We forgot who we are
John F. Kennedy:
"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."
Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party nomination (14 September 1960)I'll respect liberals once they start demanding that Obama stop ALL of the wars and close down gitmo.
Until then, they will remain spineless in my books.Actually, the reason he won't be getting my vote this time (as I am a spineless liberal) is because he promised to shut down Gitmo and didn't. I also considered the public assassination of Bin Ladin to be a cheap publicity trick. Murdering someone to raise your approval rating is... well... just a little evil. And don't even get me started on the wars, since my basic philosophy is that America should have a wonderful well trained, technologically advanced standing military to be used for defensive purposes only.
Now with that being said, there is no one candidate that I like. Instead of voting I'm considering moving to Canada.There ya go - now if only I heard this echoed by the majority of liberals instead of "he's better than the alternative".
Hat's off to ye.He's better than the alternative. He's got my vote.
Seriously, though... in our political system, we have a coalition-like government, but the coalitions are formed before the election into two potential coalitions.
The Obama/Dem coalition, while I don't agree with a lot of it, is preferable to the Republican coalition. Hence, it gets my vote.
I can understand disappointment and wanting to not vote for either party. However, I don't think this will ever change. The last time we had a large protest vote, we got GWB.
More Kennedy:
"What kind of peace do we seek? Not a Pax Americana enforced on the world by American weapons of war. Not the peace of the grave or the security of the slave. I am talking about genuine peace, the kind of peace that makes life on earth worth living, the kind that enables men and nations to grow and to hope and to build a better life for their children — not merely peace for Americans but peace for all men and women — not merely peace in our time but peace for all time."
Address at The American University, Washington D.C. (10 June 1963)
Dang----no wonder they killed him!
****
In respect to ending the wars...that is much easier said than done. It's a WHOLE lot easier to get in them than to get out!
But---Isn't Obama doing that?
He has put the process in gear.....
That's why all these people who now scream "Out!", should have been screaming NO from the start!
But, it was inevitable....they had is sewn up.
"Find me a reason",Bush said and he did.(name escapes me...head of the cia at the time i think)
Got a medal of honor for it too.
It was long in the planning stage...they even asked Clinton to do it.
And now, if you have heard that John McCain went to Ghaddafi and offered to sell him weapons.....I saw McCain and Graham in the 1st row of the audience when Ehud Barak was speaking, saying they had to do somethign about Iran, "but not for the cameras".
It's all connected, and world-wide. President's are small time, I think.
Unless they "go along", then they are elevated. Look at Reagan! He got to have credit for "bringing down the wall"!!!
These are the end times for these goons....we are going to see it I believe.Banned--for a month.
Don't know why, I asked, got no answer.
Not very considerate, and I would think they have the obligation to tell you, if they ban you?
Anyway, thanks for asking Habee
"We just marched in, we can just march out."
- Ron Paul
That Bush started, and began! Both wars that Obama is dealing with was started by Bush! Also, gitmo was MUCH worse under bush. I gave people the benefit of the doubt, but I wonder, do you hate him cause he's black? Remember words say ALOT! NOTHING HE DOES IS OK!!!! It's pathetic! With everything wrong in this country, we SHOULD be able to get past petty CRAP!!!
Obama has started at least 2 wars since taking office and he's yet to end a single one started from his predecessor.
They're his wars: they became his the day he entered office. The man lacks a spine to do what is right.
Only one man running for president has the conviction to do what's right: Ron Paul.
OH... and it was pretty amazing that you would equate "the man didn't end the wars" with "I hate black people".
Good god.Does anyone think that there may be forces behind the scenes we don't realize steering this bus
I actually LIKE Ron Paul, AND agree with alot of his views! But to blame Obama for the S$&t Bush started is unrealistic and irresponsible. I don't like alot of the way's that Obams is dealing with certain things. however, he is dealing with 4 decades of S&$T! Give him a break. His biggest problem is that he doesn't have any b$&ls when dealing with the Tea Party, which will screw all of us because they put ideology above common sense!!!!
There is no common sense in spending till your broke, then borrowing more than you can ever pay back. None at all.
And saying no to breaking our nation for the next ten generations, is not placing ideology above our country... it is saying we will not allow you to destroy our country in the name of your Socialist nanny state ideology.
Simple.
You people amaze me. It is your own BS nanny state super govt policies which are destroying this nation, and you think you can just pass the buck and blame to a group that has been in the Govt no time at all in comparison to your leftists.
It won't work. America sees you all for what you are and we are done with it.Iraq and Afghanistan is costing us 12.3 billion a month. Saddam Hussain is dead ,Osama Bin Laden is Dead. Mission Accomplished, where have I heard that before? Bring them home.
NOT!!!! I, if nothing else hold to the constitution. I DON'T AGREE with everything Obama is doing and I understand the position of the Tea Party. What I have a problem with is trying to take a polarized position when we are dealing with a problem that has been DECADES in the making. We have a very complex federal system. And not only that, but there are still negative influences within our federal and state governments. So to think that you can deal with these problems in a singular, idealistic way, without MAJOR impacts to the poor, the sick, the disabled, and the homeless is foolish. So, unless you just don't care about those less fortunate, we should be more responsible in the way in which we deal with our debt! WE NEED TO DEAL WITH OUR DEBT!!!!! Basic economics teaches that less debt creates a stronger dollar. A stronger dollar gives a solid foundation for the economy to grow on. I'm not stupid! Our problems extend way beyond trivial crap that can be dealt with in a FATAL swoop.
I didn't say they could be.
And I didn't say you were stupid? So why would you go there?
I said... diving deeper into the problem, borrowing and spending without check and without doing anything to repair it... is not the way to do it. And if you think it is the fault of one small group who just got there... then that is just wrong.
If the Dems and Prgressives wanted to go on with their plans they very well could have. they... the Dems and progressives hold the majority in both houses when you look at it.
In my opinion everything should be allowed to crash and correct. It will hurt and people will lose... but it is neccessary.
Say's Law.
Obama and the Dems had the congress for tweo years before the tea party. Why didn't they pass there supoer extension and give the pres everything he wanted when they had the means.... because they didn't want the American people to see them, they needed someone to blame and that is the tea party.
