his brothers Ted and Robert were raised in the same family, and supported such a right. I also called into question JFK the serial fornicators strict devoutness. John Kerry is at least a devout and a practicing Catholic, and he stauchly supports a woman's right to chose. Your sole reason for your speculation has been strongly underminded, and you have offered nothing else.

3. You said, and I quote, that "the parties basically flipped on issues over the next two decades" following Kennedy's assassination. I asked you to document examples. You have offered none. Would you either robustly document such a rash statement, or repudiate it?

Lastly, I'd like to do some public repudiation of my own. I accused you of supporting the view that Kennedy was more Republican than Democrat. You said no such thing. I apologize.

Furthermore, I angrily lumped you in with the great mass of ahistorical know nothings. This was a mistake on my part, and, again, I apologize. Your posts reveal you to be an educated and informed man.
 

digitalsm

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2003
5,253
0
0
1. You said that JFK's Senate voting record was "quit (sic) conservative". This is simply untrue, and you have not seen fit to offer any examples of his support of conservative measures, despite my having asked you to. Given that you yourself have later admitted that JFK was a moderate liberal, will you now be prepared to repudiate this statement?

Its a complicated issue. By todays standards many liberals, those farther to the left would completely reject alot of what Kennedy stood for. On the flip side of the coin you do have republicans/conservatives saying look Kennedy was pro war/pro military intervention.


2. You said that Kennedy's "devot (sic)" Catholicism meant that he would have opposed a woman's right to chose. I countered that his brothers Ted and Robert were raised in the same family, and supported such a right. I also called into question JFK the serial fornicators strict devoutness. John Kerry is at least a devout and a practicing Catholic, and he stauchly supports a woman's right to chose. Your sole reason for your speculation has been strongly underminded, and you have offered nothing else.

Okay I admit it is unknown what he'd do.

3. You said, and I quote, that "the parties basically flipped on issues over the next two decades" following Kennedy's assassination. I asked you to document examples. You have offered none. Would you either robustly document such a rash statement, or repudiate it?

In my opinon based on actions by democratic party leadership, there HAS been distinct changes, maybe its because the cold war ended, but there has been a distinct change. There are policy differences between JFK and Carter, and Carter and Clinton. We could play the what if/maybe game all day, but there is a distinct difference IMHO.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,873
10,668
147
Originally posted by: digitalsm
1. You said that JFK's Senate voting record was "quit (sic) conservative". This is simply untrue, and you have not seen fit to offer any examples of his support of conservative measures, despite my having asked you to. Given that you yourself have later admitted that JFK was a moderate liberal, will you now be prepared to repudiate this statement?

By todays standards, some would consider it fairly conservative. Now are they liberal? Id say they are. There are quite a number of them that would not support what Kennedy voted/stood for. I concede it would be only the far left liberals who would consider it conservative because it does not fit their political dogmas.

2. You said that Kennedy's "devot (sic)" Catholicism meant that he would have opposed a woman's right to chose. I countered that his brothers Ted and Robert were raised in the same family, and supported such a right. I also called into question JFK the serial fornicators strict devoutness. John Kerry is at least a devout and a practicing Catholic, and he stauchly supports a woman's right to chose. Your sole reason for your speculation has been strongly underminded, and you have offered nothing else.

Okay I admit it is unknown what he'd do.

3. You said, and I quote, that "the parties basically flipped on issues over the next two decades" following Kennedy's assassination. I asked you to document examples. You have offered none. Would you either robustly document such a rash statement, or repudiate it?

In my opinon based on actions by democratic party leadership, there HAS been distinct changes, maybe its because the cold war ended, but there has been a distinct change. There are policy differences between JFK and Carter, and Carter and Clinton. We could play the what if/maybe game all day, but there is a distinct difference IMHO.
So you won't (or can't) document your assertion that JKF's Senate record was "quite conservative" AND you won't (or you can't) document our assertion that "the parties basically flipped on issues over the next two decades" following his assassination.
 

digitalsm

Diamond Member
Jul 11, 2003
5,253
0
0
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: digitalsm
1. You said that JFK's Senate voting record was "quit (sic) conservative". This is simply untrue, and you have not seen fit to offer any examples of his support of conservative measures, despite my having asked you to. Given that you yourself have later admitted that JFK was a moderate liberal, will you now be prepared to repudiate this statement?

By todays standards, some would consider it fairly conservative. Now are they liberal? Id say they are. There are quite a number of them that would not support what Kennedy voted/stood for. I concede it would be only the far left liberals who would consider it conservative because it does not fit their political dogmas.

2. You said that Kennedy's "devot (sic)" Catholicism meant that he would have opposed a woman's right to chose. I countered that his brothers Ted and Robert were raised in the same family, and supported such a right. I also called into question JFK the serial fornicators strict devoutness. John Kerry is at least a devout and a practicing Catholic, and he stauchly supports a woman's right to chose. Your sole reason for your speculation has been strongly underminded, and you have offered nothing else.

