PDA

View Full Version : Liberals and our great President



wolfdancer
04-29-2011, 07:37 PM
JFK's acceptance speech to the liberal party 1960
by Laurie Kavanaugh McClave on Thursday, April 28, 2011 at 8:37pm

A Liberal Definition by John F. Kennedy:

Acceptance Speech 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.

Sev
04-29-2011, 08:33 PM
Unfortunately for you JFK would be considered a republican today.

cushioncrawler
04-29-2011, 10:01 PM
This iz what mac hears.
1.... Every speech ever made by the prez or ??? haz at its core that the usofa can be great again.
The next speech by the prez will hav that at its core. And, the speech after. And the speech after that, no matter who iz the prez. Something stinx.
In 200 yrs time it will be the same speech, and something will still stink.
So, when will the prez started to think about what it iz that stinx.

2.... JFK's speech of course leevs out some important things.
Like the environment. The native americans. The afrikan americans. And of course the future.
mac.

wolfdancer
04-29-2011, 10:35 PM
Why would that be unfortunate for me? I think he was a great man, slightly flawed, yet a great President as well.
I had driven by the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport many times in those days, also used to pass Ted in the Boston Commons as we went on our opposite ways to work. I, like most Bostonians was caught up in the Kennedy mystique
I also crewed on a yacht, a 47 ft motor sailor, and we took in the America Cup Races. I saw him there, with Jackie, on the DDE named for his older brother, a pilot, that was killed in the war, the SS.Joseph P Kennedy Jr.....
I ended up one night on a yacht,drinking with the Kennedy press corps, and it seemed to me that to the man, they had great respect for Jack Kennedy. If he became a Republican it would be a shock, but the man's greatness would have had me voting Republican
I was waiting for my connecting flight at La Guardia one time, and went to the cafeteria to grab a snack. Jack Jr was in line a few people in front of me, and we ended up at nearby tables, not close but "nearby" I used to kid and tell people I had lunch with Jack Jr. He would have made a fine politician as well
And that's all I have to say about that....

Stretch
04-30-2011, 02:17 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why would that be unfortunate for me? I think he was a great man, slightly flawed, yet a great President as well.
I had driven by the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport many times in those days, also used to pass Ted in the Boston Commons as we went on our opposite ways to work. I, like most Bostonians was caught up in the Kennedy mystique
I also crewed on a yacht, a 47 ft motor sailor, and we took in the America Cup Races. I saw him there, with Jackie, on the DDE named for his older brother, a pilot, that was killed in the war, the SS.Joseph P Kennedy Jr.....
I ended up one night on a yacht,drinking with the Kennedy press corps, and it seemed to me that to the man, they had great respect for Jack Kennedy. If he became a Republican it would be a shock, but the man's greatness would have had me voting Republican
I was waiting for my connecting flight at La Guardia one time, and went to the cafeteria to grab a snack. Jack Jr was in line a few people in front of me, and we ended up at nearby tables, not close but "nearby" I used to kid and tell people I had lunch with Jack Jr. He would have made a fine politician as well
And that's all I have to say about that....
</div></div>

Nice story Wolf, man you sure did get around! St.

LWW
04-30-2011, 03:05 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">JFK's acceptance speech to the liberal party 1960
by Laurie Kavanaugh McClave on Thursday, April 28, 2011 at 8:37pm

A Liberal Definition by John F. Kennedy:

Acceptance Speech 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." <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3366FF">But Obama is.</span></span> 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." <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3366FF">But Obama isn't.</span></span>

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 <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3366FF">But Obama doesn't.</span></span> , 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 <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3366FF">But Obama doesn't.</span></span> . 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. <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3366FF">But Obama doesn't.</span></span> I do not believe in a superstate. <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3366FF">But Obama does.</span></span> I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3366FF">But Obama does.</span></span></div></div>

If the point of posting this was to show that JFK would have recoiled in horror at this current regime ... well done.

OTOH, if your point was to show that you are so competent at doublethink that you have deluded yourself into believing that JFK and Obama were cut from the same cloth ... well done again.

