Smart. Sharp. Funny. Fearless.
Wednesday, August 23, 2017

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label “Liberal?”…[I]f 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.”

— John F. Kennedy, September 14, 1960

On any other day, the ideological grave-robbery undertaken by the claque of right-wingers who insist that the late President Kennedy was a “conservative” would be amusing and not just contemptible. But to hear such nonsense today — on what should be an occasion for reflection and remembrance rather than rebarbative argument – is an irritating distraction. Having lived through the assassination of JFK and grown up in the shadow of that national tragedy, like so many others of my generation, I am reluctant to leave that claim unanswered.

As the historian Robert Dallek noted in his superb biography An Unfinished Life, Kennedy worked hard during the 1960 presidential campaign to prove his liberalism. Owing to his father’s notorious political misconduct as well as aspects of his own record, many liberals and progressives of that era sometimes regarded him with suspicion. It was a different time with different standards — and a very different political spectrum.

To concede that Kennedy was not born a liberal icon, however, shouldn’t be distorted into suggesting that he was “conservative,” either by current standards or those of a half-century ago. Look up his voting record in the House and the Senate, where he supported civil rights, labor rights, federal aid to education, public housing, foreign aid, minimum-wage increases, extended unemployment insurance, Social Security expansion and – with few significant exceptions – the liberal agenda of his day.

Not much there or in his years as president to substantiate the “conservative” misnomer.

Still, you don’t have to believe me, or Dallek, or the JFK Library. Just ask the conservatives themselves. Not the smarmy types now trying to remake Kennedy’s image into their own, but the legendary conservatives who were his contemporaries – and sworn enemies.

Consider how William F Buckley Jr.’s National Review — which despised unionized workers, civil rights marchers, and every other liberal constituency — assessed JFK.  Having berated his “crazy administration” from the beginning, here’s how the leading conservative journal responded to his assassination:

The editors of National Review judged John Fitzgerald Kennedy to be a consummate technician of mass politics. His programs and policies – often chosen, by the evidence, in opportunistic furtherance of technical manipulations – we judged to be, for the most part, dangerous to the nation’s well-being and security, and to the survival of our perilously threatened Western civilization. Neither his death nor the fearful manner of it provides any reason to change these judgments.

Continue reading

Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2013 The National Memo

386 Responses to Was JFK A Conservative — Or A Socialist? Let’s Ask The Right-Wingers Of 1963

  1. In much the same way as the Mormons are posthumously converting Jews and other religious people to being Mormons, today, the Republican party is attempting to posthumously convert JFK to a Tea Partier.

    These contemptible scumbags just don’t have ANY grasp of reality, do they? Their entire dogma seems to have morphed into a cult of lying and denial of fact.

    • TEAlibanners and that party or part of the GOP were born as liars and also make up their own facts. Contemptible indeed. Worse they actually kill more Americans than the Taliban by denying healthcare coverage, promoting poverty, denying jobs, etc.

      • Unfortunately, for many, your last sentence is so very true. It’s America’s red states that lead the nation in murders, auto accidents, infant mortality, firearms mortalities, people living 2 year shorter lives on average than in blue states and in just plain violence. GOP governance ls distructive to people’s lives – unfortunately, millions of Americans can’t see it.

          • Here are the stats :

            § 11 of the 12 states with the highest firearms mortality rates are GOP-RUN STATES.
            § Firearms Mortality rates per 100,000 – 2010


            23 of the 25 states with the highest auto fatality rates are Red States. Here’s a list of the 1st 10:

            Auto Fatalities per One Million Miles Driven – 2010


            Based on 2009 statistics from sources like CDC, FBI, the census bureau for the auto accident rates and several medical websites:

            -11 of the 12 states that have the highest infant
            mortality rates in the nation are GOP-RUN STATES? With Mississippi having the highest infant mortality followed by Louisiana, Alabama, Tennessee, Arkansas, S. Carolina, Delaware, North Carolina, Georgia, Oklahoma, Indiana & Ohio.

            -20 of the 23 states that have more than 15% of their
            population struggling with incomes below the poverty level (the states that need the most welfare assistance) are GOP-RUN STATES. The only Blue States in the top 23 are California, New Mexico, and New York. While for 2013, the 8
            states with the highest average incomes, including the 3 with the highest minimum wage standard, are all Blue States.

            – 15 of the 20 states with the highest average rates of homicide over the past 5 years are GOP-RUN STATES. With Louisiana being by far the murder capital of America followed by Mississippi, New Mexico, Maryland, South Carolina, Alabama, Arizona, Michigan, Missouri, Tennessee, Georgia, Illinois, Arkansas, Oklahoma, N. Carolina, Nevada and Florida.

            -23 of the 25 states in the nation with the highest highway fatality rates are GOP-RUN STATES; with Montana having the most fatalities followed by Louisiana, West Virginia, S. Carolina, Mississippi, Arkansas, Alabama Tennessee, Arizona, Nevada, Alaska, N. Carolina, S. Dakota, Idaho, Wyoming, Oklahoma, Ohio, Florida…

            -19 of the 20 states with the highest firearms mortality rates are GOP-RUN STATES; with Louisiana leading the nation in firearms mortality followed by Wyoming, Alabama, Montana, Mississippi, Arkansas, Nevada, Tennessee, Alaska, New Mexico, Oklahoma, S. Carolina, W. Virginia, Missouri, Arizona, Kentucky, Georgia, Idaho, Florida and N. Carolina

            -9 of the 12 states with 6 or more public servants per 10,000 public employees convicted of corruption are GOP-RUN STATES: led by Louisiana with 10.5, Kentucky – 8.5; S.
            Dakota – 7.5, Delaware – 7.2; Mississippi – 7.1; Alabama – 7.1; Pennsylvania – 7.1; N. Dakota – 6.9; New Jersey; 6.7; Montana – 6.5; Ohio – 6.3 and Tennessee – 6.0.

            -12 of the 15 states that get back the most federal aid for the tax dollars they send to Washington are GOP-RUN STATES; And all 10 that get more than $1.75 back for each $1 they send to Washington in tax revenues are red states. Of the 17 states that get back less tax dollars in federal aid than they send to Washington in tax revenues, ONLY 3 OF THEM ARE GOP RUN STATES. All 10 of the states that get the least federal aid for the taxes they pay (less than .75/$1)
            are BLUE STATES.

            – More than 75% of food stamp recipients live in GOP-RUN STATES. Six of the top 10 food stamp-using states are GOP-RUN states and beyond that the greatest food stamp using states are the sparsely populated red states. And of the 456
            counties in America that use more than 90% of all food stamps, 421 of those counties (92%) voted for Mitt Romney in the 2012 election.

            – the GOP-RUN STATE most Republicans probably look to as a shining light for the GOP, Texas, which is the second largest economy in America behind California, compares very poorly to other states in America. Texas ranks in the bottom 5 in more than 90% of 23 subjective measures when
            compared to other American states! Even though the GOP has had 20 plus years to turn it into something other than a job creation machine, Texas continues to shortchange its residents living standards and exposes them to many hazards; including living in the most polluted environment in America.

            – The five most violent states in the nation are all GOP-run states, led by Tennessee then S. Carolina, Louisiana, Florida and Nevada.

            -Finally, all 15 of the states with the lowest life expectancy in the U.S. are GOP-RUN STATES?? Such that there is a large disparity in longevity between Red States and Blue States: on average, residents of blue states live 2 years longer than residents of red states. To the extreme, the Blue State residents of 9 states with longevity projected to 80 older, live as much as 5-6 years longer than the residents of the 4 shortest-lived GOP-RUN STATES of MS,WV,AL & LA. Follow this: starting with longevity projections for red states of 75 in: Miss., W. Va., Ala. & LA.; to 76 in: Arkansas, Kentucky & Tennessee to 77 in: S. Carolina, Georgia, Missouri, Indiana, Ohio & N. Carolina; while no Blue State has a longevity projection of less than 78, and many Blue states have longevity projected to 80 and over: N.J., N.H., Vermont, N.Y., Mass., Calif., CT, Minn. & Hawaii; Only one red state has longevity projected to 80 Utah (80.2), while 2 Blue States have longevity projections of over 81 –Minn. & Hawaii)

          • Response #1 to @disqus_h3S77rQVC5:disqus

            Someone obviously doesn’t know the proper way to cite a source. A proper citation includes, at a minimum, the name of the article or study, where and when it was published. Failing that you could simply reference the page itself by URL. None of this data is properly sourced, and most of it is not sourced at all. There is no way for me to verify you didn’t just make all this up.

          • I’m not even going to argue with someone who tries to tell me that Louisiana is a Blue State. Not to say that the state hasn’t elected some Democrats here and there but here are 3 Red State/Blue state Maps from the 2004, 2008 and 2012 elections, and LA and is clearly a RED STATE!! And although Florida shows as a blue state in some of these maps – fact is, Florida has had GOP lelgislators and governors for at least 12 straight years – remember Bush, Chrisie and now Seott are all Republicans. And because Missouri and Kentucky now hare a Demorat governor IN NOW WAY MAKES THEM A BLUE STATE!!!

          • Louisiana has quite a history of Democratic governors:

            1972-1980 Edwin Washington Edwards (D)
            1984-1988 Edwin Washington Edwards (D)
            1988-1991 Charles Elson (Buddy) Roemer III (D)
            1992-1996 Edwin Washington Edwards (D)
            2004-2008 Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D)

            I never mentioned Florida, and you have yet to cite sources for your data regarding them. That aside, Florida has had a number of Democratic governors in their recent history as well:

            1971-1979 Reubin Askew (D)
            1979-1987 Bob Graham (D)
            1987-1987 Wayne Mixson (D)
            1991-1998 Lawton Chiles (D)
            1998-1999 Buddy MacKay (D)

            So what specific policy or policies caused the issues which you suppose Florida has, and who’s term were these policies created under? Were they influenced by outside factors not related to the policies themselves? Where is the issue; city, rural, ubiquitous? etc… etc… etc… Voting records for presidential elections are only a small part of a larger puzzle which you seem to be willfully blind to. Even adding in additional information like governors, state and federal legislatures, etc… doesn’t really answer the questions which must be answered to establish the causal relationship you assert. It certainly gives a stronger framework to work from, but it simply is never going to be enough data to draw meaningful conclusions.

            I’ll say this again, and I suggest you research the concept, correlation does not imply causation. Your entire argument is based on a logical fallacy which you have yet to address. This makes it very difficult to take anything you say seriously as you only seem to be willing to build on that fallacy.

          • Wow!! What we have here is a pure GOP lover that’s just dying to prove that his precious Red States aren’t the disaster areas they are…well sorry but no cigar!!
            All I’ve done is taken various statistics and determined which states in the country are leading in many of these nefarious statistics. And then I’ve applied red state vs blue state listingsl that any politically savy person would understand – omitting some states that are on the borderline – FOR EXAMPLE: even though Michigan and Pennsylvania currently have GOP governors, I’ve considered them Blue State. However, althugh Florida, Ohio and Nevada are somewhat swing states, they’ve all clearly had more GOP influence over the past 10-15 years than Dem, and more recently GOP influence so I’ve considered them Red States. States like Iowa and Wisconsin, I’ve actually left out of being red or blue as they can go either way.
            And with respect to Florida, the fact that they had a lot of Dem influence over 13 years ago, is meaningless. And although LA had some Dem governors, the state has for at least the past 15 years been considered by virtually any polically inclinded person to be a red state.
            But, in any case, YOU ARE OBVIOUSLY NITPICKING, BECAUSE THE PREDOMINANCE OF THE EVIDENCE IS SO OVERWHELMING, that nitpicking over my calling one or two states red that may be blue doesn’t change the fact that 22 out 25 states with the highest outaccident rates are red states. Even if I’m wrong about a state or two, the best that can change is that it’s 20 out of 25 – that’s still overwhelming evidence that red states ARE DOING SOMETHING WRONG!! AND YOU KNOW WHAT THAT WRONG PROBABLY IS??? IT’S SHORT CHANGING BUDGETS THAT ARE REDUCING STATE SERVICES, INCLUDING:
            AND IT GOES ON AND ON.
            All this adds up to more people dying on the highways due to speeding and probably people driving who shouldn’t be.
            It means higher infant mortality rates because reduced medicaid and other assistance to poor woman results in babies being dead during childbirth or dying before they’re one year old.
            it mans more elderly and poor dying younger because red states don’t provide adequate medical services. Texas is ranked as having the worst healthcare delivery service in the country.
            And I could go on and on by I won’t becuase you’re nothing more than a tunnelvision GOP lover that wants to make one excuse after another for the disaster that is GOP governance.

          • @Independent1 “Wow!! What we have here is a pure GOP lover that’s just dying to prove that his precious Red States aren’t the disaster areas they are…well sorry but no cigar!!”

            I voted for Kerry in ’04 and Obama in ’08. Now I haven’t been a huge fan of Obama, his record on civil liberties stinks as bad as Bush’s did, so I voted for Johnson in ’12. In all honesty I will likely continue to vote Libertarian as the DNC has lost my confidence. Suffice it to say, no one who actually knew me would describe me as a ‘pure GOP lover.’ I’m just not a gullible sheep.

            @disqus_h3S77rQVC5:disqus “All I’ve done is taken various statistics and determined which states in the country are leading in many of these nefarious statistics. And then I’ve applied red state vs blue state listingsl that any politically savy person would understand…”

            All you’ve done is cherry-picked statistics and arbitrarily assigned labels and disregarded the fact that none of this supports a causal relationship, merely correlation.

            If you want to actually research this topic then take historical data from a state, compare changes over time in both political influences (hypothesized cause) and the hypothesized effect, attempt to account for outside influences, and then look for patterns. Then move on to another state and do the same. Then you can begin to compare the patterns which emerge in one state to see if they hold true in others. If the relationship you presume exists, then it should be easy to demonstrate that as states become more or less “Red” (based on various factors not just their presidential voting records) they exhibit the hypothesized outcome. You could then begin analyzing the data to see which factor has the highest correlation co-efficient, affiliation of governor, demographics, etc… I suggest a statistics class, though you could teach yourself the requisite skill-set if you are disciplined.

            Even all this wouldn’t be ‘proof’ (merely a pattern of correlation) but it would provide a solid foundation to begin theorizing regarding cause. You won’t do any of this though, as it would require work and people like you are intellectually lazy. You’d rather accept the spoon-fed conclusions readily propagated by your own echo-chamber. I pity my nation that is composed of such as you.
            The rest of your post was unworthy of response. I could practically hear the froth of zealotry forming at the corners of your mouth. You still fail to grasp the basic logical concept that correlation does not equal causation. Causality flows in more than one direction and sometimes doesn’t exist between two things at all. A and B may both be true but A needn’t have caused B nor B caused A.

            You have clearly failed to grasp the thrust of my arguments and instead have fixated on one minor point. I suspect this is willful ignorance as you realize your position is untenable and you do not wish to do the work required to actually prove your point. You certainly could be absolutely correct that there is a relationship between Republican leadership and automobile accidents, but your “evidence” is nowhere near conclusive. Anyone can cherry-pick isolated statistics and paint any picture they want. If you want to convince anyone who isn’t already inclined to agree with your point of view then your are going to have to do actual research and produce compelling evidence and a comprehensive theory. What you’ve got here is un-sourced garbage.

            I await your response in which you continue your ‘cum hoc ergo propter hoc’ based rant, ignore the logical fallacies upon which your argument is based, and avoid doing the actual work required to prove your assertions.

          • Here’s red state/blue state from 2004 – note LA is clearly a Red State. For some reasons Disqus isn’t showing the maps – not sure why.

          • @disqus_h3S77rQVC5:disqus “But every one of those Red State/Blue State maps identifies the states
            that I’ve called Red and Blue states the way I’ve labeled them.”

