Just Some Things to Think On...
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
Another son of Massachusetts who went on to be the leader of the free world. President John F. Kennedy was both inspiring and forward thinking. His vision to put a man on the moon before 1970 motivated a nation to move science and technology beyond what was perhaps considered possible or even necessary at the time. Individuals like JFK challenge the norm, push to achieve new goals and heights for mankind (humankind for the PC sensitive), and challenge us all to move forward and acheive our highest potential as human beings.
JFK on religious freedom and the separation of church and state. His remarks begin at approximately the 2 minute and 30 second mark.
Perhaps the rEpublican party, especially the socon religious right should listen to and learn from words and example of JFK, a devout Roman Catholic.
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
Another son of Massachusetts who went on to be the leader of the free world. President John F. Kennedy was both inspiring and forward thinking. His vision to put a man on the moon before 1970 motivated a nation to move science and technology beyond what was perhaps considered possible or even necessary at the time. Individuals like JFK challenge the norm, push to achieve new goals and heights for mankind (humankind for the PC sensitive), and challenge us all to move forward and acheive our highest potential as human beings.
JFK on religious freedom and the separation of church and state. His remarks begin at approximately the 2 minute and 30 second mark.
Perhaps the rEpublican party, especially the socon religious right should listen to and learn from words and example of JFK, a devout Roman Catholic.
The problem of course is that morons like Bill O'Reilly who think that the Founding Fathers were some sort of Jesus freaks are so far beyond convincible that even somebody like JFK probably couldn't convince them.
ReplyDeleteLes,
ReplyDeleteMy friend, if you wish to use an example of Christianity, JFK is hardly your go-to. (Just a passing observation...)
Luckily we have the Democrat Party to keep Jesus and all that nonsense out of the public forum!
Some of the reasons, even with his short time in office, Americans consider him one of our great presidents.
ReplyDeleteIt's unfortunate that the Democratic Party is the only obstacle to a backwards, simplistically dogmatic, theocratic Right in America today. There was a time, not that long ago, when GOP politicians could afford to sound intelligent. Few can these days.
ReplyDeleteJMJ
DB,Jr.: "My friend, if you wish to use an example of Christianity, JFK is hardly your go-to."
ReplyDeleteAccording to Christianity's Jesus, the two greatest Commandments are: "Thou shalt love the Lord thy God with thy whole heart, and with thy whole soul, and with thy whole mind, and with thy whole strength;
Thou shalt love thy neighbor as thyself."
If Mr. DB,Jr, believes HE'S a better judge than Jesus of what a good Christian is, he should inform the rest of the Christian world, and not just the people here.
Some people need to practice a tad bit of humility before they make pronouncements on who is or isn't an example of Christianity. I think Jesus also said "Judge not, that ye be not judged."
I've visited a number of rightwing blogs where the blog host or hostess pronounce with great self-importance who should be considered a "Real Christian" or a "Good Christian."
Truly arrogant.
Shaw,
DeleteYour infantile talking-point response to my comments is laughable. I willingly adhere to the words of my Jesus and will open myself to being judged as I judge. You see, I never committed adultery on my covenant bride. JFK did. So judge away on this premise, if you can.
Besides, when you speak of Jesus it really is grotesque. Your knowledge of The Scriptures is convenient only when you wish it to be. Laughable.
I do judge JFK. The Scriptures also teach that the spiritual man judges all things. Didn't know that one, did you? Checkmate. Don't seek to argue theology with me, Shaw. You are out of your league. Arrogance is someone who despises Jesus that in turn seeks to tell the rest of us what He did and didn't say for the sake of politics. Tedious.
Les, I have no intention of turning this thread into a pissing contest with the resident Jesus-hater, Shaw Kenawe. Your post was on JFK being a devout Catholic and having a solid stance on the separation of church and state, which I actually agree with. As you can plainly see, Shaw decided to bring the fight to me, however misguided and juvenile it is, and I have responded accordingly. I'd like to keep this thread on topic.
Donald: On another blogd, Shaw argued that it was the generosity of the Christmas spirit that means we should give (against our will) millions of dollars worth of luxury vacation to a President who is already a multi-millionaire.
DeleteWelfare for the rich. Please give generously this Christmas, won't you? And since it is taxpayer funded, you have to give, or we will shoot you.