The debt went from bad under Bush, to amazingly worse under Obama, and if you cannot admit that... then oh well.IT CAN BE DONE WITHOUT HURTING PEOPLE!!!!!!! With time, and REAL governing, we can make our country awesome! Our trade policies favor foreign nations, our economy favors corporations, banks, financial institutions, and all you have to do is watch and it's obvious that labor unions are under attack. It's class war, but poor people didn't start it. AND NO! I'm not poor. But I'm not heartless either! It doesn't affect you at all that 80% of GDP goes to 2% of the population? It's PATHETIC!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Yes it could be done over time with real governing, not Socialist liberal Democrat Progressive nanny state governing, but real governing.
Yes the trade agreements should be torn up. And our economy is so over-regulated it is strangling.
And YES the unions SHOULD be busted, removed from all areas of our economy and govt.!
It is class warfare as implimented by the Leftists and progressives, Piven herself among others, alot of others, has been calling for riots in the streets. They, the Leant Leftists, have been stirring the class warfare BS up for a long while now, and they expect very soon to se real results.... ie; people in the streets revolting screaming to throw out the American Constitution and impliment the Leftists progressive agenda (Socialism).
The poor didn't start it? lol okay. I don't even want to dignify that.You Know, if me and you took an hour to discuss things, we would probably agree on 90% of things. I HATE POLITICS!!!! It's destroying our nation. Our first president warned against a two party system, and here we are.
I actually read an article, and I cannot find it, but it said that when Bush was president, he handed over civilian control to the Pentagon...in other words, that they run the whole show in America....the other branches really are just for show now.
And I remember a show on NPR too--said that there were 2 versions of the Patriot Act. The first one, Congress would not go along with, because it went too far. So, Bushco amended it, and they agreed.
But, at 3am on the day of voting, Bushco switched the bill, and Congress unknowingly voted to put the first one in place. And you know they had lawyers write things to justify all their illegal crap....why not this too?
I don't know, but I also read that Obama was threatened by Bush daddy and Cheney.
It's a war between factions for power I believe....and my gut just goes with Obama.
Those wars became Obama's when he was sworn in.
He's the MotherF*ing commander in chief. He could end those wars in a month.
He's not doing it.
Vote him out.
The only anti-war president in the race is Ron Paul.
I don't hear a word of complaint about the one who started the wars. WHY?!!!
Bush was evil. I've been saying that since 9/11. But the wars are Obama's responsibility now.
Obama has not started wars. He HAS involved us in POLICE ACTIONS. I DO NOT AGREE WITH THAT POLICY!!!! How many Americans have died in Iraq? Why? It was not neccesary. He is spineless. That has to do with domestic issues, not foreign policy. OUR PROBLEM IS NOT OBAMA! It's disunity!!! Everyone is stuck on policy, and noone thinks about REAL GOVERNING!!!!!!!! It's pathetic.
It is something wrong with the mind about Bush did this or that. We are now focusing what Obama does.
YOU are----- Some of us are still on Bush!~ Any American should be.IMO
You all want to just let that all go.....unbelievable!President do not suppose to be ruler. He has and should have restricted power (limited). He suppose to guard our country and Constitution.
BTW without God no gov. will be successive and people will suffer.
I will tell you what. God gave us free oil. It is His gift to us. But we must use our food instead (corn-alcohol).huh? Bushco lied us into war, used torture and depravity while there. Stole countless billions of dollars....and you all want to say: Get Obummer.
and 9/11----will not go there.
edit: "lost" countless billions of dollars
My impression is that many liberals opposed our invasion of Iraq and are opposing, along with Libertarians, our endless, futile war in Afghanistan. Many liberals' views also coincide with libertarians' reluctance to support evangelicals' proposals on so-called social conservative issues. Perry says he supports states' rights, but he also supports the federal Defense of Marriage Act, federal abortion restrictions, and, contrary to his campaign rhetoric, as governor of Texas, sought and accepted federal stimulus money.
Sorry, but you sound exactly like communists. Socialism - communism failed everywhere and we are also failing. Please do homework. My responsibility is take care of my family and rest will be rectified.
Until the Tea Party get's done with you!
Oh isnt that the same JFK that CUT taxes? Nice speech, but to say that's what liberals care about, but to act to enslave people with dependency demonstrates a real lack of caring if you ask me.
I know..it's funny how a piece of bread will chain you to the wall if you're hungry. You'll do anything for that bread, just to get some food in your belly.
Just don't tell it to the RW's on this site: they'll tell you starving makes you free! As does being homeless and freezing on the streets.
Ah. Then maybe it was Kennedy who first tried to change the definition of a "liberal".
Whatever!
And here is some more of Kennedy....
Joseph Kennedy had befriended McCarthy because he found him to be a likable fellow Irish-Catholic who had all the right ideas on the domestic communist menace. These warm feelings were quickly transferred to the entire Kennedy family. JFK liked the fact that McCarthy went after the "elites" in the State Department whom JFK regarded with contempt. (13) Even before McCarthy made accusations against the State Department of subversion, JFK had already aligned himself with the militant anti-communists who blamed the Truman State Department for the "loss" of China. So JFK declared on the House floor in January 1949.
"The responsibility for the failure of our foreign policy in the Far East rests squarely with the White House and the Department of State." (14)
Small wonder then, that at the same Harvard seminar where he cheered Nixon's victory to the Senate, that JFK expressed the view that McCarthy "may have something" to his charges of domestic subversion that had by then become vocal. (15)
There were also other deep personal bonds between JFK and McCarthy by the time McCarthy reached the peak of his power in 1952 and 1953. Not only had McCarthy been a frequent guest at the Kennedy compound in Hyannis, but McCarthy had also dated two Kenendy sisters, first Eunice (the mother of Maria Shriver) and then Pat (who later married actor Peter Lawford). McCarthy was invited to the wedding reception for Eunice and Sargent Shriver, and even presented Eunice with a silver cigarette case inscribed "To Eunice and Bob from one who lost." (16)
The ties with Bobby were forged when he gave RFK a job as minority counsel to his Senate committee investigating domestic communism. Though RFK would later have an intense falling out with McCarthy's other counsel Roy Cohn, the younger Kennedy brother would maintain a deep loyalty to a man he loved enough to make the godfather of his first child. In 1955, Bobby displayed his residual feelings of loyalty for McCarthy even after the Senator's fall into disgrace at a dinner meeting described by the court historian of Camelot himself, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.