            I question your reading comprehension. These are all based on presidential election results. You have yet to provide a compelling reason why we should use that as a determining factor as opposed to demographic data (such as registered voter’s party affiliation), affiliation of state and federal legislators, governor, etc… You also have failed to provide a compelling reason why we should compare states as opposed to comparing cities or districts. You have yet to provide any evidence for anything more than correlation. You have yet to provide any sources for your earlier posted statistics. In short, you have yet to provide anything of substance. I suggest re-reading my responses, as I find your feeble attempt to answer them wanting.

          • Response #2 to @disqus_h3S77rQVC5:disqus

            Regardless of the lack of citation, let’s analyze your assertion anyway. My first question would be, upon what criteria do you determine if a state is ‘Red’ vs ‘Blue’? Presidential voting record, serving congressmen, serving governor, demographical data? Also, why did you select that criteria for categorization? Who’s policies really created these supposed issues?

            What about historical context? The policies which shape a state don’t arise in a single administration, are you analyzing the history of a state’s politics to determine when ‘issues’ began to arise?

            Why look at states at all? Why not do a comparison of “red” cities vs “blue” cities? For most states, much of the population is found in metropolitan areas who’s political affiliations may vary from the more rural regions. Generalizing the whole state based upon the policies of mayors in major metropolises (and vice versa) seems intellectually dishonest. Perhaps we should be asking what mayors have the most dangerous cities and what are their affiliations?

            How do you eliminate the possibility of reverse causation or the absence of a causal relationship between correlated events? Perhaps high-crime and tough fiscal climates cause people to vote Republican, rather than Republicans causing high-crime and tough fiscal climates. It is entirely possible we are looking at a classic case of post hoc ergo propter hoc.

          • Response #3 to Independent1

            I went ahead and looked at some of the data in an attempt to verify it. Without being able to locate your actual sources, I’ve looked externally.

            You initially claimed that “America’s red states” “lead the nation in murders.” Comparing total homicide rates per 100,000 based on FBI UCR statistics for 2012 gives us the following list (in descending order): LOUISIANA, MISSISSIPPI, ALABAMA, MICHIGAN, SOUTH CAROLINA, MISSOURI, MARYLAND, DELAWARE, TENNESSEE, ARKANSAS (1)

            Right here we see your claim start to fall apart. Louisiana’s voting record (including congressional members) has been overwhelmingly Democratic over the past few decades (3). Michigan, Maryland, and Delaware’s electoral votes went to Obama in 2012. Missouri, Maryland, Delaware, and Arkansas all had Democratic governor’s in 2012. Demographics put Louisiana, Michigan, Maryland, Delaware, and Arkansas as Democratic states (2).




          • Response #4 to @disqus_h3S77rQVC5:disqus

            To summarize; I couldn’t verify the veracity of your data. More importantly, you’ve provided no analysis to suggest that even if your data were verified, that it would prove a causal relationship between Republican policies and the issues you attribute to them, simply a possible correlation. I have also demonstrated how your first claim, that “America’s red states” “lead the nation in murders,” is not even true based on available data(1,2). I found no need to proceed beyond this claim. Basically you over-simplify the issues involved and your argument is founded on a questionable cause fallacy. If you wish to determine causation, you are going to need to look deeper than statistics in this case. You’ll need to look at actual policies, who implemented them and analysis of the results of those policies. You’ll have to look at outside factors and take them into account to normalize the data. I could go on. Statistics are a valuable tool, but they are easily manipulated and taken in isolation, generally worthless.




        • Detroit, Chicago have the highest gun violence in the US. higher than some states. Your typical libturd misinformation spin, and outright lies.

    • if you measure Kennedy on his DEEDs , his words , and his policy then in todays standard he would be considered one of those ultra right wing Conservatives . Also unlike todays Obama Socialist Dem Party …Kennedy actually loved America and he never would’ve supported policy that made America a nanny state just so his party could have a voting majority

      • You’re so full of s— you stink. Right wing my a$$. And you obviously are just a hater, as our current president surely loves His country more than you do, as he is trying to help people, not throw them to the curb. You are a hater, admit it and move on. You have nothing to offer to the betterment of the Country.

        • So a President who purposely has made the greatest number of people dependent on govt loves this Nation ? Great reasoning and cult like devotion . …truth hurt ?

          • Where do you get this nonsense about the president “purposely” doing any such thing? He has helped the economy reverse from the depths caused by G.W. Bush and his administration. The horrible economy has made many people seek help in many ways, to support their families. These are people who had good jobs, lost them because of the ruined economy of Bush. The deficit is coming down, job situation is improving, housing picking up, stock market at all time high. What part of better economy don’t you understand? When we have full employment, with good paying jobs, no one will want to depend on the help of social programs. In the meantime, why don’t you want people to get help? Are you too good to give a helping hand to people in need? Pray your family or friends don’t need a helping hand. There’s the truth.

          • The deficit is coming down ONLY because the Republicans forced Sequestration . It is the only spending cuts in the 5 yrs of Obama that have slowed the deficit . How is the Job Situation improving when we have 2.6 fewer Americans working then when Obama took office ( and please don’t use Obama’s talking point about creating 7 million jobs while not ounting those HE LOST …You only make yourself sound foolish ) . we have the highest % of Part Timers and Min Wage Workers in this Country’s history and the greatest amount of people dependent on the Govt . If you doubt it is purposeful to support a Socialist agenda and Country …then you need to do a google search and look up Cloward Piven

          • As usual, you just prove yourself to be a dunce. Of course, the things you state are a direct residue of the Bush years in office. One doesn’t clean this mess up overnight. You keep going back to the prattle about “socialism”, which tells me you don’t know what the hell is really happening, only that you pretend to be wise, but really are just a hater of all things progressive. I will have no more to do with your nonsense.

          • Gee you offer nothing but name calling and you think I’m a dunce ? So its still Bush’s fault 5 years in ? That is all you got ? I thought the talking point was that Obama inherited a mess and turned it around and he is wicked awesome …. Not a hater by the way just a seeker/ speaker of the truth

          • You are so wrong. The deficit has been coming down for each of the years that Obama has been in office.

            2.6 million fewer working. But how many more have newly entered the work force since he took office. You need to study your numbers more thoroughly.

            Our country has lived with a certain degree of socialistic programs for decades……….and we are still here. Where would you be without police and fire protection and public schools? They are socialistic. Social Security and Medicare are two of the most efficient “socialistic” public programs in existence. And the amount of waste and fraud in those programs is negligible when compared to the fraud and waste in the defense department.

          • If you read my comment you will notice that I stated there are 2.6 million fewer Americans working today then when Obama took office . That means the talking point he uses of creating 7 million jobs may be true but it also means that we have lost 9.6 million during his time in office …As you can see no study is needed just a basic understanding of Math ..To equate a Police Dept to Socialism is funny as Hell I will grant you that Medicare and Soc Sec could be considered Socialist . Now look at those two programs and you will see that Socialism fails . Medicare is operating at 10 times what it was originally projected and is unsustainable with Obamacare raiding it and Soc Sec will be broke in no time . By the way Mike I do think that both have some benefit not just what they should be . And if people were allowed to invest in their own retirements they would be far better off then what Soc Sec does .

          • I’m not if it was you or gvette who claimed that the unemployment rate has gone up during President Obama’s time in office by using the u6 unemployment rate. The u6 unemployment rate is made up of the u3 official unemployment rate, the u5 rate which includes the discouraged workers and other marginally attached workers and adds workers who are part-time for purely economic reasons. The u6 rate for January 2009 was 14.2% while it’s 13.8% as of October 2013, by my math that is a decrease. Additionally the monthly jobs report numbers, those jobs added or lost for the month, for the last 3+ years has been positive. Besides looking at the various numbers you need to see what the trend is. The vast amounts of jobs lost during the Obama administration took place from 2/2009 through 2/2010, 4.3 million jobs were then. I guess you would put all of the blame on President Obama and not W. Since 10/2010 through 10/2013 the month jobs report has shown jobs added every month. By two criteria the u6 rate and the jobs report thee job market is better than under the last 4 months of W.

          • Incorrect . There has been a net 2.6 million loss of jobs and it has been ongoing the Labor Participation rate bears that out . As that figure also effects the U6 number you also have your answer on that . Labor Participation is at the lowest point since 1978 and that is when America had approx. 100 million fewer people …Quite an achievement when you factor in population right ?

          • What is incorrect is that there is a net job loss of 2.6 million jobs during Obama’s administration. From the Bureau of Labor Statistics website these are the net jobs added/lost for each year from 2009 to the present.
            2009 – 5.052 million jobs lost including 794,000 lost in January 2009 W’s last month in office
            2010 – 1.022 million jobs gained
            2011 – 2.103 million job gained
            2012 – 2.193 million jobs gained
            2013 – 1.863 million jobs gained
            Net jobs for the almost 5 years of President Obama being in office is 2.129 million jobs gained not lost. These numbers are right from the BLS website. The other fact is that there has been 37 straight months of job gains. Yes it’s an achievement considering the House has been no help.

          • You are citing the jobs created numbers Obama and the flock are being taught to tout . It does not take into account the attrition of jobs lost . The fact is we have 2.6 fewer Americans employed and that is from data from the Dept of Labor . Of those employed we have the highest percentage and raw number working Part Tme and Min Wage jobs …Average Incomes are down $4000 /yr and we have the greatest expansion to the rolls of those dependent on entitlements in this Nations History . Yes quite the achievement . Let me guess that was all Bush’s fault right ?

          • Oh!! You mean those millions of jobs lost since Obama has been in office by companies like Bain and other corporate pirates leverage buying out companies so fast that it made Mitt Romney’s head spin. And he was involved all the time while he was even running for president it working with his buddies to buy out one company after anotheer, strip it of it’s assests and ship the jobs over seas??? You mean all those lost jobs that made Mitt Romney a far bigger American Job destroyer than he was ever a job creator??? And not only him, but every one of the other nitwit companies like Bain that were killing American jobs so fast that they were actually outpacing the jobs Obama was creating.

          • You really don’t understand economics or Capitalism do you ? It isn’t greed that causes a Company to offshore jobs , it is usually done to get a better business deal to make the Company more profitable . By the way research has shown that this increase in profitability and productivity has caused a higher return to the US in terms of dollars and Jobs here so it isn’t all bad . Let me sum it up in terms you may understand and then illustrate it with a more local example . When the Dems raise Corporate taxes this makes our Companies less competitive cost wise to even foreign Companies who do business here because they don’t face the tariffs that OUR Companies face in THEIR Country’s . Think about it Sony can sell a lap top here for say 300 . When IBM was doing the same type of machine they couldn’t compete on our home turf because of the tax rates that drove up the price of their products . They ended up realizing that and sold the whole division to LENOVA . Some Companies will just offshore jobs to control cost and to remain cost competitive . This isn’t greed it is survival . Now for a more local example . Look at Illinois . They raised the State Income tax hike because of the massive debt caused by the Public Unions . We have lost somewhere between 63,000 and 74,000 jobs out of the State in the last 2 years ans Businesses look for a better deal and migrate to Republican States with No State Income Taxes . They can do that because they don’t have as many Public Unions . See so the lesson is that it isn’t greed its just smart to move to a better business climate for your company .

          • I understand the economics exactly – probably much better than you do. But you don’t pull the tricks that Romney and many of his buddies do when America is struggling under the worst recession since the the world-wide depression back in the 1930s – deliberately buying out foundering companies for a song, stripping them of their assets, including their pension funds and shipping hundreds of thousands of jobs overseas. The buyout companies WERE NOT TRYING TO SAVE ANY COMPANIES – when companies were foundering under the recession they were able to buy up companies for pennies on the dollar, destroy them; while pocketing millions and sending their jobs overseas. They weren’t trying to restructure anything in the U.S. DON’T GIVE ME THAT BS!!

            Romney was pushing hard for Obama to let GM and Chrylser go bankrupt just so he could destroy those two companies in America and ship their jobs to China like he did with Delphi. Here’s the story on that (notice that they destroyed all the union jobs -25,000 of them, pocketed the pension monies and company assets and dumped the pension liabilities on the American taxpayer!!)

            Romney has slammed the bailout as a payoff to the auto workers union. But that certainly wasn’t true for the bailout of Delphi. Once the hedge funders, including Singer—a deep-pocketed right-wing donor and activist who serves as chair of the conservative, anti-union Manhattan Institute—took control of the firm, they rid Delphi of every single one of its 25,200 unionized workers.

            By the end of June 2009, with the bailout negotiations in full swing, the hedge funds, under Singer’s lead, used their bonds to buy up a controlling interest in Delphi’s stock. According to SEC filings, they paid, on average, an equivalent of only 67 cents per share.

            Of the twenty-nine Delphi plants operating in the United States when the hedge funders began buying up control,
            only four remain, with not a single union production worker. Romney’s “job creators” did create jobs—in China, where Delphi now produces the parts used by GM and other major automakers here and abroad. Delphi is now incorporated
            overseas, leaving the company with 5,000 employees in the United States (versus almost 100,000 abroad).

            Third Point’s Daniel Loeb, whose net worth of $1.3 billion owes much to his share in the Delphi windfall, told his fund’s backers this past July that Delphi remains an excellent investment because it has “virtually no North American unionized labor” and, thanks to US taxpayers, “significantly smaller pension liabilities than almost all of its peers.”

          • Doesn’t seem like you do understand it . Also didn’t Obama and Geitner decide that the employess at Delphi didn’t deserve their pensions right after they bailed out the UAW’s pensions ? Romney was long gone from Bain before the election and the deals he made worked and increased profitability for most of those Companies . Made a lot of them solvent that would’ve gone out of business like Staple’s for instance . GM and Chrysler should’ve went through a BK …It would’ve been a lot better deal for America then letting FIAT buy Chrysler . Plus we will never see a return from GM on the money invested . As I pointed out you are blaming the wrong people for jobs being shipped off shore . You see if the Dems make OUR Country non conducive to business then Business moves out . As I pointed out by example that businesses HAVE to compete to stay in business so they will go where they have the best business climate . We see the same thing on a local level everytime a job leaves Illinois for a State with a better business climate . To blame Corporations and Capitalism for adapting to what the Dems throw at them as rules regulations and taxation is putting the cart before the horse and underscores a direct lack of knowledge of who economics work or Capitalism works .

          • You trolls at the RNC just never give up do you! Defuse the truth with lies and distortions. Many studies have proven that nothing the Dems have done is discouraging business, in fact, the auto industry which Obama saved is a classic example. GM, Chrysler and Ford are recording profits that they never saw during any of Bush’s disasterous term in office. And recent polls have also shown that despite GOP lies, Obamacare will actually be good for small business and spur more entrepreneurs into developing new companies.
            The lies and distortions never stop from you RNC trolls. And you can be sure that those of us on the NM are not believing ANY OF THEM NO MATTER HOW MANY YOU SPEW!!!

          • He didn’t save any Auto Industry and most economists believe they would’ve been better off going through structured BK’s . that way the UAW may have seen they were killing the goose that laid the golden egg . The only thing this assures is that Fiat owns Chrysler and that we will have to bail them both out again . they cant remain competitive with the wages they pay vis a vie their global competition . And the best American Company and the only one I would buy from accepted NOTHING as they didn’t want to be controlled by the Govt . By the way to circumvent the high cost of the UAW GM has off shored jobs to China . They have built 14 new installations there and 4 Major Plants with OUR TAX DOLLARS …And you whine about Bain using their own money to make Companies solvent so they can survive . NO ONE has off shored more jobs then Obama and he does it with OUR money . Google GE ( they recieved billions from Obama ) they orff shored their X ray division with that money to China 26,000 jobs ….I doubt Bain did that in their total history . …Have a Nice Thanksgiving
            No Poll shows what you State only the opposite . That is that the more Americans get to experience of Obamacare that the more they HATE it .

          • I really don’t understand how you sleep at night knowing full well that you spend much of the day on NM posting one lie after another. Your post that I’m responding to is one blatant lie after another. I’m just going to post one article that appeared in a conservative Detroit News Paper clearly stating that Obama DID IN FACT rescue the auto industry and that there WAS NO ONE that would provide private sector funding to rescue the industry AS YOUR POST CLAIMS. Clear evidence that everything you post IS A LIE!!!!!