Stretch
04-30-2011, 03:35 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: LWW</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">JFK's acceptance speech to the liberal party 1960
by Laurie Kavanaugh McClave on Thursday, April 28, 2011 at 8:37pm

A Liberal Definition by John F. Kennedy:

Acceptance Speech 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." <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3366FF">But Obama is.</span></span> 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." <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3366FF">But Obama isn't.</span></span>

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 <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3366FF">But Obama doesn't.</span></span> , 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 <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3366FF">But Obama doesn't.</span></span> . 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. <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3366FF">But Obama doesn't.</span></span> I do not believe in a superstate. <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3366FF">But Obama does.</span></span> I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. <span style='font-size: 11pt'><span style="color: #3366FF">But Obama does.</span></span></div></div>

If the point of posting this was to show that JFK would have recoiled in horror at this current regime ... well done.

OTOH, if your point was to show that you are so competent at doublethink that you have deluded yourself into believing that JFK and Obama were cut from the same cloth ... well done again. </div></div>

If your point was to assign wrong conclussions to what was said, well done to you sir. St.

Qtec
04-30-2011, 03:35 AM
No. He would have been disgusted with the way the GOP are behaving.
He would be disgusted about how Beck can say the things he says and still be on TV. He would be dismayed that Beck has a lrge following with the RW nutjobs, ie 25% of Conservatives.

You should read this part again because it shows how far away he was from present GOP thinking.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> 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." <span style='font-size: 14pt'><span style="color: #990000">But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>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</span> -- 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."</span></span></div></div>

A party
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">who cares about the welfare of the people </div></div>

is not the Republican Party.




Q

Stretch
04-30-2011, 04:10 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No. He would have been disgusted with the way the GOP are behaving.
He would be disgusted about how Beck can say the things he says and still be on TV. He would be dismayed that Beck has a lrge following with the RW nutjobs, ie 25% of Conservatives.

You should read this part again because it shows how far away he was from present GOP thinking.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> 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." <span style='font-size: 14pt'><span style="color: #990000">But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>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</span> -- 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."</span></span></div></div>

A party
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">who cares about the welfare of the people </div></div>

is not the Republican Party.




Q

</div></div>

Excellent post. St.

LWW
04-30-2011, 04:32 AM
Then you should have no problem showing where I was wrong.

JFK was for a non obtrusive federal gubmint, low taxes, strong defense, personal responsibility, and a strong believer in American exceptionalism.

Obama is the polar opposite.

Qtec
04-30-2011, 04:51 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Then you should have no problem showing where I was wrong. </div></div>

I just did.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"><span style='font-size: 17pt'>someone who cares about the welfare of the people</span> -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties </div></div>

Q

LWW
04-30-2011, 05:18 AM
How does destroying the job base, scorching the value of the US dollar, and making debt slaves of school childrenshow that one cares of the welfare of the people?

Gayle in MD
04-30-2011, 08:31 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Qtec</div><div class="ubbcode-body">No. He would have been disgusted with the way the GOP are behaving.
He would be disgusted about how Beck can say the things he says and still be on TV. He would be dismayed that Beck has a lrge following with the RW nutjobs, ie 25% of Conservatives.

You should read this part again because it shows how far away he was from present GOP thinking.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body"> 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." <span style='font-size: 14pt'><span style="color: #990000">But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, <span style='font-size: 17pt'>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</span> -- 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."</span></span></div></div>

A party
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">who cares about the welfare of the people </div></div>

is not the Republican Party.




Q

</div></div>

An obvious FACT, which the right can't stand to face. Some of us remember who launched the great, grand theft, of our children's and grandchildren's futures, destroyed the economy, spent and borrowed this country into impotence, and left it all for our current President to deal with, including two unfinished wars, and American Job Losses rising monthly, up to 800,000 loses a month, the worst and most difficult cumulative disasters, in our history.

The right, chose to ignore, that on the day of the attack on 9/11, the president's Father, ( the history of their family) was in a business meeting, and was tied tightly, to the Father and Brother of the man who led the worst attack on America's shores of our generation. Imagine, months of ignored warnings, and where was Bush Sr., on 9/11??? Sitting with bin Laden's father and brother, in a business meeting, as the attacks occured, all of them watching together, and imagining all the money that was coming in their Way, in the form of War Profiteering Opportunites.

