[quote]playmaker08 wrote:
derek wrote:
“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”
?John F. Kennedy
At the end of the quote add “as long as its not me doing the work”
[/quote]
What, exactly, does that mean?
[quote]harris447 wrote:
playmaker08 wrote:
derek wrote:
“Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.”
?John F. Kennedy
At the end of the quote add “as long as its not me doing the work”
What, exactly, does that mean? [/quote]
Yeah, good question.
You aren’t suggesting that JFK was insulated from the hell of battle are you? If so, a PT boat and a coconut shell come to mind.
And if NOT please explain.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
rainjack wrote:
When you are paying closer attention to getting a check from MoveOn.org, NOW, NAMBLA,
If the Democrats have accepted a check from NAMBLA, I’ll eat my shirt. Are the Republicans now accepting campaign contributions from the KKK?[/quote]
I don’t know - but according to the greatest mind in the history of modern man - Kayne West - Bush is a racist that hates black people. So you never know.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
rainjack wrote:
When you are paying closer attention to getting a check from MoveOn.org, NOW, NAMBLA,
If the Democrats have accepted a check from NAMBLA, I’ll eat my shirt. Are the Republicans now accepting campaign contributions from the KKK?
I don’t know - but according to the greatest mind in the history of modern man - Kayne West - Bush is a racist that hates black people. So you never know.
[/quote]
haha. I think that was a WTF moment for everyone when Kanye said that. Pretty nuts. Did you see Mike Meyer’s reaction?
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
haha. I think that was a WTF moment for everyone when Kanye said that. Pretty nuts. Did you see Mike Meyer’s reaction?
[/quote]
Even though he’s a Canadian - I think he spoke for America with his WTF double take. My outrage at the idiocy of Kayne West not withstanding - I had to first laugh, and then feel sorry for poor 'ol Mikey.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
He fucked up Bay of Pigs and knew it. He should have either pulled the plug on the operation or committed the support originally planned. He learned his lesson and became tougher.[/quote]
Well, hindsight is 20/20, isn’t it? Who are you going to complain about next, FDR?
Honestly, I’m tired of people complaining that he screwed up Bay of Pigs, and then defending, say, the current administrations’ actions. If you have standards high enough to say that JFK could have done a better job in that situation – especially in the political context of that time – I would expect you to have the same high standards in regards to the US’ current situation. Which you’ve clearly shown you do not…
I’m not saying JFK was perfect. He was a very flawed man, coming from a very flawed family, who has been very well known in MA for several decades before his presidency for all the wrong reasons. I’m saying that if you expect an omniscient leader, you should expect it always – not just when it so happens it’s a Democrat.
And he did change – but he didn’t become “tougher”, he became more careful and more intelligent. Which means less reckless and more aware of the surroundings.
[quote]hspder wrote:
I’m not saying JFK was perfect. He was a very flawed man, coming from a very flawed family, who has been very well known in MA for several decades before his presidency for all the wrong reasons. I’m saying that if you expect an omniscient leader, you should expect it always – not just when it so happens it’s a Democrat.
[/quote]
I really think that the door swings both ways on what you said above.
I wasn’t around then - but did JFK get crucified in the press after he bungled the Bay of Pigs? Granted, the news cycle is much, much shorter now, but wasn’t judgement on JFK - or FDR for that medtter - reserved for more of an after action review of their performance? Especially FDR and our entry into WWII?
It seems that the ones exercising the double standard are those that oppose the current President.
I try to make it a point to never agree with a liberal - unless they agree with me first - but I really liked what Ed Koch had to say about the NYT’s treatment of Bush as of late.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
It seems that the ones exercising the double standard are those that oppose the current President. [/quote]
Not at all. FDR and JFK deserved the benefit of the doubt because they proved again and again that not only they were extremely intelligent men, they proved they were to the American people by being flexible and learning with experience – and by listening to their advisors, and to the American people.
Even though they did not admit they were wrong, they showed they realized they were, by their actions – and tried to fix whatever they could.