            Detroit News, Oct. 25: Don’t assume that it was a no-brainer for a conservative newspaper to endorse a conservative presidential candidate. We recognize and are grateful for the extraordinary contribution President Obama made to Michigan in leading the rescue of General Motors and Chrysler. Had either of those companies been allowed to go under, Michigan’s economic maladies would have become fatal.

            The president stepped up with the support the two automakers needed to keep themselves and their suppliers in business. We have said in past editorials that while Romney rightly advocated for structured bankruptcies in his infamous “Let Detroit Go Bankrupt” New York Times op-ed, he was wrong in suggesting the automakers could have found operating capital in the private markets. In that article, Romney suggested government-backed loans to keep the companies afloat post bankruptcy. But what GM and Chrysler needed were bridge loans to get them through the process, and the private credit markets were unwilling to provide them. Obama put a rescue team to work and they were true to the task.


          • Wow just wow …I don’t know how you live with that much Hate . You must have a real shallow and empty life . Ive done nothing but voice my own opinion which is based in common sense and fact . I have Stated fact which contradicts your talking points so you wish my murdered and label me a murderer . You cite an opinion piece written by a Liberal sycophant to try to [prove your point while ignoring everything I posted .. Romney’s plan was better but what does he know he is just a successful businessman and Obama was a Community Organizer so of course Obama knows what he is doing said no one ever who had a brain. I also pointed out that Fiat now owns Chrysler thanks to the UAW and Obama and GM has off shored more of our jobs and money then they used to refund/bailout those UAW pensions ..But I guess I cant expect you to understand how Capitalism works …By the way several suppliers of GM and Chrysler went out of business when Obama allowed those Companies to give their employees a 2 month paid vacation following those bailouts and lets not forget the over 100,000 dealership jobs that were lost in that deal but that’s all ok as long as the UAW members are happy . I wished you a happy Thanksgiving several times today but I think you must be incapable of happiness .

          • Why is it that anytime someone questions the mess that President Obama inherited from President Bush we hear that you can’t do that. For at least the 1st 6 months Obama was on office the jobs lost were due to the economic hole that the country was in. That was the direct result of Bush’s two unfounded wars and his favorable tax cuts for the wealthy. Between Bush’s last six months in office and Obama’s 1st six months 6.74 million jobs were lost and yes it was Bush’s fault. He was either in office or it was his budget that was in place.

            Why is it you right wingers always resort to name calling “Obama and his flock”? At least Obama has admitted to mistakes unlike his predecessor who never did anything wrong. Obama, could do more to fix the job market problem but not assigning any blame to the Republican controlled House who haven’t done anything to help.

          • First off it is ALL you people do . Blame Bush and play the race card . 2nd the economy collapsed due to bad debt from the Sub Prime housing market that was caused by the CRA of 1977 coming home to roost . I personally will agree Obama was handed a bad hand but to put that on Bush is like blaming him for policy he had nothing to do with . On to Obama , he has gotten a free pass on the economy and the Liberal Media wont even report on it . This is why most Liberals don’t understand that he has taken his bad hand and made things way worse while at the same time adding spending debt and numbers of people on entitlements . recipe for disaster .
            Obama never admits to doing anything wrong and neither does his flock . Hell you people are still touting Train Wreck and that disaster of a deal he and Kerry just bent over for with Iran .

          • First of all your statement about all we do is blame Bush is bogus. You spend a lot of time on this website and am sure you have read many comments. You know that to say that all is stated here is that is is Bush’s fault is bs. Look at the comments below his one and tell me how many even mention Bush? Please tell me what liberal media hasn’t criticized Obama, NY Times, Wash. Post. Try reading them for a few days.

            You are totally correct Obama hasn’t made anything better, the stock market is in the tank, oh no I’m wrong the Dow and the S & P 500 are at all time highs.

            I guess you don’t watch tv because only a short time ago the president apologized for the problems with ACA or Obamacare but nah he never says he’s sorry.

            What I really love about you right wing whiners is you have already killed Obamacare but the states that setup their own exchanges are doing quite well, se Kentucky, California, Connecticut, Vermont, New York, etc.

            Again you,whiners love to make a incredibly ignorant statement about foreign policy. Let’s see Syria the US got screwed, really. With Iran you neocons want to start a war instead of continuing negotiations. Gotta love you chicken hawks, let’s start a war as long as we don’t have to fight in it.

          • OK so the Train Wreck finally made him admit what we have been telling you for 3 years …That he was a LYING and that he is a Pathological LIAR
            And yes to keep some small sense of credibility some Liberal media is finally starting to vet him .
            The markets are ONLY doing good because Obama is creating an artificial bubble with the FED Policy of the QE programs . They are basically printing digital money ( not backed by the Treasury ) and artificially investing it in the Markets , So yes they are doing that just to give Obama something / anything to claim any improvement in any segment of the economy .
            Unfortunately this policy is only helping to spur income disparity between the rich and the ever shrinking middle class . Those evil 1%ers are pumping their portfolios on the backs of the QE rally …So tell me what happens when the program stops …Believe me, the rich will know first and they will lead the massive sell off ….Another house of cards brought to you solely on the policy of Dems who are self serving and don’t care about the real economic health of the country but just trying to make Obama look good .

          • So the president is a pathological liar, that means you,are saying he is mentally disturbed. You right wing whiners are so full of hate for Obama that you believe he is mentally disturbed? Is this your professional opinion or just your usual unproved bs.

            So some (?) liberal media write articles about the president that are negative. Just some, why don’t you list the ones that don’t. No instead you just continue with your unproven rants.

            The QE policy is the only,reason for this bull market. Gee you are a man of multiple talents – psychology, economics, foreign affairs, etc. So all of Wall Street is investing only on the basis the QE policy, not that corporations are having banner years. As for the 1% they are not the only ones making money in the market right now. Anyone with a IRA, SEP, Roth-IRA or 401k is enjoying this bull market. I keep reading that the large investors have sold off their holdings and a large sell off will be having. I’ve heard this for the last year and nothing has happened.

            As for the Democrats not caring about the nation’s economy tell me what the Republican controlled House has done. Oh that’s right they voted to repeal the ACA at least 37 times.

          • My only response to your “comment” is that when you decide to honor me with such revealing remarks, you should address me as a highly educated idiot, with a degree in politics and business from what was then one of the top ten schools in the country. I spend most of my time every day either listening to politics and business or reading on the same. And I take the time to google and research anything that I find even slightly questionable. So, you should really pull your head out of your *ss before making such intelligent remarks.

          • Well whiz kid with a degree. Probably a liberal degree. Most, if not all politicians are crooks and liars. To have a degree in politics is akin to studying to be like them.

          • That’s funny…..isn’t it the Republicans who are continuously blaming our president for the sequestration? You can’t have it both ways!!! Make up your mind….he either pushed it or the Republicans did!

          • It as Obama’s Idea and Solution to forge an agreement to get his debt limit increased AGAIN so he can spend more of your grand kids money . He gambled that the GOP would never agree to it because of the defense cuts that is included . Consequently he thought he had backed them into a corner and they would negotiate with themselves and just let him keep spending more of your kids money . When Obama wouldn’t negotiate real cuts over that 1 1/2 yr span ( choosing to golf instead ) the GOP had no choice but to accept Obama’s Idea . When they had the gall to do that Obama got mad and directed every Govt Dept to bring the hurt to the American people. The emails prove that .. Pretty much like a petulant child who couldn’t get his way even when it was his idea . Don’t you follow the news

          • It as Obama’s Idea and Solution to forge an agreement to get his debt limit increased AGAIN so he can spend more of your grand kids money .
            You never stop lying do you??? Fact is liar, Obama is by far the smallest spending president since Eisenhower. His average budget increases over the past 5 years have been 1.4% while in contrast, Reagan and Bush Jr. both averaged over 8% and Bush Sr. over 5%. Even Clinton, the 2nd smallest spending president since Carter, who was actually lower than Clinton, was around 3.5%.
            Obama is not spending anyone’s money. You’re so clueless you don’t even realize that the debt limit increase was to cover bills already run up AND HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH FUTURE SPENDING!!! It’s absolutely unbelievable how ignorant you are!!!

          • Explain 6 trillion in new deficit in 4 yrs and over a trillion in deficit spending in each of his non budgets …But that’s why we don’t have budgets anymore right ? And before you go blaming Bush for his unfunded wars if I grant you the last fiscal year of Bush then how do you explain the rest of it ? Of course you cant and that is why we haven’t had a budget in 5 yrs right ? And in a robust economy with a growing GDP you can spend more without adding debt the way Obama is doing what is your point ? Obama has a very French like economy …You know 8% unemployment and less the 2 % growth …..

          • Using the President’s budgets, Bush inherited a 5.7 trillion debt from Clinton and through his last budget of 10/1/08 to 9/30/09 more than doubled the 5.7 trillion by adding 6.2 trillion to 11.9Trillon BUT, he also allowed the economy to tank into the worst financial disaster that ever struck America – far greater than what even the Big Depression in the 1930s did to America because there were far more companies to fail.
            Thousands of companies went belly up, more than 10 million lost their jobs at the rate of around 900,000/mo when Obama walked into office. It was only because Obama demanded on the Stimulus together with the auto bailout, that he was able to stop the enormous bleeding of jobs within 7 months which kept America from falling into the GOPs SECOND CREATED WORLD-WIDE DEPRESSION!!
            Obama can technically only be charged with less than 1 trillion in debt increase THAT HE SIGNED INTO LAW , the Stimulus, which itself was focused on preventing America from falling deeper into recession and and eventual depression. Virtually the remaining 3-4 trillion of debt increase is the result of the DISASTER BUSH ALLOWED TOO HAPPEN which greatly
            reduced tax revenues which made it impossible for income to cover even spending that Obama handled as best he could by reducing slowly so as not to stall the recovery as virtually every European country did by cutting spending too drastically and going into a double-dip recession.
            And you show your total ignorance of the governmental process by accusing Obama for not creating budgets for the past 5 years. PRESIDENTS DO NOT CREATE BUDGETS!
            It actually the responsibility of Congress to come up with and pass a budget, all presidents do is recommend spending WHICH OBAMA HAS DONE EVERY SINGLE YEAR!!! But because Ted Kennedy passed away less than 7 months after Obama took office on 8/15/2009, the Democrats did not had sufficient control of both houses of Congress in the Fall of 2009 to get a budget passed and since then the House of Representatives has been controlled by a housefull of nitwits who ONLY KNOW HOW TO PLAY GAMES AND WASTE MILLIONS OF TAXPAYER DOLLARS BY PLAYING GAMES LIKE SIX YEAR OLDS!!!!!!!

          • Well your posts displays that the stereo types people have of Liberals are true . Those would be that you don’t understand Economics Math or Budgets but you do know where to get Talking Points . !st Obama hasn’t had a budget because he and the Dems are too scared to show America how badly they have screwed the pooch . Secondly your numbers of jobs lost keeps growing 1st it was 300,000 a month then it was 600,000 a month and now you are saying 900,000 . The DE STIMULUS has resulted in no real job growth and that was born out by the unemployment numbers . Only 6% of that was even budgeted for the touted infrastructure projects and the very few jobs that came from it were at a cost of 2.5 mil /yr … Unemployment in the Construction trades was largely unaffected by it ( WSJ ) . Once again please stop blaming Bush for the CRA of 1977 that was Carter and it caused all of the bad debt that crashed the banks and the housing market in the last few months of Bush . Before that He had 7 years of growth and that was with 9/11 effecting the economy …By the way the bad debt was hid from view by Bawney Fwank who went in front of Congress and told them Fannie and Freddie were just fine ..remember that …right up until he begged Bush to bail them out .
            And if you want to see States being destroyed look at all of those Dem Union States that are raising taxes to pay those Pensions and carry all of that debt …Look at all the jobs they are venting and the productive Tax Payers they are venting … Look at Illinois ..we are a laughingstock and everyone rates us as the most mismanaged State .
            See you really don’t understand economics …Im not trying to slam you Im just showing fact ..You view economics like one of those Occupy Wall Street we hate the achievers group ..We hate them and we are jealous that they have succeeded …We want their money that they worked for that is only fair …why should they have all that money that they worked for ..right ???

          • You have the ability to spew the most utter BS I’ve ever come across. Do you even know what it means to tell the truth.


            You keep claiming that the Bush years were an economic success when they were an absolute disaster for the country. Not only does the Pope know better, even the Washington Post, arguably a right-leaning publication knows better and calls YOU A LIAR!!!

            Article from the Washington Post Staff:

            President Bush has presided over the weakest eight-year span for the U.S. economy in decades, according to an analysis of key data, and economists across the ideological spectrum increasingly view his two terms as a time of little progress on the nation’s thorniest fiscal challenges

            The number of jobs in the nation increased by about 2 percent during Bush’s tenure, the most tepid growth over any eight-year span since data collection began seven decades ago. Gross domestic product, a broad measure of economic
            output, grew at the slowest pace for a period of that length since the Truman administration. And Americans’ incomes grew more slowly than in any presidency since the 1960s, other than that of Bush’s father.

            Like I told one of your cohorts: infadecious: LIARS ARE GOING TO END UP IN THE FIRE!! BETTER BE CAREFUL!!

          • Much better GDP growth under Bush then Obama and a max of 5% unemployment
            And there you go again wishing Ill will on others . You call the right and me haters and I do nothing of the sort yet here you are with all of your typical Liberal Intolerance ..Have a nice weekend

          • I don’t think you can get a single thing right. Here’s an excerpt from an article that proves that even the GDP growth during the Bushes presidencies were abismal:

            From an article published in Sept. of 2008:

            Both Bush presidential periods and the Ford years experienced GDP growth of barely more than 2.0%. The growth rate in the first Bush presidency was 2.1%, identical to the performance of the Ford Administration. The current Bush administration has achieved marginally faster growth of 2.3% per annum. However, that pace has also been substantially less than the long-term trend. From several respects, the current administration’s performance is puzzling, worrisome, and instructive.

            Because of the disaster that Bush allowed to happen – CALLED THE GREAT RECESSION, America’s GDP had dropped to 14.5 trillion in 2010/11 BUT HAS REBOUNDED UNDER OBAMA to 16.4 trillion for this past October – that’s a GDP rebound of 13%. The economy under Bush never saw anything akin to that.

          • How do you even try to sell that Obamanomics is working to the rest of the sheeple ? I mean a meager 1.6 % Growth rate ..*% unemployment and that is using the U3 method not the U6 that every other President used ..Oh the unemployment using the U6 method has hovered between 18 to 14 % under Obama . think he would of gotten reeleceted had people known the truth ? Oh but Obama ran on LIES ..If you like your Dr …If you like you plan …etc etc Lets seem we have 2.6 million fewer people working then when he took office and the greatest number and percentage of those folks working either part time or min wage jobs . The proof is in the pudding as avg incomes are down $4000/ yr . This has widened the income disparity gap to the greatest amount ever and at the fastest rate ,. His Policies have destroyed the middle class . Meanwhile his Cloward Piven strategy is in full swing as we have the greatest number and the greatest % of people dependent on the Govt ( really the Tax Payers ) …How do you even try to defend an economic system with that record . And cant you see it is being done purposefully and at the expense of OUR Country …But go ahead and mindlessly keep defending the Obama even if it means your kids future …I mean you have to make a point right ? After all you just hate hate hate the GOP right ??? so keep on screwing your Country to make a point K …

          • So we agree again …It is TOTAL BS that the Sequestration cuts are the ONLY cuts in 5 yrs of Obama . And it was BS for Obama to punish the American people because he didn’t get his way .

          • Why is it that people like you cry and complain about the so-called government intrusion into your lives but yet you turn a blind eye to corporate intrusion not only into your lives but also into your government.
            We are not as stupid as you think.We know full well that the republican destruction of the Middle Class is the REAL reason why millions of formerly gainfully employed American Citizens are now in need of government help.