"Still his Irish conception of loyalty turned him against some he felt had treated McCarthy unfairly. In January 1955, Edward R. Murrow [who had issued a famous anti-McCarthy telecast the previous year] spoke at the banquet honoring those, Kennedy among them, who had been selected by the Junior Chamber of Commerce as the Ten Outstanding Young Men of 1954. Kennedy grimly walked out." (17)
JFK's warmth for McCarthy was not as great as Bobby's, but he still felt enough of McCarthy to have performed a similar act three years earlier at the 100th Anniversary of the Harvard Spree Club dinner. Robert Armory, who had been at the dinner and who later worked in the Kennedy Administration recalled in an oral history at the JFK Library that when a speaker had likened McCarthy to the convicted Soviet spy Alger Hiss, JFK rose to his feet and declared "How dare you couple the name of a great American patriot with that of a traitor!" and walked out. The incident has never been denied by anyone who was there, and is accepted by JFK biographers Herbert Parmet, Thomas Reeves and Chris Matthews.
McCarthy, likewise considered JFK a supporter. So much so that in 1952, as JFK took on Henry Cabot Lodge for the Senate, McCarthy privately supported JFK. McCarthy already had an intense dislike of Lodge, and had such a good rapport with the Kennedys that the decision was easy for him. Lodge would be the *only* Republican Senate candidate that McCarthy made no active campaign for, and William F. Buckley, Jr. was present when McCarthy received from a phone call from the RNC asking McCarthy to make an appearance for Lodge. But when McCarthy hung up, he told Buckley that his preference was for Kennedy. (18)
Two years later, when McCarthy's support collapsed and the Senate took up a resolution of censure, JFK was absent from the debate, recuperating from back surgery. He would be the only Democratic Senator not to publicly declare support for McCarthy's censure, even though he could easily have declared his feelings for the public record. As it was, he had instructed Ted Sorenson to draft a statement of support for censure on very narrow grounds, in which, as Schlesinger and Reeves note, made no mention whatsoever of civil liberties, and had more to do with McCarthy's employment of Roy Cohn. In the undelivered statement, JFK was quick to distance himself from the resolution's assertion that McCarthy's actions had harmed America's image abroad, and also stressed the long period of support he had given to McCarthy and his cause.
"This issue involves neither the motives nor the sincerity of the Junior Senator from Wisconsin. Many times I have voted with Senator McCarthy for the full appropriation of funds for his committee, for his amendment to reduce our assistance to nations trading with communists, and on other matters. I have not sought to end his investigations of communist subversion, nor is the pending measure related to either the desirability or continutation of those investigations." (19)
JFK could easily have delivered this statement from his hospital bed, but in the end, he couldn't bring himself to do it. Ted Sorenson admitted in 1971 that he felt that JFK deliberately ducked him on that matter. And JFK admitted it to another friend, Charles Spalding just prior to his release. Here is Spalding's recollection of what JFK said.
"You know, when I get downstairs I know exactly what's going to happen. Those reporters are going to lean over my stretcher. There's going to be about ninety-five faces bent over me with great concern, and everyone of those guys is going to say, 'Now Senator, what about McCarthy?' Do you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to reach back for my back and I'm just going to yell 'Oow' and then I'm going to pull the sheet over my head and hope we can get out of there." (20)
Not until 1956, would JFK issue a public statement supporting McCarthy's censure, and even then it was only because his political future dictated it. "Even my Dad is against McCarthy now," he remarked in private, "And if he is, then McCarthy has nobody left." (21)
JFK's after-the-fact conversion to anti-McCarthyism did not impress the party liberals. Eleanor Roosevelt, the beloved symbol of the liberals openly berated JFK in 1956 at the Democratic Convention for not having taken a stand against McCarthy, and repeated her mistrust of JFK in an interview for Look magazine in 1958. The lingering image of JFK and the McCarthy connections was another reason why JFK was challenged from the left in 1960. (22)
JFK may have regretted the McCarthy connection in later years, but the assertion of the JFK-As-Progressive advocates that he was never close to, nor sympathetic to McCarthy during the critical years prior to 1954 is totally contradicted by JFK's own words and deeds. As with the friendship with Nixon, the confirmation comes not from conservatives spreading rumors, but from JFK's own friends.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
(13) Matthews, 74-75.
(14) Congressional Record, January 29, 1949.
(15) op. cit. Mallan, 10-11.
(16) Thomas Reeves, The Life and Times of Joe McCarthy (New York, 1982), 203.
(17) Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. Robert Kennedy and His Times (New York, 1978), 119.
(18) William F. Buckley Jr., column. September 30, 1962.
(19) Ted Sorenson Papers, JFK Library.
(20) Thomas Reeves, A Question of Character (New York, 1991), 123. Based on author's interview with Spalding.
(21) Reeves, A Question of Character, 124.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/progjfk2.htm
The Kennedys would not have liked the American left of today, nor the Progressive Right, they would have considered them commie loving traitor Socialist scum.
That is a fact.
And yes... you on the American Left and Progressive Right... have forgot who we are.
I see the Left and Progressives as sad lil American useful idiots... don't even know you have been lied to and used by those in control.Errrr, that's what I was saying for eight years.....lied to and used, from 2000-2008!!
I was called an anti-American traitor.No comment on my Kennedy quotes?
You ought to be apologizing to ole Joe... your hero's own words redeem him.
And your right about being played and lied to by the leaders, all those Liberal Socialist Democrats and Progressives, have been lying to you and yours for a hundred years now.Republicans lie, too. It's a requirement for being a career politician.
Thus the use of the term Progressives, there are many in all parties. And yes there are Conservative liars also, we call them rinos, Progressives in disguise.