Too bad the Democrat party has abandoned Kennedy's principles. He would not be welcome in today's angry, hidebound, statist, doctrinaire and dictating Democrat party.
ReplyDelete"hidebound"? That's a new one on me.
Delete"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."
DeleteJFK
JFK would be a Democrat today. Anyone who spoke the above words would never be accepted in today's Republican party. It was the same over fifty years ago when he said this.
How so? Liberals/Democrats oppose bold, positive new ideas if it turns out that they will inconvenience their allied special interests. They care about the lavish lifestyles of the ruling elites at the expense of the welfare of the people. They believe in making school staff rich at the expense of actual education. Health? Since Obamacare was passed, healthcare costs have soared. Obamacare contains specific provisions to force costs to rise and to discourage doctors from seeing patients. As for "their housing", their policies are catastrophic: the economic collapse and housing collapse was a direct result of their policies, and they resisted efforts to prevent it. They oppose civil rights and believe it is important for government institutions to treat people differently due to their skin color (blatant racism from the party that supported slavery) The above words you mention are much more acceptable in the Republicans than Democrats, whether or not it was true 50 years ago.
DeleteTypical BS from Dmarks, the BS king of blogland
DeleteAnon, I get your point, although if one thinks deeply enough one can see that dmarks makes some valid observations that certainly carry some truth. Not all liberals/progressives/democrats fall into the categories as described, some however do.
DeleteName one thing that I said that was BS, Anon. One thing.
DeleteRN: I feel quite strongly about the schools one. Time and again, I see liberals oppose, in reactionary "new idea? I hate it!" fashion, any meaningful idea to improve education. They are quite beholden and allied to organizations such as the NEA, which consistently blocks education reform, opposes firing bad teachers, and favors draining money out of the education system for people's personal gain, no matter what the cost to the system and how it makes class sizes balloon. Time and again, there have been teachers caught sexually assaulting students in my area, and guess who goes to bat for them? The NEA, which tries to keep them in the classroom. In a Michigan referrendum, they pushed to vote in a change to the constitution, which, among other things, ensured the rights of teachers to teach kids while drunk. It is hard to think of a way in which the liberal agenda cares for the "welfare" or "our schools".
DeleteTheir ideology is also quite bizarre and hypocritical. For example. they respect and support extensive food stamps, by which people can choose the best food from private vendors based on their informed choices. But they completely oppose such solutions to education.
SF: "He would not be welcome in today's angry, hidebound, statist, doctrinaire and dictating Democrat party."
ReplyDeleteFunny. You've perfectly described the extremist Teapublican Party as it is today. It is amazing how projection works.
Angry? See Chris Christie's harangue during the GOP convention. Statist? Take a look at what GOP state governments tried to impose on women and voters in their states. See also Gov. Jan Brewer and "Show Me Your Papers" laws. Doctrinaire? Who are the the politicians who made a solemn OATH to not raise taxes to someone who was never elected to represent anyone? Dicatating? Yeah. That's what people who lose elections say about the winners who were given a mandate by the American people. Sticking those labels on the Democrats assuages your feelings, I'm sure. The problem is you fail to see that the GOP is the party that practices what you describe.
DB,Jr., you're a perfect example of an angry, mean-spirited conservative. Your over-the-top reaction to my quoting Jesus's words is there for all to see. I suggest you take two aspirins and read your own Holy Book for examples of Christian charity.
You obviously don't have any.
Reply
Shaw,
DeleteBut I do have Christian charity: I'm letting you speak to me, aren't I?
Boom.
Have the last word. You liberal chicks need it.
Don, not really cool if you know what I mean. Adds nothing to the discussion or for the point you are trying to make, IMNHO anyway.
DeleteLes,
DeleteShaw started it. I finished it. I fail to see the problem. I sought to stay on thread topic, but she wouldn't let it go. Yet you would defend her. I'm slightly confused. But *shrugs* your blog, your rules. No worries on my end.
Not defending anyone or anything by my comment. Simply making what I believe to be reasoned comment.
DeleteIn my opinion, JFK, Truman, Ike, and Rockefeller would probably ALL be independents today.