Also, in the end, the results spoke for themselves. FDR helped build the US as a Superpower – in fact, he was instrumental in that – and JFK managed, even though with plenty of hiccups – to avert a global conflict.
Basically, I tolerate mistakes in general if a) They learn the lesson, try to fix it, and do better next time and b) They listen to the American People, their boss. Both are the earmarks of a great leader. FDR and JFK did both, GWB does neither.
GWB had the benefit of the doubt for a long time. However, contrary to FDR and JFK, not only he is known for not listening to anyone and being extremely stubborn, his results are passable. In fact, the only reason we’re not in a full-blown recession is that the Economy has become pretty much independent of the President’s action or inaction, and a President has to really try very hard to screw it up.
Of course, GWB still has 3 years to prove that you can still screw it up if you really mean to, like if his absurd and fundamentally immoral recommendations for changes in the tax code get through somehow – and completely destroy the US’ economy.
But that’s another thread…
[quote]rainjack wrote:
hspder wrote:
I’m not saying JFK was perfect. He was a very flawed man, coming from a very flawed family, who has been very well known in MA for several decades before his presidency for all the wrong reasons. I’m saying that if you expect an omniscient leader, you should expect it always – not just when it so happens it’s a Democrat.
I really think that the door swings both ways on what you said above.
I wasn’t around then - but did JFK get crucified in the press after he bungled the Bay of Pigs? Granted, the news cycle is much, much shorter now, but wasn’t judgement on JFK - or FDR for that medtter - reserved for more of an after action review of their performance? Especially FDR and our entry into WWII?
It seems that the ones exercising the double standard are those that oppose the current President.
I try to make it a point to never agree with a liberal - unless they agree with me first - but I really liked what Ed Koch had to say about the NYT’s treatment of Bush as of late.
[/quote]
Most of it has to do with the difference in the media. We have an adversarial media today that determines it has the right to notify the public of presidential and congressional mistfailing. Much of this was ushered in by Watergate. Pre-watergate media was deferential and didn’t seek to expose faults. They participated in a glorification of the president. Roosevelt wasn’t even photographed in his wheelchair because they didn’t want to destroy the image of the presidency. I think we have a better system today.
Our previous system was based on naivete and the notion that we could trust our government implicitly. Various actions on the part of both parties have proved to us that this is not true. It is right that leadership is more accountable to the public today both for accomplishments and failings. We have the right to know every damn generalty relating to actions our government undertakes and professed reasons for undertakings.
The only thing we shouldn’t be informed of are specifics, disclousue of which would threaten national security and/or the very success of the operations themselves.
[quote]rainjack wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
rainjack wrote:
When you are paying closer attention to getting a check from MoveOn.org, NOW, NAMBLA,
If the Democrats have accepted a check from NAMBLA, I’ll eat my shirt. Are the Republicans now accepting campaign contributions from the KKK?
I don’t know - but according to the greatest mind in the history of modern man - Kayne West - Bush is a racist that hates black people. So you never know.
[/quote]
Huh?
That is the worst logical fallacy I have come across.
[quote]hspder wrote:
rainjack wrote:
It seems that the ones exercising the double standard are those that oppose the current President.
Not at all. FDR and JFK deserved the benefit of the doubt because they proved again and again that not only they were extremely intelligent men, they proved they were to the American people by being flexible and learning with experience – and by listening to their advisors, and to the American people.
[/quote]
No, they didn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt nymore than Bush does. And if there presidents were today, they would be every bit as under the microscope. The only possible difference is that so examined their actions might well still show to be more well-thought out and more in keeping with the desires of the American people. Rather than fulfilling their own desires and subtly subverting facts and using the bully pulpit to bring the American people’s desires into accordance with a predetermined agenda.
Personally, I don’t consider JFK a great leader. I do consider FDR a great leader.
I know of at least one “liberal” who “on here” has said…
Scrap income tax, go with some type of consumption tax.
Any gun controls instituted should be burden on criminals and not the law abiding.