The right can skip over all of that, all the proof of how Bush ignored all of the warnings, and took not one single step, to prevent the attack, not one, yet, the right has no problem, turning right around to accuse President Obama, of being linked to terrorists!!!!

Bush, in bed with the Saudi's, way back to his failed Oil endeavor, with the very country known for financially comfortable families, financially supporting al Qaeda!!!

Most of our attackers, from Saudi Arabia.

Only our own military, Bush, his father, and the bin Ladens, were flying that day, once airspace had been cleared. The bin Ladens wisked out of the country, for their protection, the father and brother, of bin Laden.




<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who <span style='font-size: 11pt'>welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions,</span> someone who cares about the <span style='font-size: 14pt'>welfare of the people </span>-- <span style='font-size: 14pt'>their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties </span>-- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and <span style='font-size: 14pt'>suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad,</span> if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

</div></div>

I am a proud Liberal!!! Today, even moreso, than in decades past, the REPIGLICAN corporate pawns, have exposed themselves, for what they became, during the Reagan Administration, pawns of the wealthy, at the expense of all others. "Fixing" an economy, that only works for the most wealthy, among us, and fixing all forms of government oversight, to serve ONLY the interests of the wealthy, the greedy, the polluting and the corrupt, all at the sacrifice of our health, and our children's economic futures.

That is what our current President stepped into, and those who voted Bush into office, will forever have it on their own heads, that he left this country in shambles, and NO ONE of any intellectual respect, predicted a speedy recovery, from George Bush's shameful legacy! NO ONE!



G.

wolfdancer
04-30-2011, 08:39 AM
Excellent post, Gayle !!!!

Gayle in MD
04-30-2011, 09:41 AM
Thanks, but your original post, is the great one.

Sad to think the right is supporting a pig like Trump, who slanders our President, with lies and inuendo, and then justifies his disgusting display, of racism, by saying, "I get along with the blacks!" /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/grin.gif /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

The Repiglican Party is full of racists, who don't even know they're racists, as Bill Maher said last night, Trump is a racist, who doesn't know he's a racist," probably, the worst kind of racists there are.

BTW, the four hundred richest in America, paid 16.6 % taxes. And the Repigs, want to destroy jobs, take away from the hungry, end Medicare and Medicaid, and give LOWER rates, to the rich!???

Even the TPers, are screaming bloddy murder over this! They're showing up at Repiglican meetings, screaming out, "Stop lying!" to their Repiglican Reps!

Obama's Affordable Health Care Act, that the Repiglicans bashed to pieces, and lied about, and used to foment fear, twisting the truth, as always, must be looking pretty good to those "No Socialism, Don't Touch My Medicare" yappers, by now, lol...I expect any day to see the next TP Rally, full of signs demanding a public option.

Romney's plan, which was basically, the same damn plan, is working very well, in Massachusetts, with 98%, covered, prices going down, AND a public option, and the people there LOVE IT!

I think Reagan is to blame for the policy of turning Americans, against the idea of Government Oversight, and since then, we have become a fascist nation. RW ACtivist Supreme Court, dealt te final blow, to one man, one vote. As we know, the love of money, is the root of all evil, and nobody loves money, more than
those corporate fascists pigs, who outsource our jobs, destroy our environment, hide their money and profits offshore, and then BUY the representatives, who will give them EVER MORE! And we saw how that went, last election.

I see a glimmer of hope, now that the Repiglicans, have proven who they serve, ONLY THE RICHEST AND MOST CORRUPT!

Did you see the Oil Profits for the last quarter!!!!

Look at those figures, then look at the prices at the pump, then look at all the neglected opportunities big oil has ignored, for drilling here, and who is getting the oil they take from our shores? The big crooks, the Wall Street hoarders, driving up costs, even Boehner touched on it, in his home town, but backed off as soon as he got away, and back to Lobbytown! /forums/images/%%GRAEMLIN_URL%%/crazy.gif

The Grand Oil Party, looks pretty dirty and oily to me, even more than usual! Seems some on the right, are finally waking
up, well, all but the radical fringe.

