JFK: "I'm proud to say I'm a 'Liberal.'"

[Sandman]

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/35_kennedy/psources/ps_nyliberal.htm
l

JFK's Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
September 14, 1960:

"What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by
"Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in
his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned
with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members
demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal"
they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new
ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the
people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their
civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break
through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if
that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a
"Liberal."

But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to mean
and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and what
it means in the presidential election of 1960.

In short, having set forth my view -- I hope for all time -- two nights ago
in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to
take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship
between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human
liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source
of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention
and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as
individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For
liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as
it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the
experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his
fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human
life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it
contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so
abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only
fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon
for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax
dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste
and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration
as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary
individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a
government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full
responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when
it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only
great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our
responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with
political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that
liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal
society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a
strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed
to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in
short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and
liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960
campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die
there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of
breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and
Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of
influence and responsibility.

Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are
descended from that segment of the American population which was once called
an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we
do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any
group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented
the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find
new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from
the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger,
who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and
women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section
of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city not only a
new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.

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

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

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

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

And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman for the
effort to achieve an intelligent foreign policy. Our opponents would like
the people to believe that in a time of danger it would be hazardous to
change the administration that has brought us to this time of danger. I
think it would be hazardous not to change. I think it would be hazardous to
continue four more years of stagnation and indifference here at home and
abroad, of starving the underpinnings of our national power, including not
only our defense but our image abroad as a friend.

This is an important election -- in many ways as important as any this
century -- and I think that the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party here
in New York, and those who believe in progress all over the United States,
should be associated with us in this great effort. The reason that Woodrow
Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson had
influence abroad, and the United States in their time had it, was because
they moved this country here at home, because they stood for something here
in the United States, for expanding the benefits of our society to our own
people, and the people around the world looked to us as a symbol of hope.

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

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

[Michael Mckelvy]

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
>
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/35_kennedy/psources/ps_nyliberal.htm
> l
>
> JFK's Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
> September 14, 1960:
>
> "What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If
by
> "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft
in
> his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is
unconcerned
> with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members
> demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal"
> they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new
> ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the
> people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their
> civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can
break
> through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad,
if
> that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a
> "Liberal."
>
> But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to
mean
> and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and
what
> it means in the presidential election of 1960.
>
> In short, having set forth my view -- I hope for all time -- two nights
ago
> in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to
> take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship
> between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:
>
> I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human
> liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source
> of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our
invention
> and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as
> individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For
> liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises
as
> it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the
> experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his
> fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all
human
> life deserves.
>
> I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it
> contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society
so
> abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only
> fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a
beacon
> for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax
> dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste
> and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this
administration
> as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary
> individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a
> government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full
> responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when
> it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only
> great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.
>
> Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our
> responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with
> political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that
> liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal
> society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason
a
> strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people
committed
> to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in
> short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and
> liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960
> campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die
> there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of
> breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and
> Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time
of
> influence and responsibility.
>
> Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are
> descended from that segment of the American population which was once
called
> an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren,
we
> do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to
any
> group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York
represented
> the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find
> new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled
from
> the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of
hunger,
> who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and
> women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section
> of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city not only
a
> new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.
>
> Tonight we salute Governor and Senator Herbert Lehman as a symbol of that
> spirit, and as a reminder that the fight for full constitutional rights
for
> all Americans is a fight that must be carried on in 1961.
>
> Many of these same immigrant families produced the pioneers and builders
of
> the American labor movement. They are the men who sweated in our shops,
who
> struggled to create a union, and who were driven by longing for education
> for their children and for the children's development. They went to night
> schools; they built their own future, their union's future, and their
> country's future, brick by brick, block by block, neighborhood by
> neighborhood, and now in their children's time, suburb by suburb.
>
> Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a
> reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a
> fight that goes on in our day. But in 1960 the cause of liberalism cannot
> content itself with carrying on the fight for human justice and economic
> liberalism here at home. For here and around the world the fear of war
hangs
> over us every morning and every night. It lies, expressed or silent, in
the
> minds of every American. We cannot banish it by repeating that we are
> economically first or that we are militarily first, for saying so doesn't
> make it so. More will be needed than goodwill missions or talking back to
> Soviet politicians or increasing the tempo of the arms race. More will be
> needed than good intentions, for we know where that paving leads.
>
> In Winston Churchill's words, "We cannot escape our dangers by recoiling
> from them. We dare not pretend such dangers do not exist."
>
> And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman for the
> effort to achieve an intelligent foreign policy. Our opponents would like
> the people to believe that in a time of danger it would be hazardous to
> change the administration that has brought us to this time of danger. I
> think it would be hazardous not to change. I think it would be hazardous
to
> continue four more years of stagnation and indifference here at home and
> abroad, of starving the underpinnings of our national power, including not
> only our defense but our image abroad as a friend.
>
> This is an important election -- in many ways as important as any this
> century -- and I think that the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party
here
> in New York, and those who believe in progress all over the United States,
> should be associated with us in this great effort. The reason that Woodrow
> Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson had
> influence abroad, and the United States in their time had it, was because
> they moved this country here at home, because they stood for something
here
> in the United States, for expanding the benefits of our society to our own
> people, and the people around the world looked to us as a symbol of hope.
>
> I think it is our task to re-create the same atmosphere in our own time.
Our
> national elections have often proved to be the turning point in the course
> of our country. I am proposing that 1960 be another turning point in the
> history of the great Republic.
>
> Some pundits are saying it's 1928 all over again. I say it's 1932 all over
> again. I say this is the great opportunity that we will have in our time
to
> move our people and this country and the people of the free world beyond
the
> new frontiers of the 1960s."
>
>
The kind of liberal JFK was compared to the kind of liberals that now make
up the Democrat Party are like apples and oranges. They have nothing in
common.