So...you're saying that "real" Republicans/conservatives in office never lie?? Yeah, right. Pass that mega joint this way! And BTW, I'm a moderate-conservative who often votes R. Most politicians say whatever they need to get and remain in office.
No I didn't say that. You simple concluded that because I haven't spoken to true conservatives.
Do I think they lie... some of them, yes.
Do I think there have been many who could be called true conservatives in the govt in the last 9 decades? No, not at all.
So the chances are dramatically shrunk that a conservative is lying, because there are no true conservatives around most of the time. And when they are, they are forced to "compromise", or they are evil.habee, what is the point? All people are layers. But some are habitual. See, progressive - liberals are communists, but they lie about it. And they think we are so stupid and we do know about it. They never try to search for truth.
Right wing morons - The 'guvment'. I don't remember voting for a single mid-east war. So if the guvment is elected by the people and represents the people, why does it spend trillions for war, which nobody voted for and nobody wants, except war profiteers? Don't think
we got a guvment. Think we got a corporation.Vote for libertarian beliefs - Ron Paul will veto just about every corporate handout.
But he won't protect my right from intrusion by the State into my private life...sorry, that is most important of all.
No, my right to determine if I bring a life to fruition or not. Murder is killing them when they are already here....like poverty does.
And you have the second amendment right to own a gun...just what is that for, may I ask?lovemychrist, Hitler and communists took guns away fearing of revolt.
You have a gun to use if you need it to protect yourself, isn't that right?
If that means killing an intruder so be it.
But, when a woman wants to end and intruder inside her body, you all scream Murder.
1. It is an amoeba for the 1st few weeks, then a lizard-like creature for a while, it is not a human by any means til far along.
2. I have given birth 3 times. 1st two were with a nurse practitioner, so no drugs. It was excruciating pain. 3rd daughter did not want to come out. That was Unbearable, I begged for something to kill the pain. Had a bar set up, hitched onto the sides of the bed, and going across so I could kneel and hold onto it, hoping it would force her down.
That was pain like I never ever want to experience again.
Now, forcing a woman to go through that, then taking the baby away and giving it to the State for who knows what destiny, is in my view Cruel and Unusual punishment. You have no business doing that to anyone. If you don't like abortion, don't have one. If I have one, it's my business, not yours.
*****
As to your Hitler point...revolt, meaning they would shoot the gvt officers?
Well, that is your right to kill then, isn't it?Please Chris... what a BS ignorant remark that is.
To claim a child that you produced in an act of sex you agreed to an intruder.... well that is just beyond the pale and no comparison at all. But that sums up the inttellectual ability of all Liberal woman who defend that BS.
And to think murder is a viable option to any other, "destiny", is a load of hogwash.Who says you agreed to it? Maybe it was rape,or incest. Maybe it was an accident. Maybe you were told you could never get pregnant, but it happened anyway.
You are saying it is your right to control my reproductive life. It is not.Most do agree to it. if it was rape then it is your choice, even though i do not believe the rape is the fault of the child, but your welcome to be vengful and kill it for what another did.
If it was an accident then you man up an take care of your responsibilities, same if you were told you could not get pregnant and did.
And no... I am saying you do not have a Right to murder.
Simple.But you do. Why?
"To defend myself against an over-bearing and tyranical government, first and fore-most, then self defense, then hunting and sport."
If you kill someone in those scenarios, what would you call it?
And hunting obviously kills. Deliberately so, actually.
To defend myself against an over-bearing and tyranical government, first and fore-most, then self defense, then hunting and sport.
And no... you are committing murder.
And Right to Life, is the first, and highest of Rights we protect in the Constitution.
... protecting people from governmental intrusion is kind of his entire thing.
If you're talking about abortion: he would get the Federal government out of the entire issue.
That's, like, THE definition of what you just asked for...
... so... I think what you MEAN to say is:
"he won't demand that the federal government write a Constitutional amendment making abortion not only a federal issue, but also making it legal throughout all states".
If you're gonna twist his words, twist them properly.Nobody is twisting anything...except his claim to be a Libertarian! Why you think he's still a Republican? They are fervently anti-abortion, as is he.
"Paul introduced the Sanctity of Life Act of 2005, a bill that would have defined human life to begin at conception, and removed challenges to prohibitions on abortion from federal court jurisdiction.[211] In 2005, Paul introduced the We the People Act, which would have removed "any claim based upon the right of privacy, including any such claim related to any issue of ... reproduction" from the jurisdiction of federal courts. If made law, either of these acts would allow states to prohibit abortion.[144] In 2005, Paul voted against restricting interstate transport of minors to get abortions.[212]
In order to "offset the effects of Roe v. Wade," Paul voted in favor of the federal Partial-Birth Abortion Ban Act of 2003. He has described partial birth abortion as a "barbaric procedure." He also introduced H.R. 4379 that would prohibit the Supreme Court from ruling on issues relating to abortion, birth control, the definition of marriage and homosexuality and would cause the court's precedents in these areas to no longer be binding.[213] He once said, “The best solution, of course, is not now available to us. That would be a Supreme Court that recognizes that for all criminal laws, the several states retain jurisdiction.”[214]
--Wikipedia
Ron Paul On Abortion: A Libertarian, As Long As You Don’t Think Women Count As People
“I believe beyond a doubt that a fetus is a human life deserving of legal protection, and that the right to life is the foundation of any moral society” and noted that his states’ rights take on abortion law is purely opportunistic “It is much more difficult for pro-life advocates to win politically at the federal level.” This makes perfect sense. If you believed, as Paul and other abortion criminalizers do, that legal abortion is a form of mass murder comparable to the Nazi genocide you obviously wouldn’t believe in any principled way that the mass murder is fine as long as the perpetrators have to drive from Idaho west to Oregon in order to perpetrate it."
--Matthew Yglesias
*****
He wants to intrude in my personal life as much as Operation Rescue. He just hides it better.Are you ever going to respond to my post Chris?
You love Kennedy and I produced something I doubt you ever knew about he and McCarthy, and you ignore it.