          • What policy has the GOP enacted in the last 5yrs that has led to the destruction of the middle class . They have blocked many destructive policy decisions by Obama but have been blocked by the Dems on even budget proposals . meanwhile Obama’s policy have led us to a point where we have 2.6 fewer Americans working then when he took office ( you see when you claim ti have created 7 million jobs you also should take into account those you have lost or the Liberals who support you sound dumb when they tout that … Not you personally Mark ) We have the highest % and number working both Part time and or min wage jobs . Average incomes are down $4000 /yr …Yes great policy for the middle class and somehow you want to blame that on the GOP or Corp ????? Really

          • I refer you to republican supported and promoted trickle down reaganomics.Thirty some years of it is more than sufficient proof.

          • It is Policy that has worked EVERY single time it was tried . It also is Policy that slowed the growth rate of income disparity and promoted a robust middle class . Thank You for agreeing

          • Why no it isn’t . what I said is proven statistical fact and you can look it up and you used a dirty word …Now go to your room

          • Just look at the history of what happened each and everytime it has been tried . You have a computer do some research and please use financial sites like the WSJ or Inv Bus Daily not MSN . It will show you that it worked everytime it has been tried .

          • Well there was the depression and then there was the great recession. Real success stories I guess if you are a republican. And you know at one time the party was against this idea until it was highjacked by corporations.

          • Yeah! let’s just look at recent history. Georgie Boy got two unfunded tax cuts passed that handed the wealthy more money than they’d seen in decades and his 8 years in office were the most dismal economically and from a job creation standpoint than any 8 years since the big depression. Clinton raised the tax rate back to 39.6% in 1993 and his 8 years in office were the most profitable for business and the average American of any 8 years in history.

            All trickle down economics did during the Reagan and 2 Bush administrations was drive up America’s deficits such that those 3 GOP nitwits are responsible for more than 90% of our current national debt of 17 trillion – mostly by their excessive spending, keeping billions out of their budgets so they couldn’t be tracked, and by the two Bush’s creating the worst economies the country has experienced since Eisenhower was in office when his 8 years created the most recessions (3) than any other president since 1900. During Eisenhower’s 8 years, arguably the best GOP president since Teddy Roosevelt, America suffered in recession for almost 4 years of his 8 years in office.

            The GOP knows absolutely nothing about how to run a government. It keeps thinking it can run it like a business AND A FEDERAL GOVERNMENT IS NOT A BUSINESS!!! WHEN IS THE GOP GOING TO WAKE UP TO THAT FACT???????

          • Reagans plan certainly worked and the proof is in the pudding . Unemployment went way down we had a robust middle class and never before seen GDP . Thank You .
            I agree the FED Govt is NOT a business and they should stop their crony Capitalism because they SUCK at it . How many green ventures that were set up as dummy Companies like Solyndra do we need . I mean I know Dem fund raisers got rich on that but really . You really should get some facts on what a great success Reaganomics were . Look at the Unemployment rates and the net GDP growth and look at the gain in incomes under Reagan …All while taking care of the needy and strengthening National defense . We also had the greatest tech boom in history largely fueled by tech that was born of SDI …oh and we had a manned Space Program as well .
            Have a Nice Thanksgiving

          • Another post filled with lies and total BS!! Even Pope Francis knows that you and Reagan are lying about Reaganomics – the trikle-down fantasy of the ages. Here’s the Pope Francis’ words on trickle-down economics (it’s never been proven to work):

            “Some people continue to defend trickle-down theories, which assume that economic growth, encouraged by a free market, will inevitably succeed in bringing about greater justice and inclusiveness in the world. This opinion, which has never been confirmed by the facts, expresses a crude and naive trust in the goodness of those wielding economic power and in the sacralized workings of the prevailing economic system. Meanwhile, the excluded are still waiting.”

          • You are citing a POPE on economics ? And you wonder why you don’t understand Economics or Capitalism ? So the Pope prefers Socialism ….Ever see a Socialist Country succeed over time ? Of course not , Free market Capitalism combined with a Representative Republic ( that’s what we used to be and have ) brought about the most prosperous Nation in the history of this planet . It brought the greatest amount of freedom , opportunity , and prosperity to the greatest amount of people in any Nation in history . Do you want to go away from that in favor of a system that has been an abject failure EVERYHWERE it’s been tried in all of history ????? And you want to do this because Obama ( a proven Liar ) tells you that shared misery is good and fair ? Are you sure he isn’t just lying to you AGAIN so that he and his ilk can enjoy a permanent majority ? Are you so filled with hate for the right and your own Country that the only thing that matters is your guys getting that permanent majority ? Even if that is to the detriment of your own Country and your kids future ? And you also want me to consider the Pope on economics ????

          • Well, you finally got something right – I do hate something, but it’s not you personally, it’s what you’re all about – worshiping the Devil. Satan has you wrapped around his little finger, and just like Reagan and Bush, YOU’RE ALL ABOUT MONEY!! Jesus’ brother James described it the best “Money is the root of all evil” And Boy do you have it!!
            You can pull lies out of your rear end faster than a speeding bullet, throw out total BS that’s full of lies that the lies are lies about themselves. Trickle-down economics had absolutely nothing to do with the economy during Reagan’s presidency – Reagan drove the economy for 8 years by spending more money than truman, Eisenhower, JFK, LBJ, Nixon, Ford and Carter all did COMBINED!!
            Reagan took an 826B deficit he inherited from Carter and almost quadrupled it to 2.9 trillion at the end of his last budget. Throwing 2 trillion dollars IN DEFICIT SPENDING AT THE ECONOMY!! THAT’S WHAT DROVE IT!!!
            And 2 trillion dollars in the 1980s was about equivalent to the 6.2 trillion that Bush Jr. dumped down the drain during his 8 years!! IT’S ALL ABOUT MONEY!! THE ROOT OF ALL EVIL!! AND YOU’RE PROMOTING IT!! JUST ANOTHER OF SATAN’S HENCHMEN!!!! I HOPE YOU’RE MAKING THE MOST OUT OF IT!! BECAUSE YOU CAN BE SURE THAT THE TIME WILL COME WHEN YOU WILL PAY FOR THE EVIL YOU’RE WORKING TO INFLICT ON AMERICA!!!

          • Even David Stockton, the author of Reagan’s trickle down plan came out later and admitted it was a dismal failure. It just doesn’t work, never has, never will. I too await his “facts”.

          • Trickle down economics has FAILED every single time it has been tried. You are dumber than a box of rocks.

          • Of course you are wrong or maybe you have it confused with the Dems Tax Spend Regulate policy . You have a computer do some reading

          • WSJ , Inv Bus Daily , ..Zerohedge …Govt sites …lots of places …then of course all one needs is logic and common sense and an ability to look past stated attention and the real goal of a program . As I grew up and live in Chicago I am a master at reading between the lines of Dem Policy now derisively called the ” Chicago Way “. God I hate that term .

          • If you think anyone on the NM is going to buy the lies and distortions published in all those right-wing biased pieces of garbage you referenced, you must be even more delusional than any of us even imagined. You have to be pretty cluesless to not realize that any right-wing nut like yourself can find websites on the internet that will support whatever lie it is in they want to spew!!

          • I think some will look into it and decide for themselves . Those would be the people that are still capable of thinking independently and deciding for themselves . Those would be people that aren’t so brainwashed and loyal that they endlessy just repeat any LIE that Obama orders them too . I mean you were one of the people that was defending everything about Obamacare when for the last 3 yrs I as well as others were telling you he was LYING to you USING you to repeat his LIES and defend his Tax Law …in the process he Played you for fools and Clowned YOU . I / we have been busy telling you that he was using you and Lying to you and you responded with hate and by not listening . I could gloat and say >>>SEE I TOLD YOU SO but what good does that do ? So it would seem by the evidence that the sites I use are much much better then the propaganda sites you use as we got accurate information and you got LIES and TALKING POINTS for you to repeat which has made you look and sound foolish … So yes that is a win win for me and people will listen .

          • If he does go overseas, I hope he takes Cheney with him. And Rumsfeld. And all the other neocon draft dodgers who led us into the horrific tragedy called Iraq War.

          • Well he is allowed, but both he and Cheney risk arrest for war crimes–particularly their use of torture. I would love to see it!

      • Prediction for Mr. bikejedi to eat: The day after JFK is “…considered
        one of those ultra right wing Conservatives” that you sleep with will be the day that you and all of your slimy lying tea party friends are pushed completely off the political spectrum into the abyss called Hades.

        • As I factually pointed out , his policy deeds and words would support that he was truly an American Loving Conservative . Unlike the current Socialist American Hating Dem party …and wow no hades

          • Actually, you haven’t pointed out anything. You have claimed and implied but offered nothing in support of your assertion that Kennedy could be viewed as a right wing conservative. Whenever anyone else offers contradicting factual evidence to deny your claims you call them kool-aid drinking liberal supporters of socialist nanny states.

            I’m still waiting for your factual and cogent supporting argument.

          • While you claimed voting records and historical fact, none was offered in evidence. Further, you miss significant context which very much contradicts your claims.

            What I want is some intelligent and reasoned debate, rather than ideological claptrap.

          • Then please offer some . Look if your side isn’t aware of your own Party’s voting records on issues like Civil rights it may be one of the reasons some of you still support that Party . I will do a simple google search that anyone could of done and get back to you with numbers if that is what you want . Granted , I shouldn’t have to and this stuff SHOULD be being taught in school so that when kids grow up they might have a better basis on which to place their votes but I will go look it up . As for the context I have given plenty of the reasonings of the day if you look at some of my posts on this thread . I have seen nothing from anyone on the left

          • My friend, you keep relying on the voting records argument. I’m well aware of the voting records and the positions of many democrats and republicans throughout history.

            However, what undermines and negates your argument is your conflation of the southern democrats of 1964 with the current democrats, and likewise your belief that republicans of today are the direct descendants of republicans such as Eisenhower in the 1950s. The republican party began to change with Goldwater and certainly did so with Nixon and his incorporation of angry southern democrats into his republican base. Many of the democrats of 1964 flocked to the republican party between that year and 1968. Then of course the Gingrich revolution of the 90s and the overthrow of centrist republican ideology by the right wing radicals in 2010.

            Lets not forget, too, that it was the Democrats who initiated and enacted Medicare (initiated by JFK and pushed through by the consummate arm twisting and head bashing of LBJ) and the Civil Rights Act (likewise initiated and enacted).

            All of this matters to your argument. You cannot say look at the voting record of 1964 and leave it at that.

          • mike, while I understand your sentiment, I will say that I respect bikejedi’s opinion. I don’t agree with it, and I feel that his argument has some serious flaws. Nonetheless, his is an opinion earned through his own experience and perspectives and he has every right to it. I don’t believe he is a troll.

            I have enjoyed my conversation with him. We haven’t changed each others minds, but we’ve listened. That, on comment boards like this, is an accomplishment.

          • Thanks for walking me back on this guy. I try to be civil and restrained, but he really bugs me, as I have trouble with people who not only have flaws, as you say, but just try to jam their opinion down your throat. I know John F. Kennedy, and he has him so wrong. Peace.

          • It is so easy to get frustrated and I am as guilty as anyone. However, if we believe in diversity we must act on those beliefs. Not just the diversity we like or agree with, but all of it. Besides, we progressives can be wrong or miss important perspectives as well!

          • Never mind the remorse.His kind require frequent cussing to not just get their attention but to let them know that you are on to them.Just be sure to include plenty of facts while your cussing them as they are in dreadful need of educating.

          • See my above posts . as for the Civil rights act that you say that LBJ had to arm twist and head bash …LBJ hated the Civil Rights act as did most of the Dems at the time . The ONLY reason he supported it was because he knew that the GOP would be rightfully able to claim the high ground on the issue . the ONLY people he had to convince to get it passed were DEMS the GOP was well on board and it is surprising that the Dems have gotten away with claiming the high ground as the Champions of Blacks with their track record and the fact that they were able to claim credit for the Civil rights Act . If this were accurately portrayed in the Socialist Union Public Schools then Blacks probably wouldn’t vote Dem anymore .

          • The problem with your post is that you are referring to voting records of long ago and assuming that we Democrats are unaware of them.We are well aware of the “Dixiecrat” legacy as we are also knowledgeable of the longstanding republican fascism.Time for you to give up your propaganda and try making your points based on contemporary occurrences.Or try you stuff out somewhere else.Nobody here falls for it and you know from experience that I don’t.

          • Mark what I showed was a Centuries long track record on it . You on the left pointed to Nixon’s Southern Strategy to attract Dems who “you all ” claim were racist . Well if that is the case why would they switch to a Party with a much better record on such issues and from a Party that founded and ran the KKK ? It makes no sense . I will agree that Nixon reached out to Southern Dems but he didn’t bait them with race

          • No one need bait someone with race when it is inherent in their nature.Examples of racism and failure to promote Civil Rights are abundant for both parties.I can’t cite the exact timeline but it has long been apparent that the gop courted the extreme conservative and far right fundamentalist and evangelical constituencies that exist primarily in the south and are notoriously populated with racists.The gop did not care a wit about the ideology of these entities but were rather interested in their vast bank accounts.Racists don’t give a damn what the name of their party is called,they are only interested in a safe haven for their hatred.

          • No one concedes that the gop has a better Civil Rights track record because the Democratic Civil Rights Initiatives have in the long run been more effective even when they were still racist in nature.You are ignoring the historic evidence of the human capacity for change which is part and parcel to human evolution.
            That is something that you could use a good dose of my man.

          • Maybe you should re read that post . It makes no sense . You said “No one concedes that the gop has a better Civil Rights track record because the Democratic Civil Rights Initiatives have in the long run been more effective even when they were still racist in nature.” So you concede the GOP has a better track record and then attribute that to Dem Initiatives and then say even though those Dem Initiatives were racist ? Huh ? The only one that was a Dem Initiative was the Civil Right Act of 64 and they were only doing that because they didn’t want the GOP to be able to once again be able to gain the moral high ground on the issue . Then they couldn’t get their own party to support it . The Dems filibustered it and then only gave it tepid support because of much arm twisting from LBJ . By the way I have great capacity for change . After all I was a Dem when Kennedy was President and loved America and I changed to a Libertarian Conservative when the Dems decided to turn to Socialism …and what has been your capacity for change ?

          • A good thing for you to do, would be to read, find on film, the day Rand Paul tried the same BS at Howard University, a traditionally Black school in Washington DC. You’re trying on here. Like you, Paul believed he could bluff his way through about how the GOP was all about Civil Rights, and equality for the Black folk. Those kids were insulted, just like the people on this board are insulted, for the same reason. Paul had obviously under estimated their knowledge of politics. Politics in the South. And, Republican politics over the last 50 years as it pertains to the African American, in particular. Check it out. They’ve probably got it on you tube. It will tell you all you need to know about how the larger world views the GOP in all their many new, and festering problems they’ve recently developed with people. And, it’s not just Blacks. But lots of people, out and across this Country. Republicans have decided they just don’t like em’ Not good enough. Not Christian enough. Not hard working enough. Don’t pay enough taxes. Not American enough. What they sound like they’re getting at is, they don’t deserve a vote. These other people. Like those who voted for Obama.
            That American hating, Socialist, that pals around with
            terrorists. I can’t tell you how ugly, the GOP is getting.
            Stop, and seriously listen to what their selling. What you’re
            saying. It don’t even make sense. Their locked in, locking everything else out. Turning inward, telling themselves the same lies over, and over.

          • You base your argument because kids who were indoctrinated and brainwashed by Liberals academics couldn’t accept the truth ? Really …Welcome to the Matrix where most walked around oblivious that they were slaves and when they were told could not accept the truth

          • I expected as much. But do watch the anti- academic
            rhetoric. And keep in mind, the demonization of the
            academics preceded the overthrow of every democracy
            in the 20th century. And Communist China’s characterization of the protesters in Tiananmen Square, before they shot them down in the street.

          • Here you go

            In 1789, Congress passes, and George Washington signs into law, a bill stating that no territory could become a state if it allowed slavery.

            In 1792, the Democrat Party is formed. They are the party that promotes and seeks the continuance of slavery.