JFK was a fervent anti-communist, so much so in fact that he said he would
have voted for Nixon if had not won the democrat nomination for president.

Today, a liberal democrat is essentially a communist.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
>
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/35_kennedy/psources/ps_nyliberal.htm
> l
>
> JFK's Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
> September 14, 1960:
>
> "What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If
by
> "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft
in
> his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is
unconcerned
> with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members
> demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal"
> they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new
> ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the
> people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their
> civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can
break
> through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad,
if
> that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a
> "Liberal."
>
> But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to
mean
> and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and
what
> it means in the presidential election of 1960.
>
> In short, having set forth my view -- I hope for all time -- two nights
ago
> in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want to
> take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship
> between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:
>
> I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human
> liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source
> of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our
invention
> and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as
> individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For
> liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises
as
> it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the
> experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his
> fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all
human
> life deserves.
>
> I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it
> contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society
so
> abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only
> fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a
beacon
> for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax
> dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste
> and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this
administration
> as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary
> individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a
> government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full
> responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when
> it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only
> great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.
>
> Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our
> responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with
> political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that
> liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal
> society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason
a
> strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people
committed
> to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in
> short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and
> liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960
> campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die
> there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of
> breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and
> Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time
of
> influence and responsibility.
>
> Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are
> descended from that segment of the American population which was once
called
> an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren,
we
> do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to
any
> group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York
represented
> the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find
> new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled
from
> the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of
hunger,
> who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and
> women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section
> of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city not only
a
> new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.
>
> Tonight we salute Governor and Senator Herbert Lehman as a symbol of that
> spirit, and as a reminder that the fight for full constitutional rights
for
> all Americans is a fight that must be carried on in 1961.
>
> Many of these same immigrant families produced the pioneers and builders
of
> the American labor movement. They are the men who sweated in our shops,
who
> struggled to create a union, and who were driven by longing for education
> for their children and for the children's development. They went to night
> schools; they built their own future, their union's future, and their
> country's future, brick by brick, block by block, neighborhood by
> neighborhood, and now in their children's time, suburb by suburb.
>
> Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a
> reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a
> fight that goes on in our day. But in 1960 the cause of liberalism cannot
> content itself with carrying on the fight for human justice and economic
> liberalism here at home. For here and around the world the fear of war
hangs
> over us every morning and every night. It lies, expressed or silent, in
the
> minds of every American. We cannot banish it by repeating that we are
> economically first or that we are militarily first, for saying so doesn't
> make it so. More will be needed than goodwill missions or talking back to
> Soviet politicians or increasing the tempo of the arms race. More will be
> needed than good intentions, for we know where that paving leads.
>
> In Winston Churchill's words, "We cannot escape our dangers by recoiling
> from them. We dare not pretend such dangers do not exist."
>
> And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman for the
> effort to achieve an intelligent foreign policy. Our opponents would like
> the people to believe that in a time of danger it would be hazardous to
> change the administration that has brought us to this time of danger. I
> think it would be hazardous not to change. I think it would be hazardous
to
> continue four more years of stagnation and indifference here at home and
> abroad, of starving the underpinnings of our national power, including not
> only our defense but our image abroad as a friend.
>
> This is an important election -- in many ways as important as any this
> century -- and I think that the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party
here
> in New York, and those who believe in progress all over the United States,
> should be associated with us in this great effort. The reason that Woodrow
> Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson had
> influence abroad, and the United States in their time had it, was because
> they moved this country here at home, because they stood for something
here
> in the United States, for expanding the benefits of our society to our own
> people, and the people around the world looked to us as a symbol of hope.
>
> I think it is our task to re-create the same atmosphere in our own time.
Our
> national elections have often proved to be the turning point in the course
> of our country. I am proposing that 1960 be another turning point in the
> history of the great Republic.
>
> Some pundits are saying it's 1928 all over again. I say it's 1932 all over
> again. I say this is the great opportunity that we will have in our time
to
> move our people and this country and the people of the free world beyond
the
> new frontiers of the 1960s."
>