Pulling out of Iraq hastily is not the right thing to do.
I think the issue of real world democratic problems centers around a lack of defined party platform and leadership. You don’t have the liberals with all their ducks in a row.
It seems that conservatives are more likely to form a coherent front and assume the other side is some type of coherent front.
I think most “liberal” people have a few hot button topics but float around on other issues. I don’t have a lot of insight into conservative minded people to compare though.
[quote]hspder wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
He fucked up Bay of Pigs and knew it. He should have either pulled the plug on the operation or committed the support originally planned. He learned his lesson and became tougher.
Well, hindsight is 20/20, isn’t it? Who are you going to complain about next, FDR?
…[/quote]
I wasn’t complaining, I was demonstrating that he wasn’t a dove like the speech posted indicated.
He knew he fucked up big time. He wasn’t making the same mistake again.
His escalation of VietNam was logical. I have no complaints over the way he handled it.
Of course his short administration had a bunch of problems too.
All in all he was a decent president, however I get turned off by the ignorant hero worship that you still hear today.
[quote]vroom wrote:
I know of at least one “liberal” who “on here” has said…
Scrap income tax, go with some type of consumption tax.
Any gun controls instituted should be burden on criminals and not the law abiding.
Pulling out of Iraq hastily is not the right thing to do.
I think the issue of real world democratic problems centers around a lack of defined party platform and leadership. You don’t have the liberals with all their ducks in a row.
It seems that conservatives are more likely to form a coherent front and assume the other side is some type of coherent front.
I think most “liberal” people have a few hot button topics but float around on other issues. I don’t have a lot of insight into conservative minded people to compare though.[/quote]
What do you define as liberal? Those aren’t particularly liberal policies.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
All in all he was a decent president, however I get turned off by the ignorant hero worship that you still hear today.[/quote]
Sure – now tell me: do you believe you are equally objectively critical of GWB?
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
No, they didn’t deserve the benefit of the doubt nymore than Bush does. And if there presidents were today, they would be every bit as under the microscope. The only possible difference is that so examined their actions might well still show to be more well-thought out and more in keeping with the desires of the American people. Rather than fulfilling their own desires and subtly subverting facts and using the bully pulpit to bring the American people’s desires into accordance with a predetermined agenda.
[/quote]
I’m not going to argue with that – you are right.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
What do you define as liberal? Those aren’t particularly liberal policies.
[/quote]
That’s actually a very good question. Honestly, today in the US “liberal” has become a label that is attached to anyone that does not agree with the Republicans… In reality nobody really knows what the word means anymore.
One of the greatest contrasts is between the usage in the United States and usage in Continental Europe. In the US, liberalism is usually contrasted with conservatism, and American liberals support broader tolerance and more readily embrace multiculturalism and positive discrimination. In Europe, on the other hand, liberalism is not only contrasted with conservatism and Christian Democracy, but also with social democracy and socialism.
So, in Europe, I’d personally be a Social-Democrat, while over here people call me a Liberal.
The positions that Vroom quotes are in tune with the European definition of Liberalism, but definitely not with the US one.
Some Americans define liberals as those who support the use of government to promote equality.
The following views are associated with American liberalism, though many people who consider themselves liberal would accept some of these views and reject others:
* Support for government social programs such as welfare, medical care, unemployment benefits, and retirement programs.
* Support for increased funding for public education.
* Support for trade unions, teachers' unions, and government protections for organized labor.
* Regulation of business - OSHA, against child labor, monopolistic practices, etc.
Support for civil rights:
o Support laws against discrimination based on gender, race, age, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.
o Support laws guaranteeing rights of women and minorities, particularly racial and religious minorities, the disabled, and gays.
o Support for such programs as affirmative action and transitional multi-lingual educational programs for children whose first language is not English.
o Support broad voting rights.
Support for reproductive rights
Support for strong environmental regulations.
Support for public transportation.
Support for minimum wage requirements.
Support for government funding to alternative energy research.
Opposition to the death penalty.