If he is your hero... then you should take his word on McCarthy, also. If his, Kennedy's word, is good enough on all other things, why not ole Joe?Geeez, I DO think for myself you know.Unlike the Rah Rah Rah USA USA USA crowd, I do not follow like a lemming.
Kennedy had decency.....McCarthy was a oooops, can't say...the report-nanny will get me, whoever it is.Mason, I will quit. Some people not making any sense. How many people died in Cuba because of pres. Kennedy?
Re abortion, no one ask baby if want to live or not.Never surrender, Vlad.
You know that.
Where would you be if you had surrendered in the Soviet bloc?
Keep up the good fight. There are many who are coming round to the truth, and there is a great silent majority out there that is waking to the Leftists treason that has been going on.You may be surprised which people have been silent Mason.
I saw them in Ohio...did you? 1.3 million of them. And they were not angry at leftists...unless, no don't tell me-- John Kasich is a leftist too?
NO-they were angry at the corporate raiders who want to take away their right to have a say in the work-place.
Corporate raiders who have destroyed whole environments for profit.
ya know, like Koch....big sugar-daddy of the TP Movement.
Here's what doesn't make sense: "Obama is a racist"...um, which side is he racist aginst? His mother or his father?
And I'll leave your prostate to you...you leave my uterus to me...deal?Obama was programmed with liberal theology. I love black people, but what I do not like is psychology of being slave. Most whites are also slaves of sin or negative thinking. But I hate it too. I love people but hating sin and wrong.
Did you hear about the Norman Rockwell painting he chose for the WH? A picture of that brave young black woman going into school, with mobs of angry white people screaming and throwing things at her.....called "This Must Change", or something...?
I think that is beautiful. As I think the bust of MLK he put in the WH is beautiful.
And I think you don't know Obama at all.
We are about to see first hand what we have become:
"In Michigan 1.8 Million Don’t Have Enough Food. Senate/House Republicans Vote To Toss 16K Families & 25-30K Kids Off Public Assistance.
http://www.a2politico.com/?p=10016
This is all on Republican's door. You can't put this one on Obama.
So--let's see how their new and improved gvt turns out.
Its not going so well in Wisconsin and Ohio. Turns out us Americans LIKE gvt.Its not going well in Wisconsin? They are projecting surpluses in the education funds. They are also going to lower or freeze property taxes because the Gov. got everything he wanted. Sounds pretty good to me.
"South Carolina’s Republican dominated state legislature, the Obama administration and every state government in the country share the perspective that job creation must be tied to handouts private businesses. At the same time, the ruling class nationwide is pursuing a deliberate policy of high unemployment to drive down the wages of workers, while crippling state agencies and shutting down social programs that both employed and unemployed workers rely upon for their survival."
Shrinking that ole gubmint,huh? Just like Norquist has been preaching for decades.
And you can bet your life that they will ALL to a T blame Obama and "socialist dems".
When you find yourself begging for a $5.00 and hour job, just remember who did it to you...if you can get beyond the propaganda campaign.I geuss they will just be subject to the slow death of extreme poverty...who will care for these unwanted babies?
Socialists are infiltrating this Country since 1920. I am watching it even I was born later. Government does not know anything how to run country. We people run the country. Socialist infiltrated house and senate.They created hand out money for poor. More one hand out, more poverty is created. Then you complain about someone is poor. I was also very poor when came to this county from Soviet block, did not have one penny. I did not receive any cent from government. Being in university educated did not know English. Two weeks later I found job, cleaning floor even bloody...long story. This is what happened in USA 40 years ago. Now all is socialistic, control, poverty, hate, materialism. Socialism is poverty, high cost. It is going get worse if people will not wake up.
Well, I too think we have been infiltrated--by whom, I'm not sure-- so I won't disagree there. And, a blogger I respect on my local site just said "after Kennedy was shot, the dems and repubs all took a turn to the left"....
So--it's not something I refuse to consider.....I just find it hard to equate profit greed with the left. That is more something I associate with the right; As in policies that go towards the benefit of profit greed.Greed is result of materialism. No nation survives without God. I am not talking about religion. Socialists and commies do not need God. When I came here it was different country. I can ID what is coming from Europe.
But materialism is a capitalist trait, nothing whatsoever to do with socialism.
So you have sold off all you have and moved to the alley out back after donating your last dime of proceeds to the Govt to disperse among the less fortunate?
Nice of you.
Materialism is not an trait of Capitalism, it is a trait of man. Capitalists are not the only people who want and like to have things... you Socialists seem to want, and like taking, an awfuly lot... of course, it is everyone elses things you want to take... but you want just the same.There is a great difference between need and want.
I have a roof over my head, rented, I don't have acres of unused space to make me feel good about my self.
I'm quite happy to admit to being an idealist rather than a materialist.
I want nothing of others but am quite happy to share what I have with those in need. It does nothing for my ego to see people living in poverty.You are a Socialist, by definition you want from others, even if simply to re-distribute it.
I agree about the excess. But if you have earned your money and want to spend it on material things, then so be it."Want from others" is in no definition of socialism that I know about. Rather freedom from want features quite strongly in my creed, unlike yours which seems to wallow in the misery and poverty of others.
Don't forget, it is the capitalist system that requires unemployment to stop the workers getting too uppity and wanting more of their money.John, you must be college programmed, are you?
College programmed? College educated! No, I'm a thick git, never went to college or university.
John. If you need, work for it. Use the brain and be satisfied. Not take all from others who worked and used brain.
I do and am quite happy to work for what I need, but I am also happy when the capitalist system says "we don't need your work at the moment" to let them keep want from my door.
I have acres of unused space. There are skunks, squirrels, deer, wild hogs living there. Should I build section 8 housing there and displace all those wonderful creatures? What would PETA do?
You have skunks and squirrels, deer and wild hogs living in your house!
Wow.Who said my house? Acres of unused space. I wish my house was acres big. You went out of your way to not answer the question.
I said my house, or at least implied in such a way that most people would have realised that I meant my house.
You said acres of unused space, I did not assume your house was that big.