That's what a liberal Yustabe.
Its sad to see how far they have strayed from this combination of noble
ideals
tempered with practical possibilities. It really saddens me.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sandman" > wrote in message
> ...
> >
>
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/35_kennedy/psources/ps_nyliberal.htm
> > l
> >
> > JFK's Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
> > September 14, 1960:
> >
> > "What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?"
If
> by
> > "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft
> in
> > his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is
> unconcerned
> > with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its
members
> > demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a
"Liberal"
> > they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes
new
> > ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of
the
> > people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their
> > civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can
> break
> > through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies
abroad,
> if
> > that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a
> > "Liberal."
> >
> > But first, I would like to say what I understand the word "Liberal" to
> mean
> > and explain in the process why I consider myself to be a "Liberal," and
> what
> > it means in the presidential election of 1960.
> >
> > In short, having set forth my view -- I hope for all time -- two nights
> ago
> > in Houston, on the proper relationship between church and state, I want
to
> > take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship
> > between the state and the citizen. This is my political credo:
> >
> > I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human
> > liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the
source
> > of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our
> invention
> > and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as
> > individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith.
For
> > liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform
promises
> as
> > it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through
the
> > experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his
> > fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all
> human
> > life deserves.
> >
> > I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it
> > contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society
> so
> > abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only
> > fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a
> beacon
> > for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax
> > dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the
waste
> > and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this
> administration
> > as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary
> > individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a
> > government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full
> > responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and
when
> > it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not
only
> > great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.
> >
> > Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends.
Our
> > responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention,
with
> > political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that
> > liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal
> > society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that
reason
> a
> > strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people
> committed
> > to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in
> > short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and
> > liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960
> > campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and
die
> > there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of
> > breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and
> > Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their
time
> of
> > influence and responsibility.
> >
> > Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are
> > descended from that segment of the American population which was once
> called
> > an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren,
> we
> > do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to
> any
> > group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York
> represented
> > the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to
find
> > new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled
> from
> > the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of
> hunger,
> > who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men
and
> > women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross
section
> > of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city not
only
> a
> > new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.
> >
> > Tonight we salute Governor and Senator Herbert Lehman as a symbol of
that
> > spirit, and as a reminder that the fight for full constitutional rights
> for
> > all Americans is a fight that must be carried on in 1961.
> >
> > Many of these same immigrant families produced the pioneers and builders
> of
> > the American labor movement. They are the men who sweated in our shops,
> who
> > struggled to create a union, and who were driven by longing for
education
> > for their children and for the children's development. They went to
night
> > schools; they built their own future, their union's future, and their
> > country's future, brick by brick, block by block, neighborhood by
> > neighborhood, and now in their children's time, suburb by suburb.
> >
> > Tonight we salute George Meany as a symbol of that struggle and as a
> > reminder that the fight to eliminate poverty and human exploitation is a
> > fight that goes on in our day. But in 1960 the cause of liberalism
cannot
> > content itself with carrying on the fight for human justice and economic
> > liberalism here at home. For here and around the world the fear of war
> hangs
> > over us every morning and every night. It lies, expressed or silent, in
> the
> > minds of every American. We cannot banish it by repeating that we are
> > economically first or that we are militarily first, for saying so
doesn't
> > make it so. More will be needed than goodwill missions or talking back
to
> > Soviet politicians or increasing the tempo of the arms race. More will
be
> > needed than good intentions, for we know where that paving leads.
> >
> > In Winston Churchill's words, "We cannot escape our dangers by recoiling
> > from them. We dare not pretend such dangers do not exist."
> >
> > And tonight we salute Adlai Stevenson as an eloquent spokesman for the
> > effort to achieve an intelligent foreign policy. Our opponents would
like
> > the people to believe that in a time of danger it would be hazardous to
> > change the administration that has brought us to this time of danger. I
> > think it would be hazardous not to change. I think it would be hazardous
> to
> > continue four more years of stagnation and indifference here at home and
> > abroad, of starving the underpinnings of our national power, including
not
> > only our defense but our image abroad as a friend.
> >
> > This is an important election -- in many ways as important as any this
> > century -- and I think that the Democratic Party and the Liberal Party
> here
> > in New York, and those who believe in progress all over the United
States,
> > should be associated with us in this great effort. The reason that
Woodrow
> > Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson had
> > influence abroad, and the United States in their time had it, was
because
> > they moved this country here at home, because they stood for something
> here
> > in the United States, for expanding the benefits of our society to our
own
> > people, and the people around the world looked to us as a symbol of
hope.
> >
> > I think it is our task to re-create the same atmosphere in our own time.
> Our
> > national elections have often proved to be the turning point in the
course
> > of our country. I am proposing that 1960 be another turning point in the
> > history of the great Republic.
> >
> > Some pundits are saying it's 1928 all over again. I say it's 1932 all
over
> > again. I say this is the great opportunity that we will have in our time
> to
> > move our people and this country and the people of the free world beyond
> the
> > new frontiers of the 1960s."
> >
> >
> The kind of liberal JFK was compared to the kind of liberals that now make
> up the Democrat Party are like apples and oranges. They have nothing in
> common.
>
> JFK was a fervent anti-communist, so much so in fact that he said he would
> have voted for Nixon if had not won the democrat nomination for president.
>
> Today, a liberal democrat is essentially a communist.


They are more like "useful idiots" . However, now they are more
useful to terrorists.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[George M. Middius]

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

> That's what a liberal Yustabe.
> Its sad to see how far they have strayed from this combination of noble ideals
> tempered with practical possibilities. It really saddens me.

I suppose the control-freak Republicans elate you.




This post reformatted by the Resistance,
laboring tirelessly to de-Kroogerize Usenet.

[GeoSynch]

Sandy posts another link, too afraid to actually say something himself:

> JFK's Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
> September 14, 1960:

> "What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by ...

> 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.

.....

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

Why don't you learn how to quote properly, numbskull?
The lack of quote marks at beginning of the second-thru-final paragraphs is poor form.
At least you managed to put a quote mark at the end of the final paragraph. Hooray!