Okay I admit it is unknown what he'd do.

3. You said, and I quote, that "the parties basically flipped on issues over the next two decades" following Kennedy's assassination. I asked you to document examples. You have offered none. Would you either robustly document such a rash statement, or repudiate it?

In my opinon based on actions by democratic party leadership, there HAS been distinct changes, maybe its because the cold war ended, but there has been a distinct change. There are policy differences between JFK and Carter, and Carter and Clinton. We could play the what if/maybe game all day, but there is a distinct difference IMHO.
So you won't (or can't) document your assertion that JKF's Senate record was "quite conservative" AND you won't (or you can't) document our assertion that "the parties basically flipped on issues over the next two decades" following his assassination.

Its a wee bit hard finding the voting records of Senators who served during the '50s. But based on his biography he had a mixed voting record, he often times voted opposite of Truman and his fellow democrats while in the house, and contiued the same voting pattern while in the Senate.

And I really shouldnt say the parties flipped, but they did undergo distinct changes.

Not quite on topic, but if one actually looks at then and now. There are many parallels. Basically its the exact opposite. What many democrats/liberals are alleging today, their counterparts did to the republicans back then.
 

Perknose

Forum Director & Omnipotent Overlord
Forum Director
Oct 9, 1999
46,873
10,668
147
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Its a wee bit hard finding the voting records of Senators who served during the '50s. But based on his biography he had a mixed voting record, he often times voted opposite of Truman and his fellow democrats while in the house, and contiued the same voting pattern while in the Senate.

And I really shouldnt say the parties flipped, but they did undergo distinct changes.
A wee bit hard indeed -- you've got to know I went looking. I think your characterization that he "often" voted opposite of the Dems is wildly overstated. I will give you that there are those in his own party who thought he was not liberal "enough". Hence, perhaps we can find common ground that he was a moderate liberal, for a liberal Democrat he truly was. I must repeat that your assertion that his Senate record was "quite conservative" is over the top wrong no matter how you look at it.

I didn't really know you at all when first we began at each other in this thread. I leave knowing we have fundamental political disagreements, but also with a fair measure of respect for you. Cheers. :beer:
 

EXman

Lifer
Jul 12, 2001
20,079
15
81
Originally posted by: ElFenix
the cuban missle crisis was about the only thing JFK accomplished.

And Clinton accomplished what? Getting a large piece of A$$ :)

please don't say the economy cause he was a lucky bastard for the timing of the internet BOOM.
 

Ymmy

Banned
Aug 3, 2003
249
0
0
Originally posted by: Perknose
Originally posted by: digitalsm
1. Hes actions in the Senate are quit conservative. Really? Please list all the right wing, conservative legislation that John Kennedy voted for during his time in the Senate. I'll be waiting right here.

His actions with the military were quite conservative. Says YOU, because you remain defiantly ignorant of your own country's history. His actions were the actions of a liberal cold warrior Democrat, no different than those of Truman, Johnson, or Roosevelt. Now you know. Please don't repeat this lie again, EVER>

2. More republicans supported his Civil Rights Act than Democrats. Wrong. More Democrats supported the act. A higher percentage of Republicans did, though. This was entirely due to the prevalence of Souther Dixiecrat segregationists. These same people now form the backbone of the modern Republican party's "Southern" strategy, and are the core "social conservatives" who back Bush. But, you knew that, right?

In any event, it is JFK's political leanings that are being debated here, and he proposed the legislation, even though he knew it would cost him Southern troglodyte support. It was a gutsy TRUE LIBERAL move.


Those same republicans stayed republicans. Uh, 40 years later, not a one of them holds any political office of any kind. Besides, we were debating KENNEDY, remember?

3. Its not unsupported, his health was detoriating. He was on 18 different drugs when he died. In fact the Soviets saw him as weak and fraile after his meds wore off during negotitations.Your flat out statement that he would not have lived 6 1/2 years until the 1970's is pure speculation on your part, and, again, not germane to our debate. Please try to stay on topic, and make useful points, and back them up with facts, as you will now do concerining JFK's "conservative" Senate voting record.

4. How so? JFK died before abortion became a big issue. How can you say, he a DEVOTE Catholic would agree to abortion?The word is "devout". JFK the playboy serial fornicator was undoubtedly no more or less devout than his equally Catholic brothers Ted or Robert, both of whom support/supported a woman's right to chose. John Kerry is the same, a practicing Catholic no more or less devout, and supports a woman's right to chose. Please stop trying to project your socially conservative viewpoints on the socially liberal John Kennedy without one damn shred of evidence, and with all indications pointing against you.