DeleteShaw said: "Funny. You've perfectly described the extremist Teapublican Party as it is today. It is amazing how projection works. "
DeleteIt's quite mainstream, really. There's nothing extremist or radical about the Tea Party idea, for example, that Obama's plan to increase the national debt by $20 trillion over the next decade is irresponsible... and that we should scale that back some. We can thank the Tea Party for what little sanity we have in Washington. And for ending the madness of Obama's drunken spree of corporate welfare, and by ending the policies of Obama's first couple of years... resulting in the recovery (even if weak) we have now.
"Doctrinaire? Who are the the politicians who made a solemn OATH to not raise taxes to someone who was never elected to represent anyone? "
There's nothing wrong with taking an oath not to destroy livelihoods, not to cause a new/worse recession, not to significantly increase unemployment and offshoring, and not to ruin the economy by stealing even more from the American public, especially when the Federal government is receiving near record tax revenues. In fact, it is only the responsible thing to do. Far more responsible than the Democrat's solution, which is nothing but more greed.
Take an oath not to engage in very unsound destructive policies is not doctrinaire. It is pure pragmatism.
"Yeah. That's what people who lose elections say about the winners who were given a mandate by the American people."
DeleteWinning a 50-50 election is not a mandate. You are lying if you claim so.
Bush claimed a mandate after the 2000 election
DeleteThis election was not 50/50, except in your twisted world of facts and figures
Bush was wrong to claim a mandate too.
DeleteLying? Really. dmarks, you really need to break out of your partisan bubble and live in the real world.
ReplyDeleteMr. Obama is only the FOURTH president since FDR to have won a majority of the popular vote in both of his elections. This last one:
a"Since the November 6 election Obama’s initial 50 to 48 percent popular vote margin has only grown larger.
With more votes from western blue states and provisional ballots (which overwhelmingly favored the president) being counted, Obama now leads Romney 51 to 47 percent.
[That is NOT 50-50 except in some math-challenged mind.]
The 47 percent number will likely haunt Romney for years, since it was the Republican nominee’s candid remarks about 47 percent of Americans being unwilling to “take responsibility” for their lives that may have irrevocably damaged his campaign.
Obama has seen his leads increase in crucial swing states as well.
NBC News reports that “the president’s lead has grown to close to 3 points in Ohio, 4 points in Virginia and 6 points in Colorado. One doesn’t win Colorado by six points without winning swing voters; there isn’t a big-enough Democratic base to make that argument.”
According to NBC, Obama’s 2012 victory was a “bigger (and more decisive) margin that Bush’s victory over John Kerry in 2004 (which was Bush 50.7 percent and Kerry 48.2 percent).”
President Obama now ranks ninth all time among candidates for president in electoral-vote averages since 1896. However, he has received the two highest vote totals of any presidential candidate ever."
Mr. Obama won a decisive popular vote victory and a LANDSLIDE in the electoral college.
You, dmarks, would be the one who has a problem with the truth to believe otherwise.
That small margin is no kind of mandate, honestly. Obama won the election, the same way his predecessors did. Which gives him the right to continue as President.
ReplyDeleteBut anyone who conjures a mandate out of a 50-50 margin is suffering from hubris. People who do this sort of thing end up getting defeated badly in mind-term elections.
"That is NOT 50-50 except in some math-challenged mind."
The math challenged mind is yours. It is common practice to round such numbers to the nearest 5% in discussions. It is a very small margin. Not a landslide, not a mandate. But feel free to imagine that there is one, but don't be surprised at the results.
"Mr. Obama won a decisive popular vote victory and a LANDSLIDE in the electoral college."
Are you seriously making a case that an electoral landslide is any sort of mandate? You are really clutching at straws to claim that Obams's very narrow victory is anything but a very narrow victory.
"dmarks, you really need to break out of your partisan bubble and live in the real world"
This is not the real world you are speaking of, for sure. I completely lack the partisanship that you have. When I look at whether or not a winner has a mandate, I don't care which party they are in.
By the way, glad you brought up Romney's major "47%" gaffe. If he had not made it, there's a good chance he would have won election. And then all the bogus rhetoric that Obama won on ideas evaporates. And, of course, Republicans would be the ones making an unsupported claim of mandate based on a narrow Romney victory. Same as the Dems do now.
One must step outside of one's partisan bubble to see that fact.