GeoSynch

[Arny Krueger]

"Sandman" > wrote in message

>
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/35_kennedy/psources/ps_nyliberal.htm
> l
>
> JFK's Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
> September 14, 1960:


This poor, demented senior citizen is supposed to have some friends around
here. When will they help him understand that this is rec.audio.opinion, not
rec.poliitcial.opinion?

Senile dementia is heartbreaking. When will someone intervene on this poor
soul's behalf?

[Sandman]

"Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
...

> The kind of liberal JFK was compared to the kind of liberals that now make
> up the Democrat Party are like apples and oranges. They have nothing in
> common.

Total Limbaugh brainwashed bull****. I am and always have been, since 1960
a JFK "liberal", and proud of it.
Yet you imagine me to be in your fetid twisted imagination, some
lefty-pink-commie, simply because I have consistently opposed a war in Iraq
that JFK would *never* have gotten us into.

> JFK was a fervent anti-communist, so much so in fact that he said he would
> have voted for Nixon if had not won the democrat nomination for president.

Half true, half false. As president, he inherited the most dangerous
position in American history (far more dangerous than Al Queda) - at the
helm of an America engulfed in the nuclear arms race/"cold war" with a bully
named Nikita Kruschev attempting to intimidate him. Yet after the Cuban
Missile Crisis, and his Berlin Wall speech, he succeeded in gaining not only
Kruschev's respect but also initiated the original "dentente" with Kruschev
by having Kruschev sign the first nuclear test-ban treaty. All in a few
short years.

Nixon was the antithesis of everything Kennedy stood for. "Detente", by the
way, was just a word Kissinger stole from Kennedy, to describe what he was
trying to do with Breznev, none of which Nixon ever understood. Nixon, when
it came to Russia and China, was nothing more than a political opportunist,
attempting to divert attention from his criminal involvement in Watergate.

> Today, a liberal democrat is essentially a communist.

Clearly you've od'd on your pabulum of Rush Limbaugh today. Oh, that's
right, Rush doesn't realize the Soviet Union collapsed well over a decade
ago either - he's been too spaced out for the past 15 years on illegally
traded illicit drugs. The Senator Joe McCarthy bit hasn't flown for many
decades. Apprently you've been asleep for over 45 years, Bugeater
(probably long before you were born).

[Arny Krueger]

"Sandman" > wrote in message


> "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> ...

>> The kind of liberal JFK was compared to the kind of liberals that
>> now make up the Democrat Party are like apples and oranges. They
>> have nothing in common.

> Total Limbaugh brainwashed bull****. I am and always have been,
> since 1960 a JFK "liberal", and proud of it.

Does that apply to the revolving door on your bedroom, Sanders?


> Yet you imagine me to be in your fetid twisted imagination, some
> lefty-pink-commie, simply because I have consistently opposed a war
> in Iraq that JFK would *never* have gotten us into.

Exactly which buildings in Washington and Manhattan were demolished by
terrorists during the JFK administration?

>> JFK was a fervent anti-communist, so much so in fact that he said he
>> would have voted for Nixon if had not won the democrat nomination
>> for president.

> Half true, half false.

AFAIK all true.

> As president, he inherited the most dangerous
> position in American history (far more dangerous than Al Queda) - at
> the helm of an America engulfed in the nuclear arms race/"cold war"
> with a bully named Nikita Kruschev attempting to intimidate him.

Exactly which buildings in Washington and Manhattan were demolished by
Khrushchev during the JFK administration?

> Yet after the Cuban Missile Crisis, and his Berlin Wall speech, he
> succeeded in gaining not only Kruschev's respect but also initiated
> the original "dentente" with Kruschev by having Kruschev sign the
> first nuclear test-ban treaty. All in a few short years.

Arguably, Kennedy encouraged Khrushchev to be more adventurous because
Khrushchev knew Kennedy as a very sick womanizer. Khrushchev, being
basically a simple man, had no moral respect for Kennedy's complexity.
Khrushchev would have never tried the same shtick with Eisenhower or Nixon
because he had too much moral respect for them.

> Nixon was the antithesis of everything Kennedy stood for.

Except that they in fact agreed about a large number of elements of domestic
and foreign policy. For example, Nixon agreed with Kennedy about the need to
vacate Vietnam. It's just that Nixon inherited the bigger mess and it was
more difficult for him to extricate himself from it.

> "Detente",
> by the way, was just a word Kissinger stole from Kennedy, to describe
> what he was trying to do with Breznev, none of which Nixon ever
> understood.

Sanders claim that he can accurately read Nixon's mind are noted. It seems
to be a common delusion on RAO these days, particularly within the Middius
cult.

>Nixon, when it came to Russia and China, was nothing
> more than a political opportunist, attempting to divert attention
> from his criminal involvement in Watergate.

The only trouble with these claims being the time table. Nixon visited
China on Feb.21,1972, but the Watergate break-in took place on June 17,
1972. Sanders grotesque ignorance of relevant historical facts is noted.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/national/longterm/watergate/front.htm

http://www.china.org.cn/english/FR/27232.htm

>> Today, a liberal democrat is essentially a communist.

> Clearly you've od'd on your pabulum of Rush Limbaugh today. Oh,
> that's right, Rush doesn't realize the Soviet Union collapsed well
> over a decade ago either - he's been too spaced out for the past 15
> years on illegally traded illicit drugs. The Senator Joe McCarthy
> bit hasn't flown for many decades. Apparently you've been asleep for
> over 45 years, Bugeater (probably long before you were born).