<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Quote:</div><div class="ubbcode-body">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.

</div></div>

Jimmy Carter, proposed concrete means of achieving a country free of dependence on foreign oil.

This President, is trying to do the same thing.

Both times, Republicans have blocked that progress!

Figures, why the Koch Brothers, spend so much money buying seats for The grand Oil Party, and trying to destroy the Unions, huh?
G.

wolfdancer
04-30-2011, 09:58 AM
"I get along with the blacks!"
"The Blacks"....it would have read so much better had he just said
"Black people"

Gayle in MD
04-30-2011, 10:30 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">"I get along with the blacks!"
"The Blacks"....it would have read so much better had he just said
"Black people" </div></div>

Like Bill Maher said, racists who don't even know they're racists.

He also said, last night, "Not all Republicans are racists, but all the racists, are Republicans."

I think he nailed it, don't you?

G.

wolfdancer
04-30-2011, 10:45 AM
It's too general a statement, but I'd agree as far as the parties leadership.

LWW
04-30-2011, 10:47 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Some of us remember who launched the great, grand theft, of our children's and grandchildren's futures, destroyed the economy, spent and borrowed this country into impotence

G. </div></div>

I'll take "Who was FDR" for $200 Charlotte.

LWW
04-30-2011, 10:49 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">and left it all for our current President to deal with, including two unfinished wars, and American Job Losses rising monthly, up to 800,000 loses a month, the worst and most difficult cumulative disasters, in our history.

G. </div></div>

I'll now take "What Was the 2006-2010 Democrook Congress" for $200.

LWW
04-30-2011, 10:50 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The right, chose to ignore, that on the day of the attack on 9/11, the president's Father, ( the history of their family) was in a business meeting, and was tied tightly, to the Father and Brother of the man who led the worst attack on America's shores of our generation. Imagine, months of ignored warnings, and where was Bush Sr., on 9/11??? Sitting with bin Laden's father and brother, in a business meeting, as the attacks occured, all of them watching together, and imagining all the money that was coming in their Way, in the form of War Profiteering Opportunites.


G. </div></div>

What are "Moonbat Myths from Michael Moore?"

LWW
04-30-2011, 10:55 AM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: Gayle in MD</div><div class="ubbcode-body">The right can skip over all of that, all the proof of how Bush ignored all of the warnings, and took not one single step, to prevent the attack, not one, yet, the right has no problem, turning right around to accuse President Obama, of being linked to terrorists!!!!

Bush, in bed with the Saudi's, way back to his failed Oil endeavor, with the very country known for financially comfortable families, financially supporting al Qaeda!!!

Most of our attackers, from Saudi Arabia.

Only our own military, Bush, his father, and the bin Ladens, were flying that day, once airspace had been cleared. The bin Ladens wisked out of the country, for their protection, the father and brother, of bin Laden.

G. </div></div>

That's too far gone to ever recover from.

Sev
04-30-2011, 01:00 PM
<div class="ubbcode-block"><div class="ubbcode-header">Originally Posted By: wolfdancer</div><div class="ubbcode-body">Why would that be unfortunate for me? I think he was a great man, slightly flawed, yet a great President as well.
I had driven by the Kennedy compound in Hyannisport many times in those days, also used to pass Ted in the Boston Commons as we went on our opposite ways to work. I, like most Bostonians was caught up in the Kennedy mystique
I also crewed on a yacht, a 47 ft motor sailor, and we took in the America Cup Races. I saw him there, with Jackie, on the DDE named for his older brother, a pilot, that was killed in the war, the SS.Joseph P Kennedy Jr.....
I ended up one night on a yacht,drinking with the Kennedy press corps, and it seemed to me that to the man, they had great respect for Jack Kennedy. If he became a Republican it would be a shock, but the man's greatness would have had me voting Republican
I was waiting for my connecting flight at La Guardia one time, and went to the cafeteria to grab a snack. Jack Jr was in line a few people in front of me, and we ended up at nearby tables, not close but "nearby" I used to kid and tell people I had lunch with Jack Jr. He would have made a fine politician as well
And that's all I have to say about that....
</div></div>

Very cool.