            In 1808, Congress abolishes the slave trade in America.

            In 1818, the Democrats become the majority in Congress. Using their majority, they begin to undo the 1808 and other anti-slavery decisions.

            In 1820, the Democrat Party passes the Missouri Compromise, institutionalizing slavery in half of the territories.

            For thirty years, Democrats pass multiple laws promoting and protecting slavery, culminating in 1850 with the Fugitive Slave Law. This law takes away all rights to jury trials, representation, and habeas corpus from any black who is so much as accused of being a slave.

            In 1854, Democrats pass the Kansas-Nebraska act, opening up those territories to slavery, thus exceeding even the limits of the Missouri Compromise.

            In 1854, the Republican party is formed to end slavery. Six of the nine planks in their fledgling platform statement deal with civil rights issues.

            In 1857, the Supreme Court rules in Dred Scott v. Sanford that blacks are considered inferior and thus not covered by the phrase “all men” in the Declaration of Independence; that they are property covered by the 5th Amendment; and that no black—not even a free black—could ever become a citizen of the United States. The Democrats support the decision.

            In 1861, Abraham Lincoln is inaugurated, and the anti-slavery Republican Party now controls the Executive Branch. The Democrat Party, in complete control of the South, splits the nation asunder and causes a war in order to maintain slavery. Innumerable horrors and 650,000 deaths are required to free the slaves and restore the union.

            In 1865, Republicans pass the 13th Amendment, ending slavery.
            100% of Republicans vote for it.
            Even among northern Democrats, it receives the support of only 23%.

            In spite of the 13th Amendment, Southern Democrats continue to deny blacks their citizenship rights, so…

            In 1868, the 14th Amendment was passed, establishing citizenship and equal protection for all in Federal law.
            100% of Republicans vote for it.
            0% of Democrats vote for it.

            In spite of the 14th Amendment, Southern Democrats continue to prevent blacks from enjoying the real fruits of this citizenship, especially the right to vote, so…

            In 1869, the 15th Amendment is passed, establishing the right to vote for all people, regardless of race, color, or previous condition of servitude.
            98% of Republicans vote for it.
            3% of Democrats vote for it.

            From 1866–1875, the Republican Congress passes 19 civil rights laws. Democrats oppose them all.

            In 1875, in order to counter the Democrats’ passage of Jim Crow laws, Republicans pass the most sweeping civil rights legislation ever—the Civil Rights Act of 1875. Eight years later, the Supreme Court (mostly Democrat appointees) declares the act unconstitutional.

            In 1876, Democrats take control of the House of Representatives. No more meaningful civil rights legislation is passed until 1964.

            In 1892, Democrats take control of the White House and the Senate, and they keep control of the House. They immediately begin establishing Jim Crow laws and repealing all civil rights legislation passed by the Republicans. Any laws or amendments they cannot repeal, they skirt with poll taxes and literacy tests.

            Beginning after the War, and thenceforward until 1935, ALL blacks elected to Congress are Republicans. In addition to those elected to Federal office, hundreds of blacks—all of them Republicans—are elected to state legislatures in the South.

            In 1866, Democrats form the KKK with the express purpose of preventing the election of Republicans in the South. Democrats admit—under oath in Congressional hearings in 1872—that the Klan is a Democrat creation intended to restore Democrat control of the South. The Klan carries out this plan by means of a series of massacres at Republican Party meetings.

            In 1901, Republican President Theodore Roosevelt invites Booker T. Washington to the White House. Democrats and the media are outraged.

            In the 1920s, Republicans propose anti-lynching legislation. The legislation passes the house but is killed by the Democrat-controlled Senate.

            In 1947, Republican businessman Branch Rickey, owner of the Brooklyn Dodgers, hires Jackie Robinson (also a Republican), thus integrating Major League Baseball.

            In 1954, Republican Chief Justice Earl Warren (appointed by Republican Dwight Eisenhower) authors the desegregation decision of Brown v. Board of Education.

            In 1956, Democrats express their opposition to Brown v. Board of Education in the “Southern Manifesto.” One hundred and one members of Congress—all but four of them Democrats—sign the manifesto.

            In 1957, Republican President Eisenhower authors a Civil Rights Bill, hoping to repair the damage done to blacks and their civil rights by Democrats since 1892. Passage of the bill is blocked by Senate Democrats. When the bill finally goes through, it is significantly weakened due to lack of support from Democrats.

            In 1960, Republican Senator Everett Dirksen authors a Voting Rights Bill, again, in an effort to undo the disenfranchisement of blacks by Democrats through poll taxes, literacy tests, and threats of violence by the KKK. And once again, Senate Democrats attempt (though in the end unsuccessfully) to block passage of the bill.

            In 1964, Congress passes, and President Lyndon Johnson signs into law, the Civil Rights Act of 1964. This is essentially the law originally authored by Eisenhower in 1957. Democrats, including still-serving Senator Robert Byrd (a former KKK member), employ a filibuster of the bill. Once the filibuster is overcome, a larger percentage of Republicans vote for passage than do Democrats.

            In 1965, Congress passes, and President Lyndon Johnson signs into law, the Voting Rights Act of 1964. This is the law originally authored by Eisenhower in 1959. A filibuster is prevented, and passage of this bill also enjoys support from a greater percentage of Republicans than Democrats.

          • And in 1968, Nixon seizes on the anger and disenfranchisement of southern white democrats in his “Southern Strategy” which turns the south from stubbornly democrat to avid republican.

            The political world flipped. This is an important point that undermines your argument. If you wish to continue using the voting history argument you MUST deal with this fact.

          • Once again why do you people keep using the Southern Strategy talking point …Its as if you are saying Dems were racist so they switched party’s . How could that be ??? I thought Dems weren’t racist . Nixon just reached out to people that were not satisfied with their own Party and maybe it was because they liked the GOP’s much better record on Civil Rights that they switched . I mean after all if they were racist why would they want to switch from the Party of Jim Crow the KKK and one that was supporting an active KKK dragon as a Senator to the Party of Dr King . I offered centuries long track records on the issue and the people on the left on this thread offer their OWN conjecture and ” feelings” on a Political Strategy of one election . I also offered the common sense logical argument that racist Dems would have no reason to switch . By the way most Christians aren’t racist and your Party boo’d God soooo

          • I noticed, bikejedi, that you conveniently skipped over the fact that Roosevelt was rejected by the Republican party in 1912 because of Roosevelt’s un-Republican actions (Square Deal, Trust Busting, etc.). (Personally, I consider this the sign post as to when the Republican Party ceased being the liberal party it had been since inception and became the conservative party) By the way, for all their posturing, politicians at the time knew that “blacks, Asians, and non-whites were an inferior species” with quotes from politicians (Including TR & Wilson) firmly attesting to that “scientific fact”.

            You also failed to mention that Harry Truman ruined the US armed forces for all time (according to field officers) by desegregating them in 1948 by Executive Order 9981.

          • Here’s some more centering solely on the Civil Rights act

            House of Representatives

            The bill was stalled in the House of Representatives’ Rules Committee when Kennedy was assassinated in November 1963. It was finally sent to the floor of the House on Jan. 30, 1964. After nine days of debate, on Feb. 10 the bill was voted on by 420 members — 290 in favor, 130 opposed. Republicans voted in favor 138-34, and Democrats voted 152-96 in support. Democrats from northern states voted in favor 141- 4 and southern-state Democrats opposed the bill 92-11.

            Direct to Senate

            The bill was next sent to the Senate. Since it was passed in the House first it went directly to the Senate calendar, bypassing the normal committee review. This rule is rarely used, but supporters of the bill wanted to avoid the probable delay of the bill in the Senate Judiciary Committee. The vote in favor of placing it directly before the full Senate was 54-37. This left the opposition with only the filibuster tool to try to stop the bill.

            Sponsored Links

            Compliance Checklist

            Cut thru complexity of intl regs & do a time-saving gap analysis.

            Southern Bloc Filibuster

            The motion to consider the bill was debated for sixteen days before it passed, 67-17. For the next three months opponents, known as the “southern bloc,” filibustered the bill. The southern bloc consisted of eighteen southern Democrats and one Republican, led by Sen. Richard Russell, a Democrat from Georgia. This minority could hold up the bill because Senate rules guarantee unlimited debate unless it was ended by cloture, a procedure that ends debate and allows a vote, if two-thirds of the Senate agree.


            Democrats made up exactly two-thirds of the Senate, with 67 of the 100 members. But 21 of those were from southern states. This meant cloture required 22 of the Senate’s 33 Republicans to support a vote on the Democrat-sponsored bill. The minority leader, Everett Dirksen, R-Ill., played a pivotal role for the civil rights bill. On June 10, 1964, his substantial efforts in support of the bill culminated in an impassioned appeal to the Senate to support cloture and hold the vote. On this extraordinary occasion, the Senate voted for cloture, 71-29 — 44 Democrats and 27 Republicans voted in favor. Opposed were 23 Democrats and 6 Republicans.

            The Civil Rights Act

            On June 19, 1964, the civil rights bill was passed in the Senate, 73-27. Six Republicans and 21 Democrats voted against it. The debate had lasted 83 days and just over 730 hours. Because some changes had been made to the bill, it then returned to the House of Representatives for reconsideration, where it passed, 289 to 126, on July 2. Only six representatives had changed their votes since February. A few hours later President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

            Read more:

        • What exactly is meant by “one of those ultra right wing conservatives that (@bikejedi:disqus ) sleeps with?”

          @THS_Warrior:disqus Here is some free advice, love is reflected in love and hate is its own reward. Really, God is All, and All Is God; so you need to love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and love your neighbor (including those who’s ideology you disagree with) as much as you love yourself.

          You express such negativity towards the tea party; wanting them to be ‘pushed’ into ‘the abyss called Hades’. I’m sure you mean it in jest, of course, as you strike me as a Good Christian. Please do remember Matthew 7:1-5 “Why do you see the speck that is in your brother’s eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?”

          Personally, I try to stay clear of such negativity as you’ve brought here because I believe the One God is All Good, which leaves no room for anything “bad” anywhere in the universe. Remember James 3:11 “Doth a fountain send forth from the same place sweet water and bitter?”

          • Even though I grow weary when having to explain myself to the same human more than twice, especially when the human is more than intelligent enough to understand what I have said to him/her before, I will try ONE more time.
            If you will please go out on the web to my Disqus profile and then scroll down to locate a few recent comments between bikejedi and me, perhaps you may start to understand why I have said several rude things to bikejedi. You may also begin to understand why I took some shots at unidentified “ultra-far right wing conservatives” who feel a need to butt in and try to rescue bikejedi, who IMO is not as enlightened as you are.
            Translation: If the conservative belief that “the enemy of my friend is also my enemy” is true, then does it not follow that “the friend of my enemy is just a another enemy”?
            (Note: You and I both know the answer is NO. But I will bet you that bikejedi thinks the opposite.)

      • Sure, bikejedi–whatever you say. Kennedy was no neo-con–he was a thoughtful leader who looked for peaceful solutions to crisis, and he did not play ball with the Texas oil millionaires of the day. He was not an evangelical Christian–he was Catholic, he championed civil rights, he went after corruption, he believed in social justice, and he was a democrat. He was also a notorious lady’s man–something that the right wing hates. Because he “lowered the tax rate” many so-called “Americans” believed he was right-wing, but he “lowered” the tax rate from 91% to 65%–what he considered sensible and sustainable.

        • The right wing does not hate a “lady’s man”. They embrace scumbags like Vitter and Sanford. Not to mention Newt, the wife cheater, or Herman Cain.

          • Embrace???? Ha-ha-ha-ha! They twisted themselves into pretzels either denying the truth (sometimes attacking the victims or the dems for fabricating the scandals) or using their seldom used “christian value” of forgiveness in order to make their candidates consistent with their “family values” platform. Of course that forgiveness has never spilled over to a non-Republican.

          • It’s just Democrat “ladies men” that they hate. It’s okay when one is a hypocrite. As for your description of the others, spot on.

        • He did not play ball with Texas Oil Millionaires of the day ???? What ???? Ever hear of LBJ ??? I don’t care that he was a lady’s man I just don’t understand why he like Tiger Woods today decided to go out for White Castle when he had Filet Mignon at home .

          • haha
            true …At least he was going after some high class tail not like Billy …. I mean if you are POTUS and want to screw around you should at least respect the office and bang something worthwhile say a Marilyn not a Monica …I still cant conceive having a lady like Jackie with her class and wanting to go elsewhere

          • The class of Jackie and Marilyn not withstanding,should we now assume as a result of your comment,that you in your life as a man,have never been more affected by your penis than your brain? Since the Bill/Monica kerfluffle I have been in favor of creating a Whitehouse position whose duties would include serviceing the President with sexual favors whenever they are desired.That position would be called The Head Secretary.

          • hahaha …I am ok with it but I think if the President is in a real marriage the Mrs might not like it … as for myself ….You know what they say . God gave man two heads but only enough blood to operate one at a time . … As I am not married I am allowed to run around ..I think I’ve worked my way through half of Chicago

          • LBJ was nothing but a problem for both JFK and RFK who both thought he was not to be trusted. He was only added to the ticket in order for JFK to secure the nomination and it is fairly well known (thanks to Jackie and her book) that JFK scoffed at the idea of Johnson ever having any real power. By the way, many people believe that Johnson plotted against JFK–his character and reputation made that possible.

          • See we agree on a lot . I think they also picked LBJ so they could secure some of those Sothern Dems to vote for them …In the end it was my Mayor that swung the election to Kennedy and most people think he stole the Damn State to do it . LBJ was a strong personality himself and I think he was unfairly maligned at times .

          • Don’t presidential candidates pick someone usually from a distant part of the country…e.g., MA and TX – to assure votes from the entire country? That’s what I understand from Day 1 of my involvement as an activist.

          • LBJ was not an oil man, he was into radio stations. And in that simpler time, the oil companies didn’t control the world as they do today. As an old timer, I paid 13 cents a gallon when I started driving, in 1958. As for the rest of your post, it sounds a little off topic.

          • He frequently takes every side track possible and is unable to make it back to first base.You know how it is- spin,spin,spin until you’ve lost the original thread.
            I can still remember being on family vacation as a kid.My Dad stopped at a service station and told the pump attendant that he wanted $14 dollars worth of gas.To which the attendant replied “Where do you want me to put it?” I disremember what my Dad actually purchased.Those were the days when we even liked the smell of gasoline.Just goes to show how much GREED has taken over.They could sell the stuff for a buck a gallon and still be making money hand over fist.

          • The Texas oil and gas men were LBJ’s close buddies and his support–he kept their favorable tax treatment to their satisfaction during his presidency. JFK planned to submit to Congress a huge tax reform plan that would take away the subsidies and low tax rates the oil and gas industry, and other industries enjoyed.

          • Please send me any sources on what you say. Most of the oil stuff happened after this time in history. Read about George H.W. Bush and his beginnings in Texas.

      • Well,Well,Long time since our congenial Labor Day Weekend exchange.While I don’t object to your renewed presence on this page,I must say that it is indeed sad to witness your continued indulgence in willful ignorance.How much is Rush charging for lessons these days? Is it an addiction? If so,then it is one of which you should be divested.
        Of the comments I have read thus far,including yours,it seems that you are lacking in accurate,unperverted knowledge on a few different historical as well as contemporary issues.These include the Democratic party,the republican party,and the life and times of JFK.
        While the early days of the Democratic party were certainly populated with aristocratic,slaveowning planters,Lincoln and his new Republican party were definitely more interested in democratic tenets laid down by the founding fathers some eighty years earlier. Study KKK history in the 1920’s and thirties and you will find that there were many high ranking Republicans who were found to be members of the clan,especially in the states of Indiana and Illinois though not limited to those two states only.Dixiecrats would emerge in time and the attempts by Morgan,Dupont,and others,to overthrow the administration of FDR with a fascist coup were funded in part by Prescott Bush,each and every one of them a republican.All subsequent fascist movements and attempts to destroy our American Democratic Republic have been republican in origin.Study the basics of fascism and learn of their hate for all things social and democratic and their inherent totalitarianism should come as no surprise.
        When one observes the republican vitriol that was aimed at Kennedy for his “socialistic” policies,one not only sees the clever republican play on the Nations communist fears at that time, but also realizes the incredible and ignorant mental gymnastics required by you and others to equate the late President with the dung heap that is todays’ conservatism.
        When we last spoke,before wishing each other a good Labor Day,I informed you that although I bear you no ill will I would call you out on your bullshit whenever you posted it. I do so now.Your postings here are absolute bullshit and fascist propaganda.I call upon you to make accurate,factual statements that you can back up with absolute irrefutability.