At least Mike doesn't tell the world that Nixon visited China to distract
people's attention from a Watergate break-in that happened about 5 months
later...

LOL!

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...



> Yet you imagine me to be in your fetid twisted imagination, some
> lefty-pink-commie, simply because I have consistently opposed a war in
Iraq
> that JFK would *never* have gotten us into.
>

But what would Jesus do, and would he own a H2?




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Sandman]

Addendum:

The reason I am working at meetups and tabling functions and contributing
money to the Howard Dean campaign (and will be attending the California
primary) is the same reason I worked for and contributed to the Robert F.
Kennedy campaign in 1968. Dean is the only political candidate on the
political horizon since MLK's and RFK's tragic assassinations in 1968 that
carries on the JFK legacy. By saying he represents the "Democratic wing of
the Democratic Party" he distinguishes himself from the spineless Beltway
Democrats who far too often have caved in to pressure from the neo-con right
wing extremists led by the PNAC puppet George ("**** the U.N., **** Europe,
**** the entire planet - except for my crony buddies in the energy (Ken Lay
and Dick Cheney) and drug, and HMO industries) W. Bush. Unlike Bush, JFK
was beloved by the peoples of the United States, Canada, Central America,
South America, Europe, Ireland, Great Britain, Asia, and even the Russian
people, who all wept en masse when he was assassinated. And unlike Bush,
when he traveled around the world, he was greeted with adulation, not angry
protests. Why? Because he understood, as Churchill did, that living in a
world without allies was far worse than living in a world with an occasional
poor ally. He understood the power and importance of intelligent yet
powerful and convincing negotiation to achieve peaceful resolution to
conflict. Bush has never begun to learn any of this.

JFK's enemies were the military industrial complex (because he signed a memo
outlining his plan to withdraw all Vietnam advisers by 1965), the CIA which
deceived him into allowing the Bay of Pigs invasion, and who also deceived
the anti-Castro Cubans into believing that Kennedy had first promised U.S.
air support for an invasion of Cuba and then reneged on it -all of which
was a big lie - (the CIA, of which Dubya's daddy was a member, hated him
because he signed a memo intending to dismantle the entire CIA as a result
of its misadventures and violations of its charter, and put them under the
control of the Pentagon), Lyndon Johnson and his criminal Texan cronies, the
Italian Mafia, who cooperated with the CIA in numerous attempts to kill
Castro, and who hated his brother Bobby, who, as attorney general was
prosecuting their leaders, and ultimately, the "Black Ops", the Secret
Service and the Johnson/Texas utterly corrupt political machine, including
the Dallas police force. These were the elements which coalesced on
November 22, 40 years ago, to murder in cold blood, the prince of "Camelot".
Oswald, Castro, and Kruschev had absolutely nothing to do with the
assassination. If you believe otherwise, you just haven't been paying
attention to anything for the past 40 years. Or you're just so young,
impressionable, and stupid, to believe all the talk radio crapola
disseminated by ClearChannel, and the vile lies and corrupt propoganda
disseminated by Murdoch (FOX), and its wannabes, MSNBC (Time Warner) and CNN
(GE).

Politics in America has gone down the toilet ever since. Howard Dean is the
best and only answer we have in today's world, with the mess Dubya has made
of absolutely everything under the sun. That's why he's winning now, and
that's why he's going to win the Nomination next June, and that's why he's
going to be President from January, 2005 through January, 2013. Learn to
live with it.

A new day has come. Become part of the solution and become relevant, or
remain part of the problem, and remain irrelevant.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
> Addendum:
>
> The reason I am working at meetups and tabling functions and contributing
> money to the Howard Dean campaign (and will be attending the California
> primary) is the same reason I worked for and contributed to the Robert F.
> Kennedy campaign in 1968. Dean is the only political candidate on the
> political horizon since MLK's and RFK's tragic assassinations in 1968
that
> carries on the JFK legacy.

Dukakis?
McGovern?
Tsongas?
Not even Ted Kennedy????

> By saying he represents the "Democratic wing of
> the Democratic Party" he distinguishes himself from the spineless Beltway
> Democrats who far too often have caved in to pressure from the neo-con
right
> wing extremists led by the PNAC puppet George ("**** the U.N., ****
Europe,
> **** the entire planet - except for my crony buddies in the energy (Ken
Lay
> and Dick Cheney) and drug, and HMO industries) W. Bush. Unlike Bush, JFK
> was beloved by the peoples of the United States, Canada, Central America,
> South America, Europe, Ireland, Great Britain, Asia, and even the Russian
> people, who all wept en masse when he was assassinated. And unlike Bush,
> when he traveled around the world, he was greeted with adulation, not
angry
> protests. Why? Because he understood, as Churchill did, that living in a
> world without allies was far worse than living in a world with an
occasional
> poor ally. He understood the power and importance of intelligent yet
> powerful and convincing negotiation to achieve peaceful resolution to
> conflict. Bush has never begun to learn any of this.
>
> JFK's enemies were the military industrial complex (because he signed a
memo
> outlining his plan to withdraw all Vietnam advisers by 1965), the CIA
which
> deceived him into allowing the Bay of Pigs invasion, and who also deceived
> the anti-Castro Cubans into believing that Kennedy had first promised U.S.
> air support for an invasion of Cuba and then reneged on it -all of which
> was a big lie - (the CIA, of which Dubya's daddy was a member, hated him
> because he signed a memo intending to dismantle the entire CIA as a result
> of its misadventures and violations of its charter, and put them under the
> control of the Pentagon), Lyndon Johnson and his criminal Texan cronies,
the
> Italian Mafia, who cooperated with the CIA in numerous attempts to kill
> Castro, and who hated his brother Bobby, who, as attorney general was
> prosecuting their leaders, and ultimately, the "Black Ops", the Secret
> Service and the Johnson/Texas utterly corrupt political machine, including
> the Dallas police force. These were the elements which coalesced on
> November 22, 40 years ago, to murder in cold blood, the prince of
"Camelot".
> Oswald, Castro, and Kruschev had absolutely nothing to do with the
> assassination. If you believe otherwise, you just haven't been paying
> attention to anything for the past 40 years. Or you're just so young,
> impressionable, and stupid, to believe all the talk radio crapola
> disseminated by ClearChannel, and the vile lies and corrupt propoganda
> disseminated by Murdoch (FOX), and its wannabes, MSNBC (Time Warner) and
CNN
> (GE).