"I have a roof over my head, rented, I don't have acres of unused space to make me feel good about my self."
Spot the comma, that means that there is no change of subject after the comma. If I had written "I have a roof over my head, rented. I don't have acres . . ."
then your assumption that I had changed the subject would be correct, however I didn't.
I thought this site was for writers, surely a little basic understanding of wtriting is not too much to hope for.I said I have acres of unused space, I never said you did. So are you going to answer my question or continue to rant on about what you said?
Deflection, evasion, confabullation... it is their favorite spin.
I lack reading comprehension skills could you say that without all the big confusing words?
What has your question to do with the topic?
But if you really want an answer, though it would be apparent to most, no, I don't think you should build on your land, leave it to the wildlife that you host.
Don't know why I should have expected any other answer from me.I don't know why you should expect an answer from you either.
got me there.
Try again:-
Don't know why you should have expected any other answer from me.I just thought since you care about the poor that you would want them to have affordable housing. I guess you care more about animals.
Why are they mutually exclusive?
I'm sure you have enough land over there to house both wild life and people.I really don't understand the minds of the left. Do you care more for people or wildlife? Here's an idea, we give the poor bow and arrows and let them kill the wildlife for food and clothes. They can make tools from the bones and homes from the skins. The carbon footprint would be minuscule and everybody would be happy. What do you think?
What do I think? I think you are barking.
Why is it a case of caring more for one than the other?You have once again avoided a question. I think the left cares neither for the poor or the animals, they care about making themselves feel superior.
Well if you've made up your mind, who am I to argue with you.
I for one have no desire to make myself feel superior however,it's very easy here on hubpages.You just couldn't resist could you? I think its obvious what the lefts true agenda is.
I for one, having lived in and seen many a section 8 housing ghetto, would most definitely fear for the animals safety.
In that case they are beautiful housing units, and the animals are all happy and fine like a disney movie... yes pleasant indeed.
Well I was actually nearer realism than you, housing that you'd think twice about keeping animals in and rabid animals.
Courtesy of those of all you who care about nothing but the mighty dollar.Actually those units are very nice when first completed... it is only after they are occupied that they become a shamble. After all why take care of something that isn't yours, and that you can move from into another at someone elses expense when you complain your place is junk, (because they have destroyed it).
They re-built the Green st. projects in Lynn Ma. they were beautiful... then the tenants moved in and destroyed them... as they had the ones before.Treat people like animals and then act surprised when they behave like animals.
We have such wonderful schemes in the UK as well, kids housed in deck access flats with expensive and inefficient heating and then they wonder why the occupants don't respect them!They are not being treated like animals, they are given homes with indoor plumbing and adequate heating and air. They just have no vested interest in keeping the homes they were given nice.
Funny that, you put the same people in decent housing and they look after it and respect it!
No they don't. What do you think we are telling you. Visit any section 8 housing and you will find a slum. Unless of course it is brand new, then give it a few months.
No, just decent accommodation with space for the kids to play within sight of the parents.
And not dodging bullets on their way to school. Great video: "Crips and Bloods, Made in America". Some people live 3 blocks from the beach, but have never been there....it is too dangerous to go.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f3wevH_Dy1M
Building and giving then condo style housing is treating them like animals?
Yeah whatever.
It is more... raise your kids like spoiled gimmie gimmie animals and they act like it... example 1... England two weeks ago. example 2... flash robberies in America all this summer.
Again... raise your children like lil entitled animals... and they act as such.Ah, I'll be sure to pass that on to Mr Cameron, the cause of the unrest was down to providing people with housing, nothing to do with generations of unemployment at all.
You don't care where they live, you don't care how they live. People have to provide for themselves, the cause of the unrest was years of being cared for and their lack of appreciation for it.
Oh balderdash!How do you make that out? We have the lowest rate of unemployment benefit and the highest level of unrest in the EU, go figure!
He has no idea of what generational welfare has done to the mind-set of those who have lived/been trapped within it. It is economic slavery and the Left understands this perfectly well... it meshes great with the Democrat slaver mentallity they have buried in thier hearts and minds. It is thier way of honoring thier departed long missed Dixiecrat brethren. they long for old times and know Socialism is the way to accomplish it.
No chains... just minimal checks.As I said many times before, benefits in this country at least were the product of the right to control unrest.
It is economic slavery but it is economic slavery imposed by the capitalist elite who want to keep labour costs down at whatever cost to society.
Your issues over there go alot deeper than unemployment, you could include, the failure of multi-culturalism, the entitlement mentallity, etc...
But you focus on the housing and over-simplify it all as usual.No, I focused on housing because that is what Repairguy was focused on. I am aware that the problem is a lot broader than that.
I don't see multiculturalism as a failure, I live in a very peaceful multicultural society where everybody gets on together. True, there are some on the far right who try to spoil it for everybody, but they won't win.
The entitlement mentality is a lot deeper and more profound than your simple sound bite implies. You have to ask yourself why there are so many who are forced to live off benefits without even the prospect of work.Remember that in this country at least, unemployment benefit was of the right and strongly opposed by the left who saw it for what it was, a cheap way of keeping unrest down.
There you go again, do you not care about money? I certainly care about it and try to earn as much as I can. I do not want to give anymore than I have to to the government, I do not want to support anyone other than my family. If that makes me a bad guy I'm ok with it.
Do I care about money? No, not really any more than I care about my knife and fork and plate. It's a tool to do a job with it is absolutely no use to me on its own, it won't feed me or keep me dry, it won't take me anywhere either. I can't take it with me when I die!
Why should I want to spend my life pursuing money when there are other much more worthwhile pursuits?Money will feed you, it will keep you dry and it will take you many places. It has even taken you to hubpages.
No, money is totally indigestible and not very waterproof either, the coins are too small to provide any cover and the paper doesn't last long in the rain.
I'm just going to hop on my money and go down to the shop. Back soon.It doesn't surprise me that you don't understand the concept of how money provides you things. I have this strange feeling you don't earn any of your own.
God bless you Vlad.
And it is good to hear the facts from someone who knows.
The American Left and progressives have been betraying this nation for a century now.... America is so screwed.