5. Flipped on what? You are obviously uneducated. Look at the History of the Republican and Democratic parties, they flipped on issues on several occassions. Your earlier statement, and I quote, was, "when the parties basically flipped on issues over the next two decades." Please now DOCUMENT that statement with a list of issues on which the two parties flipped in the two decades following Kennedy's death. Again, I'll be waiting right here.


6. Kennedy was a life long democrat. He wouldnt have been the rabid liberal his brother is today. Hell you had democrats fighting democrats in the late 1960s. John Kennedy was never the most liberal of Democrats, true. He may never have been a clone of his brother Teddy, or even of his brother Robert, but he was a Democrat and a proud Liberal to his dying day, despite your desperate and factually unsupported efforts to paint him otherwise. Your support of the assertion that he was more Republican than Democrat is as baseless as it is ludicrous.

wow, so much typing
 

0roo0roo

No Lifer
Sep 21, 2002
64,795
84
91
Originally posted by: digitalsm
Originally posted by: 0roo0roo
Originally posted by: X-Man
Originally posted by: charrison
Originally posted by: X-Man
Originally posted by: Siddhartha
I voted* for JFK because of his vision, he supported:
1. Civil rights, social and political justice for everyone regardless of race, religion, or creed
2. NASA, which encourage a technological revolution from which the US is still benefitting
3. Peace Core


Somehow my vote went to Clinton

Exactly. He revitalized the economy as well. All around a great man who died far too early.

Reducing the top marginal tax raxes from 90% to 75% probably helped a great deal. Dont know why he gave all those rich people such a big tax break.

I don't know if you could call them rich if they were paying 90% of their income in taxes, though. ;)

well when you count your fortune in hundreds of millions or billions... rich is rich. loopholes are always there . i doubt anyone really payed anywhere near that figure


How taxing works is, you pay X percent for the 1st $15k, X percent for the next $15k, X Percent for the next 15k. Etc. Once over $XXX,XXX you would pay 90% of the remaining income. Plenty of people paid the top marginal tax rate at the time. Now was it 90% of their income? No.

no, under our tax system, tax rates and actual tax burdens rarely are the same. esp for the wealthy. do you really believe they were paying 90% of their total wealth? lol:) the gap between the rich and the poor wasn't as bad back then though. the percentage of the pie owned by the top 1% and less just kept growing over the last few decades.

and lol digitalsm got owned. how can u be wrong so consistenly;)
 

lozina

Lifer
Sep 10, 2001
11,711
8
81
This great speech by John F Kennedy is relevant to this thread:

Sen. John F. Kennedy, acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination, 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 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."

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 view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to take the 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, in 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, the 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 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.

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 superstate. I see no magic in 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 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 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 only hope in the world today. 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 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.

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 not only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

Tonight we salute Governor and Senator Herbert Lehman as a symbol of that spirit, and as a reminder that the fight for full constitutional rights for all Americans is a fight that must be carried on in 1961.

Many of these same immigrant families produced the pioneers and builders of the American labor movement. They are the men who sweated in our shops, who struggled to create a union, and who were driven by longing for education for their children and for the children's development. They went to night schools; they built their own future, their union's future, and their country's future, brick by brick, block by block, neighborhood by neighborhood, and now in their children's time, suburb by suburb.

Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a fight that goes on in our day. But in 1960 the cause of liberalism cannot content itself with carrying on the fight for human justice and economic liberalism here at home. For here and around the world the fear of war hangs over us every morning and every night. It lies, expressed or silent, in the minds of every American. We cannot banish it by repeating that we are economically first or that we are militarily first, for saying so doesn't make it so. More will be needed than goodwill missions or talking back to Soviet politicians or increasing the tempo of the arms race. More will be needed than good intentions, for we know where that paving leads.

In Winston Churchill's words, "We cannot escape our dangers by recoiling from them. We dare not pretend such dangers do not exist."

And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman for the effort to achieve an intelligent foreign policy. Our opponents would like the people to believe that in a time of danger it would be hazardous to change the administration that has brought us to this time of danger.

I think it would be hazardous not to change. I think it would be hazardous to continue four more years of stagnation and indifference here at home and abroad, of starving the underpinnings of our national power, including not only our defense but our image abroad as a friend.

This is an important election -- in many ways as important as any this century -- and I think that the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party here in New York, and those who believe in progress all over the United States, should be associated with us in this great effort.

The reason that Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson had influence abroad, and the United States in their time had it, was because they moved this country here at home, because they stood for something here in the United States, for expanding the benefits of our society to our own people, and the people around the world looked to us as a symbol of hope.

I think it is our task to re-create the same atmosphere in our own time. Our national elections have often proved to be the turning point in the course of our country. I am proposing that 1960 be another turning point in the history of the great Republic.

Some pundits are saying it's 1928 all over again. I say it's 1932 all over again. I say this is the great opportunity that we will have in our time to move our people and this country and the people of the free world beyond the new frontiers of the 1960s.