CNN a wannabe Fox, diseminating lies and corrupt ptopoganda?


>
> Politics in America has gone down the toilet ever since. Howard Dean is
the
> best and only answer we have in today's world, with the mess Dubya has
made
> of absolutely everything under the sun. That's why he's winning now, and
> that's why he's going to win the Nomination next June, and that's why he's
> going to be President from January, 2005 through January, 2013. Learn to
> live with it.
>
> A new day has come. Become part of the solution and become relevant, or
> remain part of the problem, and remain irrelevant.
>


Have you ever noticed that radical libs have a hard time
saying anything in just a sentence or two?






----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[George M. Middius]

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

> CNN a wannabe Fox, diseminating lies and corrupt ptopoganda?

As a matter of fact, there was a brief period when CNN exalted that
band of wackos who call themselves "Operation Rescue". Did you ever
figure out what the civil in civil disobedience means, BTW?

[George M. Middius]

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

> Have you ever noticed that radical libs have a hard time
> saying anything in just a sentence or two?

Nope.

[tor 2 u]

Arny Krueger wrote in message >:

> "Sandman" > wrote in message
>
> >
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/35_kennedy/psources/ps_nyliberal.htm
> > l
> >
> > JFK's Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
> > September 14, 1960:
>
>
> This poor, demented senior citizen is supposed to have some friends around
> here. When will they help him understand that this is rec.audio.opinion, not
> rec.poliitcial.opinion?

Arny, what is "poliitcial"? I hope it is a kind of sausage, or a firehose
anyway.




Arny is My Kroo-Daddy

[tor b]

tor 2 u > wrote in message >...
> Arny Krueger wrote in message >:
>
> > "Sandman" > wrote in message
> >
> > >
> http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/35_kennedy/psources/ps_nyliberal.htm
> > > l
> > >
> > > JFK's Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
> > > September 14, 1960:
> >
> >
> > This poor, demented senior citizen is supposed to have some friends around
> > here. When will they help him understand that this is rec.audio.opinion, not
> > rec.poliitcial.opinion?
>
> Arny, what is "poliitcial"? I hope it is a kind of sausage, or a firehose
> anyway.
>
>
>
>
> Arny is My Kroo-Daddy

http://tinyurl.com/w619

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
>
> > Have you ever noticed that radical libs have a hard time
> > saying anything in just a sentence or two?
>
> Nope.

"at least" you are not one of them.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[George M. Middius]

Sockpuppet Yustabe said:

> > > Have you ever noticed that radical libs have a hard time
> > > saying anything in just a sentence or two?
> >
> > Nope.
>
> "at least" you are not one of them.

Still wasting words, I see.

[Sockpuppet Yustabe]

"George M. Middius" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Sockpuppet Yustabe said:
>
> > > > Have you ever noticed that radical libs have a hard time
> > > > saying anything in just a sentence or two?
> > >
> > > Nope.
> >
> > "at least" you are not one of them.
>
> Still wasting words, I see.
>


not too many.




----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

[Marc Phillips]

Richard Malesweski said:

>tor 2 u > wrote in message
>...
>> Arny Krueger wrote in message >:
>>
>> > "Sandman" > wrote in message
>> >
>> > >
>>
>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/presidents/35_kennedy/psources/ps_nyliberal.htm
>> > > l
>> > >
>> > > JFK's Acceptance of the New York Liberal Party Nomination
>> > > September 14, 1960:
>> >
>> >
>> > This poor, demented senior citizen is supposed to have some friends
>around
>> > here. When will they help him understand that this is rec.audio.opinion,
>not
>> > rec.poliitcial.opinion?
>>
>> Arny, what is "poliitcial"? I hope it is a kind of sausage, or a firehose
>> anyway.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Arny is My Kroo-Daddy
>
>http://tinyurl.com/w619

Actually, you're wrong this time. Give me your name and address, and I'll send
you the real name in the mail. Or in person.

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

>
> Actually, you're wrong this time. Give me your name and address, and
> I'll send you the real name in the mail. Or in person.
>

You won't deliver, Philips. Here, let me prove it. You already have my real
name and address. So if the information in question isn't in my in-box in
short order, Marc Phillips has again been proven to be a liar.