Support for animal rights - as an issue of ethical human behavior.
Support for gun control.
Support for a progressive tax system.
European liberalism turned back to more laissez-faire policies in the 1980’s and 1990’s, and, contrary to the US counterparts, supported privatisation and liberalisation in health care, and other public sectors – all of which failed miserably. Even so, modern European liberals still tend to believe in a smaller role for government than would be supported by most social democrats (like myself), let alone socialists or communists.
What is common to both is a belief that economies should be decentralized. In general, contemporary liberals do not believe that the government should directly control any industrial production through state owned enterprises, which places them in opposition to social democrats.
Liberals generally believe in neutral government, in the sense that it is not for the state to determine social values. As John Rawls put it, “The state has no right to determine a particular conception of the good life”. In the United States this neutrality is expressed in the constitutional right to “pursue happiness”.
Therefore Liberals believe the state should have an open mind in ethical questions. Both in Europe as well as in the United States, ‘liberals’ support the ‘pro choice’ movement and advocate equal rights for women and for homosexuals. In Europe liberals were - together with other secular forces - far more succcesful in realizing this goals, despite government cooperation with conservative forces.
All liberal parties are secular, but they differ on the issue of anti-clericalism. Liberal parties in Latin countries today tend to be very anti-clerical.
Economic liberals today stress the importance of a free market and free trade, and seek to limit government intervention in the economy. (Main article: Economic liberalism). However, modern liberal movements often agree in principle with the idea of free trade, but maintain some skepticism, seeing unrestricted trade as leading to the growth of multi-national corporations and the concentration of wealth and power in the hands of the few.
In the post-war consensus on the welfare state in Europe, liberals supported government responsibility for health, education, and alleviating poverty while still besides that insisting upon a market based on independent exchange. Liberals agree that a high quality of health care and education should be available for all citizens, but differ in the degree of the government task in these matters.
Since poverty is a threat to personal liberty, liberalism seeks a balance between individual responsibility of people for their own future and the community responsibility for those who are not able to earn a sufficient income, to give security from the hazards of sickness, unemployment, disability and old age.
For further reading on this, consult the Bibliography at
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
JFK’s actions speak much louder than his words to a university. He was a hawk compared to the leadership of todays Democratic party.
He fucked up Bay of Pigs and knew it. He should have either pulled the plug on the operation or committed the support originally planned. He learned his lesson and became tougher.
He was an staunch anti-communist. He likely did not want an American empire any more than GWB wants one, however when faced with the spread of communism, he resisted it with force.
Before anyone claims that our Iraq and Afghanistan operations are an American Empire you must first explain how helping set up democracies with legitimate elections and constitutions equal to empire building. I am not aware of any empire in history that has been built this way.
I agree with the drunk comment about Teddy. He looks like he hits the bottle all day. [/quote]
I’m sorry to have to say something that has probably been repeated here a million times. But Iraq was invaded for no reason whatsoever. Bush and Cheney lied, we all know this. So why do republicans always bring up something that they should be trying desperatly to have people forget. There are just so many different angles in which the Iraq war was incredibly wrong. And please, someone explain to me how the bush buddies (cheney,rumsfeld, ect) can claim to be spreading democracy by taking out Hussein, when they were the ones who helped him out in the 80s.
Hspdr,
I think that was a very good overview.
One thing that I do find interesting is this:
But then there is this litany of government policies that are doing nothing but trying to determine social values:
[quote] …o Support laws against discrimination based on gender, race, age, religion, sexual orientation, or disability.
o Support laws guaranteeing rights of women and minorities, particularly racial and religious minorities, the disabled, and gays.
o Support for such programs as affirmative action and transitional multi-lingual educational programs for children whose first language is not English…[/quote]
So I think a better, more honest explanation is that liberals really don’t want a neutral government - they want a government that promotes the social values they like. Tolerance and social egalitarianism are values just like anything else, and when the government is used to try and promote these values, it ceases being neutral.
But don’t take that the wrong way - I thought it was a good post.