        • You are absolutely correct.

          Although I was not as totally involved in politics, political parties, etc. at the time of President Kennedy’s administration, I do remember much of what you say. I certainly recall the “republican vitriol” as you so aptly put it. It was pure poison! And yes, when one studies the basics of fascism their philosophy soon becomes apparent in today’s TGOP.

          Today’s conservatism is not true conservatism. It doesn’t even come close to the true meaning and sense of the word. Today’s TGOP is a mirror of fascism, a danger to America and to the secular republic as our liberal Founders / Framers intended!

          Thank you for your very informative post and illustrations.


          • Thank You for the compliment.Not all of my comments here are of the same nature.There are times when I am quite willing to get down in the commentary gore and dook it out with various trolls.They inevitably whine about my harsh,obscene,and intolerant tactics,never realizing much less admitting that I am merely fighting fire with fire.Hope you enjoy yourself here on the “Memo”.

          • I see your buddy, bikejedi is back for more. I think that boy needs to consult with Yoda because he doesn’t seem to be able to distinguish gooseshit from tapioca. Give him some harshness, obscenity and intolerance for me, will you? Cheers, Bro.

        • Mark I showed a Centuries long record on the issue to support my position you supplied your own conjecture and ” feelings ” on the subject . On your assertions on the KKK …Certainly both Party’s are represented but the Dems founded it out of spite and to kill blacks and supported an active dragon in their Party for decades …You lose those points and I don’t have to tell you that . See no propaganda and not MY FEELINGS on an issue but fact …

          • So just exactly WHAT is your position? You cite facts and figures that are no longer significant beyond the historical record.There are racists to be found in every party.Why waste time in arguing which party has more.The bottom line is that racism is wrong and must be obliterated and equality for all must be realized.
            I didn’t expect you to admit to propaganda,it doesn’t matter.The old trick of taking things out of context and magnifying them for the purpose of political messaging is not only used by you but also is employed by Glen and Rush. The lie is contained in the omission or failure to expose the full picture.The trick is taken straight out of the Nazi Fascist playbook.

          • Did everyone get that? An argument over which party is the most racist is a waste of time, he says. Presumably, arguments about which party is the most homophobic, xenophobic, chauvinistic, avaricious, mean-spirited and downright crazy would also be time-wasters. That’s the thing about intractable Repugnicans like, bikejedi, the only “facts” they want to argue are those they can distort with hyperbole.

          • Mark we are not to far apart . I agree that there are racist in both Party’s . The original discussion centered around which Party had a better record and that was won based on fact logic and common sense . Yes I used those to prove a point to support what I know is the truth and what most on the left are either not aware of or ignore . The TRUTH is not propaganda and my facts just support the TRUTH …citing truth is also not racism or propaganda it is merely the Truth .
            And there you go again trying to bring Glen and Rush into this . Well Rush deals in fact truth and logic …yes he does it to support his positions . SO Does the WHOLE of MSNBC …Not just their opinion shows but their NEWS reporting as well . Now that is propaganda …On the other stuff we agree . Racism should just end it is stupid

          • Yes,it is stupid.On the other hand,it is well known by now what Glen Beck said last week about equating JFK with todays t baggers and you have been on this page promoting that nonsense.Rush deals in facts and truth? Now I know that you’re compromised.And I am not defending nor do I watch MSNBC.Most of us on the left,and I am a dedicated social Democrat,do indeed know our history.I at least do not try to twist it.

          • Don’t know what a Tea bagger is and I don’t read Beck . I am glad that you don’t place much stock in MSNBC . Kennedy would agree with the Tea Party of today . I mean he did back then so why wouldn’t he today .

          • JFK most certainly would NOT agree with the TP of today. It would be against his principles. In fact, I wonder if he would speak call them out publicly for their hatred of our president, laws, the electorate and our government and the Constitution (which they profess to love, but know or care nothing for) in a more articulate way, of course.

            Oh, and let’s not forget the “repeals” of the ACA, which cost us $1.45 Million each time, and the government shutdown which cost us $1.5 Million per day, the sequester which costs us jobs, blocking the Jobs Acts … and their unwillingness to work with the President for the good of our country, their constituents. To me, this is insurrection,sedition and treason. They need to be served with subpoenas for their actions, stealing from the American people for not working/doing their job, and booted out of Congress.

            NO, President Kennedy would NEVER agree with the TP of today. He loved our country! These “pseudo-patriots” are the most unpatriotic despicable pseudo-representatives our country has ever had to deal with in American history.

            Please do the research for yourself.

          • Man you people believe anything the Liberal Media and Obama tell you to believe . The Tea Party believes and stands for limited Govt and lower Taxes . They don’t hate Obama only his Socialist Policy they are not racist and don’t have to resort to playing the race card . Obama and Reid are the ones who wanted the Shut down and the Sequestration was Obama’s idea , After a year and a half of NO negotiation from Obama the GOP reluctantly agreed to Obama’s Idea . That frosted Obama because he never expected that so when the GOP did that Obama decided to make Americans pay for that . Departmental Emails show that .

          • There is a CORPORATE media NOT a liberal media.

            Regarding the TP, for me, seeing is believing!

            Their obstruction and nullification tactics toward the President of the United States speaks reams of their ultimate purpose: to give America a royal shafting by using their ideology to kill progress. These and their other games, lack of desire, interest and ineptness to govern except to give the shaft to America, the American people and trashing the Constitution, are proof positive that they don’t give a damn for this country except to kill it and whatever progress has been made since the Declaration of Independence was signed by our Founders, and the Constitution was “invented.”

            Rather they would keep the status quo and say “the hell with America”, destroy our country saying with their actions and words, “it’s OUR agenda and ideology only.”

            These people are ignorant!

            Of course I could go on and on and on.

          • Ok a Corporate Liberal Media if you will . Bought paid and bribed by Obama …Or why do you think NBC /GE and Jeff Immelt got all that money ?
            The Tea Party wants STRICT adherence to the Constitution while Obama has trampled it and used it as Toilet paper . They have fought in the House and Senate to curtail spending and for less govt and intrusion …I don’t see why you have a problem with any of that other then you are buying into Obama’s rhetoric of spin deflection LIE and Blame someone else for your own failures

          • Don’t talk to me about President Obama. He is a Constitutional scholar and professor who knows this document quite well.

            Wake up and see the truth that those who purport to love the Constitution really don’t give a damn about / for it. They have no clue what this document says because they haven’t studied it. The TPs are the ones who are guilty of stomping on it and on America. They should be subpoenaed and impeached for their treasonous actions, attempts to take down our government, shove their ideology down everyone’s throats and attempt to destroy America. In any other country they would have been eliminated.

            STUDY the Constitution and you will find who adheres to it, and who doesn’t. You will also see what it says about income taxes (which the 1% refuse to pay their fair share of) and why they are collected.

            You are obviously so blinded by hate that you can’t recognize or see the truth.

          • He was NEVER a professor only a lecturer . he was admonished by the Dept head for constantly trying to tie Socialist theory and views to it in his Lectures . ( I live in Chicago and have many friends at the U of C )
            the Tea Party wants strict adherence to the document and Obama and his two Supreme Court Appointees all like to think of it as a ” living breathing Document open to interpretation ”
            You should take off the hate blinders and do some google searches .
            By the way Hillsdale College offer free online Constitution lessons . They even have open forums and will send you a pocket guide . They are a private Constitutional University that accepts NO Govt money . If they did they would be pressured as to what they teach so they accept none . Consequently they aren’t led by anyone’s bias …You should check out their website and sign up for IMPRIMUS their newsletter . It is free . You may have an awakening as to the true meanings of the Constitution and then you would have a better idea of who is abusing it and who is adhering to it . You should also look at Kagen and Sotomeyer’s feelings on it and you will know why Obama appointed them because he shares that view . IT IS NOT A LIVING BREATHING DOCUMENT OPEN TO INTERPRETATION …it was written with direct and clear meaning . If you don’t like it you work to amend it not to interpret it .

          • The U.S. Constitution is not a dead document, but a living, breathing document. It was written by the Framers to be amended as needed not to remain static.

            BTW, I have been studying the Constitution.

          • it certainly isn’t animated or breathing . The point is that it was never meant to be left open to anyone’s personal interpretations . If you don’t like something in it you work to get it amended ….Not just say we like these parts but not these parts …By the way the only amendment that this administration doesn’t want to change is the 5th ….That puppy is getting a work out over the last 5 yrs …Have a Happy Thanksgiving

          • Read my post again. I said, “The U.S. Constitution is not a dead document, but a living, breathing document. It was written by the Framers to be amended as needed not to remain static.”

            I’m not talking about “anyone’s personal interpretations”, but of the Framers’ intentions.

            Oh yes, I stand by my post!

            Hope you had a happy thanksgiving.

          • See , so you and I agree , however our view is different from Obama , Sotomeyer , and Kagan who all have stated they view it as an living document that is open to interpretation . Kagan should of recused herself from the Obamacare ruling as she argued for it as Solicitor General …But she interpreted herself differently then anyone else . ( she’s special ) … this is the main reasons Obama nominated these people for the Supreme Court and he nominated Kagan also because she is gay .

          • I refuse to get into any discussion about this or anything else.

            You plainly do not like President Obama so will disagree with EVERYTHING he says, does, acts. Who he chooses is his business. His nominees were approved by the Senate whether you approve or not.

            Don’t bother me any more…I’m busy doing important things that really matter to a lot of people and have no time for nonsense!

          • Translation : I don’t like the truth so I will just characterize you as someone who just does not like Obama ( At least you didn’t play the race card ..kudos )
            Yes he is free to chose his nominees and the Republicans couldn’t really block them but they should have . They should’ve been hammered on their views on the Constitution and Kagan never should’ve been approved because she was the Solicitor General and that is a conflict of interest
            Im so sorry that you find the truth not important

          • That is your right ( at least for the time being ) I just hope you can recognize that all 3 that I cited ( Obama Kagen Sotomeyer ) have all said that it is a living document open to interpretation . That is a lot different from saying that it is open to be amended by due process . That is saying I will rule based on what I like in it and I will ignore what I don’t like . It seems the ONLY amendment that this admin truly likes is the 5th ….Have a nice weekend .

          • My right to stand by my post is guaranteed by the Constitution!

            You need to read the history of the Constitution to understand what the Founders / Framers said about this document. They looked ahead not backward!

          • Ah, for once we agree.

            Our Founders / Framers did get it right the first time. There is good literature out there, e.g., “The Summer of 1787: The Men Who Invented the Constitution” by David O. Stewart.

            Have a good day and weekend.

          • I am certain that President Obama, Supreme Court Justices Kagen and Sotomeyer are not the first and only ones who said those words – and I’m even more certain that others in the past made and in the future will make the same or similar statements – which can be understood as amending the United States Constitution.

            Hope you had a nice weekend.

          • Really, you and Mark are light years apart and you’re so clueless you can’t even see the difference.

            Tell me, why don’t you take 11 minutes and watch the Rachel Maddow show on the GOP voter suppression efforts and then come back and try and convince me that this isn’t one of the best examples of fascism possible: the NC GOP couldn’t portray what Hitler did in Germany back in the 1930s any better than if they actually wrote the script by trying to copy his every effort. Fascism at it’s finest!! That’s the GOP!!


          • Independent No one asked you . You seem to be filled with bile and hate …and you want to talk about fascism . Ive watched Rachel before don’t see much benefit in her . By the way what would you call the Jim Crow laws ?

          • Mark, I can’t think of a better example of just how fascist the GOP has become as when I watched the Rachel Maddow show on how voter suppersion is succeeding in NC. During the show, I thought I was watching events similar to what must have taken place in Germany back in the 1930s. The tactics the GOP has been using in NC to suppress voting, has to be almost exactly the tactics Hitler used to brainwash Germans as he worked to overtake that country.

            In case you haven’t seen it, here’s a link to her show which runs about 11 minutes. Unfortunately, it’s the only link I’ve been able to relocate after having watched it and unless I’m doing something wrong, I wasn’t able to bring the video to full screen via this link but it’s watchable. And I would surprised if anyone who watched what she is presenting doesn’t see the pure fascism displayed by the NC GOP as it is going through in its voter suppression efforts.

            Here’s the link:


          • Thanks! I have contacts in Chapel Hill who keep me informed of the nefarious goings on in North Carolina.I forget what it is called,Magnificent Mondays or something like that,which are a civil and peaceful congregation of law abiding citizens who are in opposition to certain state policies and that the authorities have for some time been busting up these gatherings.I don’t know enough about them but I don’t think they meet the standard definition of demonstrations.One would only need to read the political news out of N.C. to get the idea that they are rubbing elbows with fascism at the statehouse.
            I really don’t think that it is any stretch of imagination to say that fascist ideals and policies in both government and business are spreading.The traitors and criminals on the Supreme? Court bench flung the doors of our country and government wide open to fascism with their Citizens United trash.Any student of fascism knows that it seeks to combine control of business and government as its goal.
            Thankfully there is a growing number of states who are on board with pursuing the process for an amendment to that S.C. blasphemy.The next step would be to put a serious clamp on the likes of Monsanto and its cohorts.If something isn’t done with them then you better get ready to witness wide spread depopulation of the world as that is their intention.The sickness seems to be everywhere one looks these days.I don’t know what it will take to deal with it but last time it took a full scale World War to deliver a knockout punch to fascism.Sometimes I think it is the worst evil there is.And evil is never dead.

          • He has been served much worse than that.As with all trolls he concedes nothing and so must eventually be ignored while he plays with his own shit.

      • But JFK cared a great deal for people and that people lived (not just existed), clearly shown by his actions and as is quoted above: “What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label ‘Liberal?’…[I]f 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.’”
        – John F. Kennedy, September 14, 1960”

        • OK Cool …So Kennedy put his own thoughts on what someone else may or may not have been thinking when and if they used the term Liberal . Quite Frankly I don’t EVER recall anyone calling him that back then …We called him a Democrat . I was a proud Democrat then . As for Kennedy’s description I think that applies to most Americans not just Liberals .

          • The word “liberal” first made its appearance in politics when the GOP “accused” Dukakis of being a “card-carrying liberal.”

            In my post I was responding to this article with its title, “Was JFK A Conservative — Or A Socialist? Let’s Ask The Right-Wingers Of 1963.”

            Yes, Kennedy’s description DOES apply to most Americans, but the description is certainly not “conservative” but definitely liberal. Unfortunately the loudest voice being bellowed out today is by the right-wing TGOP.

          • Glad you pointed out the origins of the term. And the name liberal is much more desirable to me than todays tag of conservative. I like “progressive” quite well. When Teddy Roosevelt was a conservative, it was quite different from today. Basically, labels mean little, but philosophy is what matters, and so I’ll still lean to the left and try to counter balance the mean spiritedness of the right.

          • Thank you so much for your post.

            Yes, Teddy Roosevelt was a REAL conservative, not the authoritarian of today that calls themselves “conservative.”

            Have you read the book, “Conservatives Without Conscience” by John W. Dean? Mr. Dean goes through the trouble to define “conservative”, “authoritarian” and “liberal.”

            It’s an excellent read.

          • Thanks Annemb, and yes, I did read the book by Dean, back when it came out. I own it, and maybe I’ll have to pull it out and read it again. I admired Dean for how he stood up to Nixon, and how he accepted his role in the whole Watergate debacle.