[dave weil]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 09:59:49 -0500, "Arny Krueger" >
wrote:

>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

>>
>> Actually, you're wrong this time. Give me your name and address, and
>> I'll send you the real name in the mail. Or in person.
>>
>
>You won't deliver, Philips. Here, let me prove it. You already have my real
>name and address. So if the information in question isn't in my in-box in
>short order, Marc Phillips has again been proven to be a liar.

Untrue, since "you" doesn't refer to Arnold Krueger.

You lose.

Again.

[George M. Middius]

dave weil said:

> >> Actually, you're wrong this time. Give me your name and address, and
> >> I'll send you the real name in the mail. Or in person.

> >You won't deliver, Philips. Here, let me prove it. You already have my real
> >name and address. So if the information in question isn't in my in-box in
> >short order, Marc Phillips has again been proven to be a liar.
>
> Untrue, since "you" doesn't refer to Arnold Krueger.

Or maybe Mr. **** has just confessed to being the animator of RAO's
nastiest, most vicious anonyrodent.

How about this, Marc: If Turdy provides proof that he and the "tor"
creature are one and the same, then will you give the information in
question to Krooger?


> You lose.
> Again.

Well, that's a given. What's your point? ;-)

[dave weil]

On Tue, 25 Nov 2003 10:39:06 -0500, George M. Middius
> wrote:

>
>
>dave weil said:
>
>> >> Actually, you're wrong this time. Give me your name and address, and
>> >> I'll send you the real name in the mail. Or in person.
>
>> >You won't deliver, Philips. Here, let me prove it. You already have my real
>> >name and address. So if the information in question isn't in my in-box in
>> >short order, Marc Phillips has again been proven to be a liar.
>>
>> Untrue, since "you" doesn't refer to Arnold Krueger.
>
>Or maybe Mr. **** has just confessed to being the animator of RAO's
>nastiest, most vicious anonyrodent.

You know, I think you're right.

He *has* confessed.

Surprising, isn't it?

>How about this, Marc: If Turdy provides proof that he and the "tor"
>creature are one and the same, then will you give the information in
>question to Krooger?
>
>
>> You lose.
>> Again.
>
>Well, that's a given. What's your point? ;-)

Just stating the obvious, I guess...

[Michael Mckelvy]

"Sandman" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Michael Mckelvy" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > The kind of liberal JFK was compared to the kind of liberals that now
make
> > up the Democrat Party are like apples and oranges. They have nothing in
> > common.
>
> Total Limbaugh brainwashed bull****. I am and always have been, since
1960
> a JFK "liberal", and proud of it.

Then you must despise the current democrat party.

> Yet you imagine me to be in your fetid twisted imagination, some
> lefty-pink-commie, simply because I have consistently opposed a war in
Iraq
> that JFK would *never* have gotten us into.
>
No, I figure you to be a left wing wacko, because you say things that left
wing wacko's say.


> > JFK was a fervent anti-communist, so much so in fact that he said he
would
> > have voted for Nixon if had not won the democrat nomination for
president.
>
> Half true, half false.

My statement was all true.

As president, he inherited the most dangerous
> position in American history (far more dangerous than Al Queda) - at the
> helm of an America engulfed in the nuclear arms race/"cold war" with a
bully
> named Nikita Kruschev attempting to intimidate him. Yet after the Cuban
> Missile Crisis, and his Berlin Wall speech, he succeeded in gaining not
only
> Kruschev's respect but also initiated the original "dentente" with
Kruschev
> by having Kruschev sign the first nuclear test-ban treaty. All in a few
> short years.
>

So what? They violated every time they felt like it.

> Nixon was the antithesis of everything Kennedy stood for.

Read Chris Matthews bio of Kennedy, he's the source for the statement on
Nixon.

"Detente", by the
> way, was just a word Kissinger stole from Kennedy, to describe what he was
> trying to do with Breznev, none of which Nixon ever understood. Nixon,
when
> it came to Russia and China, was nothing more than a political
opportunist,
> attempting to divert attention from his criminal involvement in Watergate.
>

An opinion you get to have.

> > Today, a liberal democrat is essentially a communist.
>
> Clearly you've od'd on your pabulum of Rush Limbaugh today. Oh, that's
> right, Rush doesn't realize the Soviet Union collapsed well over a decade
> ago either -

But the communist party didn't collapse, they still are behind many of the
protest groups.

he's been too spaced out for the past 15 years on illegally
> traded illicit drugs.

Um, the drug problem is only 2 years old. Even highly medicated, he's more
lucid than any of your leftist ilk.

The Senator Joe McCarthy bit hasn't flown for many
> decades. Apprently you've been asleep for over 45 years, Bugeater
> (probably long before you were born).
>
I'm 54. The current Democrat party has moved so far to the left that they
are losing nearly everything they go after.
The next election will be a massive Bush victory, unless some 3rd party gets
in the way.