Traitors... all!Every body that TM disagrees with is a leftist traitor!
Reagan was not a Conservative peeps.
He was a Progressive.
I know you all like to twist it and try to peg progressives as Conservatives... but they are not.
Did I like him? He wasn't as bad as Carter, or Bushes, but he was by no means a great Conservative. Though he was a great politician.
lovemychrist,Oh, give me break about Reagan. You must be college product.
That was meant for Mason, as he says the leftist progressives have been at it for decades....like Bush--so I aks, was Reagan a leftist traitor...like Bush?
I responded to that wayyyyy back Chris. unlike you, who has not reponded to my questions.
Are you ever going to respond to my post Chris?
You love Kennedy and I produced something I doubt you ever knew about he and McCarthy, and you ignore it.
If he is your hero... then you should take his word on McCarthy, also. If his, Kennedy's word, is good enough on all other things, why not ole Joe?
They will get fed by good and caring people, just because their mothers didn't care doesn't mean everyone is that way.
That is almost laughable in naivety.
Volunteerism is at an all time low both both in percentage of people volunteering and time spend doing such. Of those who do volunteer, the large majority are involved in political or religious causes. Spending time raising money for a political party or church renovations does not feed or care for anyone. The third most popular volunteer activity is with children's sports teams... which is awesome but still doesn't feed a child.
Charitable donations are also at an all time low and fall among the same patterns as volunteerism.
The privatization of charity simply will not work to any effective degree. The charities that do exist are doing wonderful work but they simply could not handle the influx of those in poverty (including children) on private donations were the welfare programs to be eliminated.
Sorry for the digression... back to the debate on whether the female uterus belongs to the woman, God, or the government.Is that true? It's something I've long suspected. Regardless, it's clear that volunteerism alone will not take care of all the people who are in need.
Stop pretending that volunteers are increasing, instead of decreasing, poverty.
JFK himself knew McCarthy was correct... and was a very dear friend to the Sen.
So all you lil Leftists need to heed the words of your idol JFK and realize just how wrong you all have been.
Yup... the American Left has definitely forgot who we are.
Deludded lil useful idiots.
Joseph Kennedy had befriended McCarthy because he found him to be a likable fellow Irish-Catholic who had all the right ideas on the domestic communist menace. These warm feelings were quickly transferred to the entire Kennedy family. JFK liked the fact that McCarthy went after the "elites" in the State Department whom JFK regarded with contempt. (13) Even before McCarthy made accusations against the State Department of subversion, JFK had already aligned himself with the militant anti-communists who blamed the Truman State Department for the "loss" of China. So JFK declared on the House floor in January 1949.
"The responsibility for the failure of our foreign policy in the Far East rests squarely with the White House and the Department of State." (14)
Small wonder then, that at the same Harvard seminar where he cheered Nixon's victory to the Senate, that JFK expressed the view that McCarthy "may have something" to his charges of domestic subversion that had by then become vocal. (15)
There were also other deep personal bonds between JFK and McCarthy by the time McCarthy reached the peak of his power in 1952 and 1953. Not only had McCarthy been a frequent guest at the Kennedy compound in Hyannis, but McCarthy had also dated two Kenendy sisters, first Eunice (the mother of Maria Shriver) and then Pat (who later married actor Peter Lawford). McCarthy was invited to the wedding reception for Eunice and Sargent Shriver, and even presented Eunice with a silver cigarette case inscribed "To Eunice and Bob from one who lost." (16)
The ties with Bobby were forged when he gave RFK a job as minority counsel to his Senate committee investigating domestic communism. Though RFK would later have an intense falling out with McCarthy's other counsel Roy Cohn, the younger Kennedy brother would maintain a deep loyalty to a man he loved enough to make the godfather of his first child. In 1955, Bobby displayed his residual feelings of loyalty for McCarthy even after the Senator's fall into disgrace at a dinner meeting described by the court historian of Camelot himself, Arthur Schlesinger, Jr.
"Still his Irish conception of loyalty turned him against some he felt had treated McCarthy unfairly. In January 1955, Edward R. Murrow [who had issued a famous anti-McCarthy telecast the previous year] spoke at the banquet honoring those, Kennedy among them, who had been selected by the Junior Chamber of Commerce as the Ten Outstanding Young Men of 1954. Kennedy grimly walked out." (17)
JFK's warmth for McCarthy was not as great as Bobby's, but he still felt enough of McCarthy to have performed a similar act three years earlier at the 100th Anniversary of the Harvard Spree Club dinner. Robert Armory, who had been at the dinner and who later worked in the Kennedy Administration recalled in an oral history at the JFK Library that when a speaker had likened McCarthy to the convicted Soviet spy Alger Hiss, JFK rose to his feet and declared "How dare you couple the name of a great American patriot with that of a traitor!" and walked out. The incident has never been denied by anyone who was there, and is accepted by JFK biographers Herbert Parmet, Thomas Reeves and Chris Matthews.
McCarthy, likewise considered JFK a supporter. So much so that in 1952, as JFK took on Henry Cabot Lodge for the Senate, McCarthy privately supported JFK. McCarthy already had an intense dislike of Lodge, and had such a good rapport with the Kennedys that the decision was easy for him. Lodge would be the *only* Republican Senate candidate that McCarthy made no active campaign for, and William F. Buckley, Jr. was present when McCarthy received from a phone call from the RNC asking McCarthy to make an appearance for Lodge. But when McCarthy hung up, he told Buckley that his preference was for Kennedy. (18)
Two years later, when McCarthy's support collapsed and the Senate took up a resolution of censure, JFK was absent from the debate, recuperating from back surgery. He would be the only Democratic Senator not to publicly declare support for McCarthy's censure, even though he could easily have declared his feelings for the public record. As it was, he had instructed Ted Sorenson to draft a statement of support for censure on very narrow grounds, in which, as Schlesinger and Reeves note, made no mention whatsoever of civil liberties, and had more to do with McCarthy's employment of Roy Cohn. In the undelivered statement, JFK was quick to distance himself from the resolution's assertion that McCarthy's actions had harmed America's image abroad, and also stressed the long period of support he had given to McCarthy and his cause.