          • You are very welcome. I was introduced to Dean’s book by a woman who posted on another blog. I borrowed it, read most of it, before I had to return it. I need to buy a copy for my own library.

            I’ve also begun to read, “The Men Who Invented the Constitution – The Summer of 1787” by David O. Stewart. I bought a paperback for myself from Amazon.

            What a group our Founders / Framers were. I so admire these men and their wives – as they too, sacrificed while their husbands formed “a more perfect union.”



          • I’ll see if I can get this on my Kindle. The five disc set “John Adams” really puts the life of the founders in perspective. If you haven’t seen it, you can probably get it at your library. It caused me and my wife to visit his homestead and farmhouse in Quincy, Mass. a couple of years ago.

          • Are you talking about “The Adams Chronicles”? I have the DVDs which I was fortunate to find and buy years after I saw it on PBS in NYC.

            A friend and I visited the Adams homestead in Quincy, MA about fifteen years ago. If I remember correctly, their house is connected / near Adams Sr. home. We also visited the library which is mind boggling.

            Thanks so much.

          • It was the HBO Series from 2008, starred Paul Giamatti. I see it’s available on Amazon too. Really shows the interaction with the other founders, and particularly Adams relationship with T. Jefferson. Particularly gripping scenario relating to his daughters bout with breast cancer. How fortunate we are today with modern medicine. Adams wife was his backbone.

          • No, I didn’t see that one.

            Yes, Abigail was John’s backbone. He should have listened to her when she said in one of her letter to him to “remember the ladies or we will foment a rebellion…”

            I’ve seen the film, “1776”, 61 times. My favorite is John Adams – so vocal. However, I love all the Founders…Jefferson, Franklin… they and their wives sacrificed much to found this nation and then to frame the Constitution.

            Blessings…have a wonderful thanksgiving.

    • Who said ask what you can do for your country not what the country can do for you…? Kinda shoots down your whole arguement

      • Of course this statement was made in the context of how can we all help and serve one another. From the same speech:

        “…we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required — not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

    • Rest assured, the tough sanctions put in place by President Obama, which crippled Iranian oil exports and resulted in the Rial dropping to about one fourth its value, were the result of conservative statesmen who opposed that policy before they embraced it. Needless to say, conservatives deserve full credit for the latest nuclear agreement for the same reason, they opposed it before they embraced. That is, unless Obama goes on record and lauds the latest agreement, in which case the whole enchilada will become part of an evil plot to destroy freedom and democracy.

    • Some of President Kennedy’s most important achievements involved his focus on civil rights and ending all forms of discrimination. A few weeks before his assassination he signed an Executive Order tasking a commission to develop ways to overcome gender discrimination in government and in the private sector.
      The hypocrisy of those who continuously attack women rights, who try to undermine civil rights, and who criticize affirmative action is sickening. Insinuating that JFK’s record and values are in any way similar to what today’s conservative stand for is a distortion of history and very offensive.
      Instead of trying to find parallels between icons of the Democratic party and their deplorable record and lack of vision, perhaps they should take a closer look at Reagan’s record, especially his record on domestic matters and his determination to protect the safety net, which contrasts with the GOP’s obsession with social programs and their determination to destroy them.

  2. As a native Texan I have been living with the “Revisionist Crowds” my entire life. As I grew up the right wind evangelical christian side of the family kept saying we were founded as a Christian Nation. Far too many whites could not seem to reconcile the fact that the South had lost the Civil War. They could not accept the fact that African-Americans were both “free” and “equal”. Jim Crow in its overt form existed for 100 years in Texas. And it still does today, but more subtly. Texas tough voter ID laws and the new draconian abortion law are just two pieces of evidence of the continuation of Jim Crow. But now the Republicans have added a couple of new targets: anyone of color and women.

    Anyone who was alive with Kennedy and was old enough to listen to and understand Kennedy’s speeches knew he WAS A LIBERAL! Most of my friends who were not of politically active families knew that also.

    The scary part is this kind of revisionism: it is right out of several TOTALITARIAN PLAYBOOKS! Those attempting to take over a nation always start by gaining control of the media so they can freely disseminate their lies unchallenged by fact or their opposition. There are glaring examples of this kind of technique succeeding in various degrees. Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Lenin, Hugo Chavez and many more.

    When they revise history, ignore facts, and create their lies and propaganda they clearly show the underlying weakness of their position. What they count on is the average person not caring enough to see through their lies.

    That explains the “vast right wind echo chamber”. (See Fox Nausea, Limbaugh and his ilk) At the first of the year I spent months in a VA hospital where virtually every TV was tuned to Fox. I was amazed at how people of average intelligence eagerly ate bowl after bowl of Fox Manure Soup. Some even believed it tasted like a $30.00 rib-eye steak.

    We have to give Al Gore credit at least he tried with Current TV to establish a counterweight for the Liberal side. But he was stopped by the basic realities of our rapidly emerging oligarchy or so called free-market-capitalism: MONEY! And if the Right succeeds it will be MONEY that was their rocket fuel.

    But I truly believe that WE The People can change our neighbors’ way of thinking, one door, one street, one city and one state at a time. That is the true history of this country. That the Kennedy brothers, the quintessential sons of privilege and massive wealth, were Liberals gives me great hope to defeat the sons of privilege vexing us today. If only Fred Koch had been more like Joe Kennedy his progeny might have polished his name instead of continuing the pale of tarnish now associated with it.

    • I totally agree with your post. I especially like your last sentence.

      As I understand, the Kennedy parents insisted their children serve and not live lives of sitting on their money / inheritance.

      Have you seen Ben Cohen’s website in which he shows “we the people” how we could be actively involved in having Citizens United overturned? Here is the URL:

      Blessings…and thanks.

    • wow really ? White guilt and revisionist Liberal History ? Is that what you want taught in common core ? ALL of the Slave owners were Southern Democrats . Not some ALL . After a Republican President fought a Civil war to end slavery the granted them freedom from their Dem owners and voting rights to boot , the Dems responded with the Jim Crow laws . They then founded the KKK . their Party even recently supported the KKK by supporting a Party sanctioned Sen for decades . The Republicans voted overwhelmingly for Civil rights legislation and the Dems filibustered it . Dr King was a Conservative Republican . In the last century the Dem party has somehow convinced Blacks to give up their own freedoms and chance at advancement for a place at the Govt tit . They have built the modern day equivalent to the Plantations . They call them inner city ghettos where Blacks are relegated to the bad Dem Socialist Union Public Schools . they receive substandard education . And you want to somehow change history and put that on the Republicans …Sick weak and uninformed …

        • Nice ad hominem attack while offering no evidence to support the attack . Very Immature and Intolerant ..the hallmarks of a Liberal and reinforcing what everyone already knows about Liberals …Alinsky much ?

          • The evidence that you are demented is clearly in your ridiculous posts, for everyone to see. And what the hell is an Alinsky. Didn’t you get the memo, it’s all Benghazi now. Stay on message.

          • With so many scandals it is hard to just focus on just one and unlike Liberals we on the right don’t just mindlessly repeat the talking points someone points out as evidenced by my foray into the Kennedy debate . As for demented you have offered nothing yourself but to do some immature and intolerant labeling of another poster just because you don’t agree with him . And if you don’t know who Alinsky is they should kick you out of your Party …geez the lack of basic info they give you people is astounding . Maybe you should start looking for info your self

          • First, to suggest that the right doesn’t mindlessly repeat the talking points is ludicrous. The right does nothing but that; repeats on every outlet from Rush to Faux to the steps of congress. We don’t have talking points, as we usually have different opinions on how to address or solve situations. As for your reference to Alinsky, again you show that you don’t understand nuance, sarcasm or humor. As I said, “what the hell is an Alinsky” referred to your post. It’s the same as Benghazi or IRS or all the other fake scandals you come up with. Stop already with the red herrings, they don’t work. You are in the 24% group, and falling. I see all the responses to your posts, and you should reconsider your situation, because it is ridiculous.

          • You obviously haven’t spent much time on forums like this. Both sides spend most of their time repeating fallacious or inaccurate memes which their friends shared with them along with the standard cat pictures. These memes have become the basis for the ‘talking points’ of the average American political discourse. If you pay attention to political forums you can actually track when these memes go viral as the ‘message’ each party’s supporters push changes.

          • I come and go on the sites depending on whether I can be outside playing tennis. And by what interests me at the time. I try not to depend on what anyone else thinks on a topic, as I have a contrarian view on many issues. But, it is somewhat fun to see where the conversation leads, and respond as my own instincts lead me to do. As for fallacious or inaccurate memes, it is quite lopsided.

          • Unfortunately no way to prove that one way or the other, at least none I know of. My experience has been that both sides fill the web with asinine political memes which generally contain misquotes, cherry-picked statistics, illogical arguments and appeals to emotion (think of the children!)

          • I’ll go with my gut on this. Also, there is more give and take, more tolerance of divergent opinion here than in all of congress. Some get carried away with their rhetoric, but most want to make a point or add something to the conversation. We all like to defend our position, and when we say something stupid or in error, there are plenty of willing pouncers. It’s the posters who add nothing original to the conversation that frustrate me and maybe you. We won’t solve the problems of the world or homeland, but staying involved is a good thing.

      • Absolute bull shit. When Johnson passed the civil rights laws, these “Dixiecrats” moved lock, stock and barrel to the republican party. Johnson was aware of: “Meanwhile, white conservatives tended to leave the Democratic Party, due to their opposition to Johnson’s civil rights legislation and liberal programs. Many of these former Democrats joined the Republican Party that had been revitalized by Goldwater’s campaign of 1964.
        In addition, white southern segregationists moved into private schools, particularly evangelical religious schools to avoid intergration.

        • I know it pains you but it is the whole Truth . What you stated are Liberal revisionist talking points …the facts are the facts . Look up the voting records or do you want me to embarrass you and post them ?

          • You seem to be focused on labels such as “republican” and “democrat” when you should be looking at positions and policies. The labels changed, the people didn’t. You mentioned it was the Republicans who led the way in the Civil War and you are correct. You correctly alluded that many democrats opposed the Civil Rights Act. What you have missed is that the Republicans of the 1860s and the southern Democrats of the early 1960s are clearly NOT the same as those of the 2010s.

            You need to focus more on the substance and positions, and less on the labels. They are confusing you.

          • See there goes that Liberals revisionism argument because you are scared to own your own voting records and Party history . Meanwhile I have pointed out that Republicans fought the Dem slave owners and the voting records of both party’s point to the fact that Republicans and Conservatives have a better record on Civil rights ….so that whole revisionist argument designed to make Liberals and Democrats feel better doesn’t hold water . I will agree that most of todays Liberals support equality . Obama on the other hand has used race to divide the Nation . I wouldn’t put that on most of the Liberals I know .

          • I’m hardly scared of facts, especially when used in their totality and within the full context, unlike your selective cherry picking of a few while ignoring all the voluminous contradicting evidence, context, and historical record.

            Obama has used race to divide the nation? How did you do that? By being black?

          • Yes he has used race to divide the Nation . He stuck his nose in and made all those comments about the Treyvon thing to spur the media and foster white guilt amongst Liberal white people who have been taught to be somehow self loathing ? Why should they be ashamed of their race ? And why would Obama play that card ? And to what end ? Did it help heal the Country or divide us ? Did he do that for his own self serving purposes in an election year ? …You asked how did I do that ? I think you made a typo .

          • In my judgement he did it because it captured the feelings of many of us and promoted a goal of color blind justice that directly contravened the opposite narrative of “black kid with hoodie must be doing something wrong and deserved it.

          • That is you judgement . Here is my take . He seized on an issue to distract the populace in an election year lest Romney gain some ground on the economy . My take is that he purposely played on Liberal White and laid a guilt trip on them . My next question is what does ANY White Person who isn’t a racist have to feel guilty about and why would a President purposely try to play that card when he had to know it would inflame and divide

          • Thank you for putting into words what I have been trying to say to someone else. And when did it become all the rage to call someone a ‘white hispanic’ anyway?

          • You know something–we can hardly blame you for wanting to claim a good guy as your own. Unfortunately for you, there are none among the “American loving conservatives” you are aligned with.

          • You dispute that dixierats moved within a few years to the republican party following the civil rights/integration legislation?? Sure lets see your proof that they didn’t.

          • Your contention seems to be that racist Southern Dems infiltrated and then became Republicans ? So logically if they were racist Dems who were against the civil right act why would they switch to the party that gave it overwhelming support ( the Republicans did that ) …I mean if what you are contending is that dixiecrats turned Republican because they were racist why not just stay Democrats because the Dems supported their views . Look it up , the Dems filibustered the Civil rights act and they only gave it tepid support because they knew that they were going to get shown up . That is the only reason they got it to pass …Your argument holds no logic .

          • The southern democrats fled the democrat party after LBJ pushed through the Civil Rights Act, and flocked to the GOP in response to Nixon’s Southern Strategy. Well documented. Look it up.

          • Once again …lets look at common sense because that revisionist history is just that . Why Would They ? If they were racists why would they flee the party that supported Byrd and wanted to stop the Civil Rights act . Once again I will take logic over someone’s revisionist account to make a political argument

          • I’m not relying on a “common sense” argument, I’m using a factually based account of what happened between 1964 and 1968. Nixon exploited the anger and feeling of betrayal by southern white democrats after the passage of the Civil Rights Act to enact his Southern Strategy and win the presidency.

            Lets not forget that George Wallace (“segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever”) was a democrat, ran for president as a democrat three times, and left the democratic party for his fourth run for the presidency in 1968.

          • Let’s be honest. Democrats from the South were different than those from the North. It’s that Civil War thingy.

          • Kennedy had the courage to lead the Democrats in a direction that too many could not accept (and subsequently left the party). Kennedy was a game-changer whom we are all lucky to have had as a president. Many say it was because of his support for integration and equal rights (among other policy positions) that cost him his life.

          • Please put us all out of our misery and look up the new “Southern Strategy”–and then try a new argument based on reality. You have a computer–so what’s stopping you?

          • I agree that Nixon reached out to Southern Dems and won a lot of them . I find it contradictory for you people on the left to say that these people were racist ( after all you all contend that no Dem is racist ) and if they were racist then why would they switch from a Party that agreed with them and had an active KKK member as a Senator to a Party with a track record of being pro Civil Rights ? That argument doesn’t hold water

          • just reasoning logically as a way to point out that the Southern Strategy is a failed argument …You get it right and you are right it doesn’t change history to try to make an argument based on flawed logic like they did . Glad we agree

      • Missed out on the 60s didn’t you. Things changed a bit then, but either you are too young or you were too stoned at the time to notice.

        • Lived it …In the Dem City of Chicago ..Not stoned or brainwashed like you seem to be . I was a proud Dem when Kennedy was President and saw him in Chicago a month before he was killed by a Liberal Communist . Yep things sure have changed and Kennedy would not have anything to do with todays Liberals or Socialist Dem Party …He HATED Socialists and Communism ….

          • Please, we don’t have anything even closely resembling socialism or communism in this country. You really need to get out of the very centrist US and experience the political spectrum a bit more.

          • Please , I live in the Belly of the Beast here in the Liberal Dem Utopia once known as Chicago . I know what Socialism is . It moves incrementally . You should look past rhetoric and look at reality because if Obama and HIS Dem Party gets its way we will be a majority dependent Socialist Nation > Google Cloward Piven …

          • I didn’t claim you did an ad hominem and thank you for having a civil discussion …as for not having a clue that is a funny comment because it seems I do , and no one on here was even aware of your own party’s voting records

          • Which ones ? That I grew up in Chicago ? Sure ! or that he was killed by a Liberal Communist ? Sure ! That Kennedy hated Communism ? Sure ! I don’t think you would EVER hear Kennedy state that he liked Communism and preferred that as a form of Government like Obama did . How hard it must be to defend Obama …..

          • Did you read the quote from the beginning of the article??? You guys twist yourselves into pretzels trying to make a situation fit your political views.