[Michael Mckelvy]

"Sockpuppet Yustabe" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Sandman" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Addendum:
> >
> > The reason I am working at meetups and tabling functions and
contributing
> > money to the Howard Dean campaign (and will be attending the California
> > primary) is the same reason I worked for and contributed to the Robert
F.
> > Kennedy campaign in 1968. Dean is the only political candidate on the
> > political horizon since MLK's and RFK's tragic assassinations in 1968
> that
> > carries on the JFK legacy.
>
> Dukakis?
> McGovern?
> Tsongas?
> Not even Ted Kennedy????
>
> > By saying he represents the "Democratic wing of
> > the Democratic Party" he distinguishes himself from the spineless
Beltway
> > Democrats who far too often have caved in to pressure from the neo-con
> right
> > wing extremists led by the PNAC puppet George ("**** the U.N., ****
> Europe,
> > **** the entire planet - except for my crony buddies in the energy (Ken
> Lay
> > and Dick Cheney) and drug, and HMO industries) W. Bush. Unlike Bush,
JFK
> > was beloved by the peoples of the United States, Canada, Central
America,
> > South America, Europe, Ireland, Great Britain, Asia, and even the
Russian
> > people, who all wept en masse when he was assassinated. And unlike
Bush,
> > when he traveled around the world, he was greeted with adulation, not
> angry
> > protests. Why? Because he understood, as Churchill did, that living in
a
> > world without allies was far worse than living in a world with an
> occasional
> > poor ally. He understood the power and importance of intelligent yet
> > powerful and convincing negotiation to achieve peaceful resolution to
> > conflict. Bush has never begun to learn any of this.
> >
> > JFK's enemies were the military industrial complex (because he signed a
> memo
> > outlining his plan to withdraw all Vietnam advisers by 1965), the CIA
> which
> > deceived him into allowing the Bay of Pigs invasion, and who also
deceived
> > the anti-Castro Cubans into believing that Kennedy had first promised
U.S.
> > air support for an invasion of Cuba and then reneged on it -all of
which
> > was a big lie - (the CIA, of which Dubya's daddy was a member, hated him
> > because he signed a memo intending to dismantle the entire CIA as a
result
> > of its misadventures and violations of its charter, and put them under
the
> > control of the Pentagon), Lyndon Johnson and his criminal Texan cronies,
> the
> > Italian Mafia, who cooperated with the CIA in numerous attempts to kill
> > Castro, and who hated his brother Bobby, who, as attorney general was
> > prosecuting their leaders, and ultimately, the "Black Ops", the Secret
> > Service and the Johnson/Texas utterly corrupt political machine,
including
> > the Dallas police force. These were the elements which coalesced on
> > November 22, 40 years ago, to murder in cold blood, the prince of
> "Camelot".
> > Oswald, Castro, and Kruschev had absolutely nothing to do with the
> > assassination. If you believe otherwise, you just haven't been paying
> > attention to anything for the past 40 years. Or you're just so young,
> > impressionable, and stupid, to believe all the talk radio crapola
> > disseminated by ClearChannel, and the vile lies and corrupt propoganda
> > disseminated by Murdoch (FOX), and its wannabes, MSNBC (Time Warner) and
> CNN
> > (GE).
>
> CNN a wannabe Fox, diseminating lies and corrupt ptopoganda?
>
>
> >
> > Politics in America has gone down the toilet ever since. Howard Dean is
> the
> > best and only answer we have in today's world, with the mess Dubya has
> made
> > of absolutely everything under the sun. That's why he's winning now,
and
> > that's why he's going to win the Nomination next June, and that's why
he's
> > going to be President from January, 2005 through January, 2013. Learn
to
> > live with it.
> >
> > A new day has come. Become part of the solution and become relevant, or
> > remain part of the problem, and remain irrelevant.
> >
>
>
> Have you ever noticed that radical libs have a hard time
> saying anything in just a sentence or two?
>
Mostly they have a hard time saying anything meaningful and have no grasp of
political reality.


>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeed.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeed.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= 19 East/West-Coast Specialized Servers - Total Privacy via Encryption
=---

[Marc Phillips]

Arny said:

>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message

>>
>> Actually, you're wrong this time. Give me your name and address, and
>> I'll send you the real name in the mail. Or in person.
>>
>
>You won't deliver, Philips. Here, let me prove it. You already have my real
>name and address. So if the information in question isn't in my in-box in
>short order, Marc Phillips has again been proven to be a liar.

Who the **** is talking to you?

Oh, I get it. You're admitting you run the "tor b" sockpuppet."

Boon

[Arny Krueger]

"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
> Arny said:
>
> >"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>
> >>
> >> Actually, you're wrong this time. Give me your name and address, and
> >> I'll send you the real name in the mail. Or in person.
> >>
> >
> >You won't deliver, Philips. Here, let me prove it. You already have my
real
> >name and address. So if the information in question isn't in my in-box in
> >short order, Marc Phillips has again been proven to be a liar.
>
> Who the **** is talking to you?

You.

> Oh, I get it. You're admitting you run the "tor b" sockpuppet."

No, I'm letting you play out more rope for your own hanging.

[Marc Phillips]

Arny said:

>"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
...
>> Arny said:
>>
>> >"Marc Phillips" > wrote in message
>>
>> >>
>> >> Actually, you're wrong this time. Give me your name and address, and
>> >> I'll send you the real name in the mail. Or in person.
>> >>
>> >
>> >You won't deliver, Philips. Here, let me prove it. You already have my
>real
>> >name and address. So if the information in question isn't in my in-box in
>> >short order, Marc Phillips has again been proven to be a liar.
>>
>> Who the **** is talking to you?
>
>You.

No, I'm not.

>
>> Oh, I get it. You're admitting you run the "tor b" sockpuppet."
>
>No, I'm letting you play out more rope for your own hanging.

Except that once again, your poor reading comprehension has tripped you up, and
you have no idea what we're talking about.

What else is new.

Boon