"This issue involves neither the motives nor the sincerity of the Junior Senator from Wisconsin. Many times I have voted with Senator McCarthy for the full appropriation of funds for his committee, for his amendment to reduce our assistance to nations trading with communists, and on other matters. I have not sought to end his investigations of communist subversion, nor is the pending measure related to either the desirability or continutation of those investigations." (19)
JFK could easily have delivered this statement from his hospital bed, but in the end, he couldn't bring himself to do it. Ted Sorenson admitted in 1971 that he felt that JFK deliberately ducked him on that matter. And JFK admitted it to another friend, Charles Spalding just prior to his release. Here is Spalding's recollection of what JFK said.
"You know, when I get downstairs I know exactly what's going to happen. Those reporters are going to lean over my stretcher. There's going to be about ninety-five faces bent over me with great concern, and everyone of those guys is going to say, 'Now Senator, what about McCarthy?' Do you know what I'm going to do? I'm going to reach back for my back and I'm just going to yell 'Oow' and then I'm going to pull the sheet over my head and hope we can get out of there." (20)
Not until 1956, would JFK issue a public statement supporting McCarthy's censure, and even then it was only because his political future dictated it. "Even my Dad is against McCarthy now," he remarked in private, "And if he is, then McCarthy has nobody left." (21)
JFK's after-the-fact conversion to anti-McCarthyism did not impress the party liberals. Eleanor Roosevelt, the beloved symbol of the liberals openly berated JFK in 1956 at the Democratic Convention for not having taken a stand against McCarthy, and repeated her mistrust of JFK in an interview for Look magazine in 1958. The lingering image of JFK and the McCarthy connections was another reason why JFK was challenged from the left in 1960. (22)
JFK may have regretted the McCarthy connection in later years, but the assertion of the JFK-As-Progressive advocates that he was never close to, nor sympathetic to McCarthy during the critical years prior to 1954 is totally contradicted by JFK's own words and deeds. As with the friendship with Nixon, the confirmation comes not from conservatives spreading rumors, but from JFK's own friends.
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/progjfk2.htm
Read it and weep... your own dear leader spits in your faces as to the truth of McCarthy and his great American patriotism and work to save this nation from traitors within kennedy's own party.
Too bad.I'll respect Conservatives when they stop trying to takeaway everything, since they have already destroyed the middle class.But hey, they are all one in the same,no left, no right, just ALL bought and paid for by corporations. Who do you you think runs America? Corporations of course!
BobbiRant, not corporations are running America. Corporations are leaving America, because high taxes and extensive gov. control and regulations. Who is running America are rich socialists.
Corporations run most of the world my friend. That's why they are happy going where they like. It makes no difference whether they are in the east or in the west beyond their bottom line.
Oh, you do like freedom, just pleasing socialist, to spend more our tax money.
I told you the reply is way back there about several down from the question.
I already answered you, Chris.
but since it is you and all...
Reagan was a progressive... but he did care about this country. Unlike most Progressives today, and Socialist democrats on the Left have been straight traitors since the 19 double oos.So you don't think Obama cares about America?
No I do not.
I know he sees it, America, as a colonialist oppressor which needs to be broke down and re-made into his Marxist eutopian dream world. Just as I know, from reading his own words in his books, that he is a racist.
Clear enough?
Reagon as an idealist who seen his philosophy could not hold up to reality, Bush was an idiot!
your Px and words showed who u are.
Is president O. not copying Bush in stimulus packages?No--Bush was for the bankers, Obama's was for US.
Chris, Bush for bankers? What about Obama? He spent all our children's and grands... money bailing out bankers. Do you agree?
No.
He has tried to reign in the bankers rotten ways, but the Republibaggers are having none of it.
TARP was already law when Obama came into office. What did you want him to do, reverse it?
And hasn't it been paid back? And hasn't the GM loan been paid back? And saved jobs? And haven't a lot of jobs been saved by that stimulus that otherwise would have been yet more people on the unemployment line?
People need help. Banks and corporations don't.
"Wow dick chaney like yeah I was the man running it not bush u both should be arrested for war crimes #finallysometruth"
Related Discussions
- 251
Joe McCarthy Died a Drunken and Broken Man
by Gary Anderson 12 years ago
Joe McCarthy, who was supported by the John Birch Society (the old Tea Party) thought a communist was under every rock. He hurt many innocent people until he was disgraced in the House and died a broken and drunken idiot.
- 5
Did sen. McCarthy's "Red Scare" Communist hunt find any real spies?
by ga anderson 11 years ago
Did sen. McCarthy's "Red Scare" Communist hunt find any real spies?
- 88
Ted Kennedy Brothel Memo Unveils Party
by Stacie L 12 years ago
some history isn't always goodTed Kennedy Brothel. Ted Kennedy arranged to rent a brothel for a night while on a visit to Latin American countries. It happened decades ago, according to a 1961 State Department memo obtained and published by the watchdog group Judicial Watch.Judicial Watch released...
- 105
Bachmann and GOPers Claim Muslim Brotherhood Rep on Clinton staff
by Ralph Deeds 11 years ago
Michelle Bachmann and 4 other Tea Party House members have accused Huma Abedin of infiltrating Hillary Clinton's staff on behalf of the Muslim Brotherhood. The other Republicans who signed a letter accusing Clinton's assistant are Trent Frands R, Arizona,Louis Gohmert, R Texas, Thomas Rooney, R...
- 129
Private Interests vs Public Rights
by Kathryn L Hill 4 years ago
In the name of justice, the founding fathers of this nation's constitution encouraged the formation of a democratic republic for the establishment of a self-governing nation. They distrusted pure democracy and this distrust is reflected in The Constitution. It was a basic premise of the founders...
- 148
Progressivism vs. Conservatism What About This Statement
by ga anderson 3 years ago
I hope that this does not turn into another Trump thread, but, since his name is mentioned I hold no illusions that it will not.The quote is relative to an article about changing eras between traditional conservatism and political correctness and progressivism.Progressive columnist William Galston...