          • Kennedy declared himself a liberal for the reasons he stated. Liberals believe government CAN solve problems. Those stating that it can’t (like Norquest) are simply diverting away from the real reasons: the wealthy want NO REGULATIONS OR TAXES. If there are taxes to be paid, the lower and middle classes should pay them in their estimation. Everything should be about lining their pockets and increasing their profit margins. And they have had a campaign against any prospect of government helping the average American because it might hurt their profit margin, and question the fiction they are selling to, shall we say, the intellectually challenged, about government being the source of America’s economic problems.

          • So how do you explain Obama artificially pumping the stock market to inflate it with the QE policies . I mean they are just printing money and inflating the Markets . Those evil greedy rich people are raking in a lot of money and nary a peep from the Occupiers where did they go ?

          • I’m not particularly comfortable with Obama’s cozy relationship with the business community, nor with any equating of wall street success with main street. Frankly, in my eyes, Obama is a centrist and a pragmatist. I’m a progressive. And I think a soild case can be made that rich people are “evil and greedy”: like the Koch brothers, ALEC, Citizens United, Voter supression. So Obama’s not perfect. But he’ll beat the Bircher agenda any day of the week.

          • I love that whole Obama is a centrist thing . Come on now . His own words and deeds (and those of Bill Ayres ) show that dude is left of Marx . Citizens United evened the playing field . I mean Corporations pick and choose who to donate to . In the last election they donated to Obama at a 2 to 1 clip over Romney probably because they wanted to hedge their bets and knew if they went against Obama how vindictive he and Jarrett can be . On the other hand Socialist Public Unions donate to the Dems at about a 90% clip Nationwide and you don’t seem to have a problem with that .

          • This is ABSOLUTE, TOTAL, UTTER BULLSHIT. You can live in you right wing echo chamber from now to eternity AND IT WILL STILL BE BULLSHIT. Citizens United allowed corporations, right wingers, right wing think tanks to dump UNLIMITED MONEY in to political campaigns with NO ACCOUNTABILITY AND NO DISCLOSURE. YOU, SIR, ARE TOTALLY FULL OF SHIT.

          • wow and we were having such a nice conversation . Campaign records prove I am not full of shit in fact they prove I am spot on . I know it hurts to know that the Public Unions donate so much of OUR OWN Tax dollars to the Dems and that is a lot different then a Company spending THEIR OWN MONEY .

          • No we weren’t. If you are really that opposed to public unions spending voluntary money to support their political interests, I suggest THAT YOU SECEDE. By the way, stock holders DO NOT GET TO VOTE ON POLITICAL AD THAT THEIR COMPANY PROMOTES. STOP WORSHIPING THE PRIVATE SECTOR; THAT IS WHERE THE GREED IS.

          • Public Unions spend Collected Union Dues ( OUR TAX DOLLARS THAT ARE IN MOST STATES TAKEN OUT OF THE UNION WORKERS CHECK BEFORE THEY EVEN SEE THAT MONEY AS TO MAKE THEM NOT AWARE OF THE AMOUNT THAT THEY PAY TO THE UNION ) The Union heads then return those TAX DOLLARS TO THEIR BENAFACTORS INT THE DEM PARTY who give them everything they want in return . What you have is two parties ( the Dems and their Unions ) fighting over the money from the third party ( The Tax Payers ) with no advocate for the Tax Payers . They then donate that money at a 90% clip to the Dem Party . Co.s and Corporations donate to who they think will benefit them the best . That is not one sided and in the last election Obama got that money at a 2 to 1 clip …So what is your problem with that . Maybe you should stop believeing Occupier class warfare propaganda and look into it your self .

          • I think you are dead wrong. As a former union member, I can tell you that if we chose not to have a deduction for our PAC, the same sum would be donated to the charity of our choice, That, Sir, is a fact. I lived it. Owners of common stock, on the contrary, ARE NOT given that option. I believe in unions, and support them. You believe in the wealthy to act magnanimously toward their workers or you don’t care at all. By the way the founder of the Right to Work (for less) movement was Vance Muse, a Texas racist who couldn’t stand the idea of being in the same union as a black man.

          • Were you a Public Union member or Private Union member ? I don’t know what State you live in but in most of the 57 States the Union heads take the Union dues ( OUR TAX MONEY ) and they decide who to donate to . In the Liberal Utopia and the State with the most per capita Union DEBT ( Illinois ) that money goes to Dems at a 98% clip . Is it any wonder they get everything they want from the Dems at contract negotiation time and the Dems keep raising taxes here to pay for it > Of course the last tax increase has chased over 63, 000 jobs out of our State in the last 2 yrs . The Bond ratings houses have responded by dropping the States bond rating 4 times and currently IRAQ has a better bond rating . Thank You Dems and Public Unions

          • It was the teachers union in CA. If your going to complain about so called “public money” used for advancing union interests, then you should also be against corporate welfare for the oil companies and other private entities. Also, you should have complained vociferously about bailing out the banks. Your view point is defined by which side your bread is buttered on.

          • What was the Teachers Union ? I don’t understand what you are getting at ? Also I don’t get that whole corporate welfare for oil companies idea . I mean the US Govt makes about 42 cents on each gallon of gas in Taxes and the Oil co makes between 6 to 9 cents a gallon . Also Oil Co.s reporting record profits is a good thing for the US economy as the more they make the more they pay in Taxes . I don’t like any bailouts but after the CRA of 1977 basically made them write loans no bank would do unless ordered to …well they deserved to be bailed out . If you are referring to TARP by the way as a bailout most of the banks didn’t want to participate in that beside the ones that were in trouble and anyway that program has paid dividend after dividend to the US treasury . It also returned some banks to solvency .

          • Every school district in CA has a teachers union to represent the interests of teachers in the district. If you are a teacher, you are, as a condition of employment, be a member and pay dues. If you choose not to contribute to the political action committee, an equivalent amount can be applied to a charity in lue of that portion of your dues. It is perfectly fair and I, in fact, support it.
            I’d like to see some evidence of your claims for figures on oil company profits/us taxes…. they don’t sound right at all to me. “The CRA of 1977 made them write loans on bank would do unless ordered to”…. this is total bull shit. Read Matt Tiabbi’s “Griftopia” and Karen Ho’s (she worked several years in a wall street bank) “Liquidated”.
            Further, maybe some of the wall street big 5 didn’t want to participate in TARP, but if that was so, why did Hank Paulson come to congress and basically extort money from them for a bail out? To this day, wall street has fully recovered and is doing a land office business. Congress approved the loan on the condition that these banks would pass on their good fortune to main street….. didn’t happen, now, did it?

          • Morbius you seem pretty reasonable and I think we have different views maybe because of where we reside . I live in Illinois ( the belly of the beast )

            If true I would say that is more equitable then most states . In Illinois the dues are taken out of the checks by the State . The Tax Payers even have to pay for that extra administration . this was so the Union members wouldn’t get to feel how much they pay in dues .
            As for the CRA it most definitely forced banks to write loans no bank in their right mind would normally write …When Clinton was President the banks started to balk and told Clinton and Congress that they were holding to much bad debt because of it and that the whole thing was a house of cards . They told him it would spell doom and collapse ( it did when Bush was President and the banks had far warned America ) Janet Reno threatened the banks with Fed Discrimination law suits if they didn’t keep writing them . The blame for the whole mess goes back to Carter and his attempt at Social Engineering known as the CRA of 1977 …

          • I’d like to see some independent verification of your second paragraph. Matt Tibbi tells quite a different story. You see thing always from a right wing point of view, which I just don’t share. I trust the government and the public sector far more then I trust the private sector. And I think I have good reason to feel that way.

          • This is not an independent source; it is a right wing think tank. “The Illinois Policy Institute (IPI) is a conservative think tank with offices in Chicago and Springfield, Illinois, and member of the State Policy Network. The IPI describes itself as a “leading independent research and education organization.”[1] They claim that “the ultimate sign of success is when free market ideas are turned into law and change lives for the better.”[1]

            Ties to the American Legislative Exchange Council

            IPI is a member of the American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC) as of 2011. Brian Costin, IPI Director of Outreach, and Ted Dabrowski, Vice President of Policy, represent IPI on ALEC’s Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force. At the 2011 Annual Meeting, Costin introduced the “Local Government Transparency Act” model legislation, and Dabrowski introduced the “Pension Funding and Fairness Act” model legislation for adoption by the task force. The latter was adopted and proceeded to the ALEC Board of Directors for approval.[2] Executive Vice President Kristina Rasmussen represented IPI on the Tax and Fiscal Policy Task Force as of April 2010, when she penned an article entitled “Pension Funding Reform: A Solution for Budget Deficits” for ALEC’s newsletter, Inside ALEC.[3]

          • Simply stated they are the most accurate data researchers on the problems that face the citizens of Illinois . They also have made many common sense proposals to fix the Pension Debt in the State but that falls on deaf ears here because the Dems only care about their Public Unions . They have given them everything they want for decades and now it is costing us Jobs and Population . The simple fact is that they keep raising taxes and people and jobs keep leaving . Have a nice Thanksgiving .

          • bikejedi, I looked them up. They are listed as a right wing think tank. I wouldn’t trust them any farther then I could throw them. There is nothing wrong with public unions and trying to bargain for more compensation; likewise, pensions were promised and should be honored. Taxes on the 1% should be raised and corporate welfare ended. I remember the scandal when whirlpool left for Mexico. Whirlpool should not be allowed to sell it’s products in the US without paying a tariff equal to the wages they saved by moving the company to Mexico. And that should happen to EVERY SINGLE COMPANY WHO FOLLOWS WHIRLPOOL’S EXAMPLE. If their stockholders don’t like it, they can put it where the sun doesn’t shine. It’s high time they start considering something besides their bottom line.

          • Yes they are a think tank that is doing the best statistical break down of how the pension debt and the subsequent Tax Increases have effected Illinois . It should be a chilling example to the rest of the Country . Further those promises you cite as to Union pensions were agreed to by Dems seeking those Union’s support and with absolutely no advocate for the Tax Payer who has to pay for those agreements . In Illinois that means that the Average Public Sector Union employee is being paid double what the avg household income is for a Chicago household and also double what their counterparts make in the Private sector for like work …And that is before you factor in their bennies . Sweet deal for them not so much for the Tax Payer . Of course the Dem solution has ALWAYS been to do just what you say …RAISE TAXES and that has resulted in a climate where people are fed up and leaving OUR State in droves . We are losing productive Tax Payers en masse . They are taking their Tax Base , their consumer base , and their jobs/companies with them . Our Gov politicked for a massive Tax Increase 3 yrs ago on the basis that he would address the Union Pension debt . He got that Tax Increase and didn’t even look at them choosing to just spend more money and cut some of those Social Programs of compassion Liberals often site as a safety net . Our mental health budget now ranks dead last in the Nation and still no Pension relief . The bond rating houses responded by lowering Illinois credit rating 5 times and we now rank lower then IRAQ …Businessmen aren’t stupid …They know that since the Dems didn’t address the Pension debt another Tax increase will be forthcoming …so they are all moving . We have lost between 63,000 to 74,000 jobs out of our State in the last two years …that is unsustainable . Every future Union employee needs to be put into a 401 K plan . That is what is fair to the Tax Payer whether they be middle class or wealthy .
            You are mad at whirlpool ? If they should be tariffed as a punishment all Foreign Co.s should be . After all our Co.s face tariffs in Foreign Countries why should their Co.s face the same tariffs here ? If you did that you would go a long way towards solving the issue of off shoring jobs…Bill Clinton took a different tactic ( see NAFTA ) You shouldn’t blame Companies for seeking the best business climate you should work to make America that place like it once was .

          • I’m against what Clinton did in terms of NAFTA, no question. But let’s be clear here; business has no interest in the average American aside from their value as a market source. I have no interest in furthering business interests as a result of that attitude; neither should the average American and neither should you (unless you own one of those businesses). So I think the US would be perfectly justified to tax the businesses who left for the benefit of their stockholders over other Americans.

          • So you left the Party–like all the others that jumped ship to the Republican Party of hate. By the way–what makes you say Kennedy hated anybody? He did not want to escalate the conflict in Vietnam in spite of the North Vietnamese, and got us out of a potentially huge disaster with Russia because of his very careful maneuverings. Therefore, he did nothing to stop the spread of “communism.”

          • See there you go again thinking that if you are a Republican or Conservative you are a Hater ..That is uninformed and just repeating talking points . You make yourself sound cult like and indoctrinated with that . To your point , are you denying that Kennedy hated Communism with every fiver of his existence ?

          • You’re the one who claimed you were once a “proud Dem” in Chicago (according to you in other posts the Dems are the rascists and dare everyone to prove otherwise).

            In all your posts you argue from the position of an “America loving conservative” now. It seems you will say anything to attempt to win an argument.

          • Lets not confuse the two issues . I was a proud Dem during the Kennedy era . I wouldn’t support todays self serving Socialist Dem Party that Obama has created . They don’t operate on the basis of what is good for America but rather what can build them a permanent majority . As for the Racist Dem thing that wasn’t me that was those who try to make the argument that Nixon appealed to them to join him with his Southern Strategy … Those people made the argument that those were racist Dems that switched on that basis and I pointed out why that was poppycock .

          • Please explain what makes today’s Dems the “self serving Socialist Dem Party.” I’ll get the popcorn because, as all your posts go, it’s bound to be entertaining.

          • You mean you cant see it ? Ok get your popcorn ready . The Dems have followed a Cloward Piven Strategy under Obama . It is designed to make as many people dependent on Govt so they vote the way you want them to . That is what is known as Self Serving . It is also a Socialist agenda and the way most Socialist Country’s have evolved . It isn’t good for Anyones Country and only benefits the people enacting that policy so they can have permanent seats and majorities …clear enough ? Pass the popcorn and lets watch that show with all the Dems on it …You know the Walking Dead …Geez that looks just like Chicago every election day …We call election day in Chicago the day of the dead .

          • I’m sorry–I do not see what you see (what color are your glasses?)–that is why I ask–and as always, I enjoy your answers. The notion of “self-serving socialist” is hysterical.

    • I agree with most of your post. However, as you must well know, these right wingers (whether leaders a la the Kochs or followers … village idiots) are emotionally wedded to the Fox propaganda machine. And, they are intellectually lazy. Ask them when was the last time they actually PICKED UP A BOOK, let alone read it. Rodger Ailes had it exactly right in his memo to Nixon: Today television news is watched more often than people read newspapers, than people listen to the radio, than people read or gather any other form of communication. The reason: People are lazy. With television you just sit—watch—listen. The thinking is done for you.

      • Unfortunately, they actually do read some books. I have a close relative, with whom I cannot speak of anything except sports. Otherwise, it comes back to Benghazi or the like. The books I see there are written by Rush, Palin, Coulter, Hannity, Beck et al. They actually spend good money for this stuff and regard it as “gospel”. Funny, they can’t see the real book of Gospels in its true meaning.

        • All those books you mentioned are considered easy reads. They support already held viewpoints and so there is nothing challenging to consider. As for the Bible, I doubt seriously, that most have actually read it. As with everything else–they cherry-pick what they want to read and/or recite, and totally taken out of context at that.

          • Consider that much of the current biblical text has already been taken out of context and you have got one great big compounded pile of poop.

          • If you are referring to the multiple translations, I agree, and then add to that the corruptions, but as far as being a “pile of poop” –as long as it isn’t taken to be the “inspired word of God” and interpreted as literal truth–it’s okay. I like the “I Ching: Book of Changes” too.

    • This post is a couple days old, but I reread it, and since I am old enough to remember JFK, want to respond. I was a senior in H.S. when he ran for president, and being Irish and Catholic, was interested in what he had to say. I heard and read his speeches, and yes, he came across as very progressive and his vision was attractive to me. As a son of a railroader with 6 kids, it was good to hear Kennedy speak out for the working class and those in need. He did tell us later to help, not ask for help, but that is how we can do it. We all must help in order to have a more perfect union. To suggest he was a Right Wing conservative is ridiculous. He didn’t need more money, but realized that we the people needed policies that more urgently helped us to become a healthier country, in all ways. I saw him in 1963 while serving in the U.S. Navy, and was thrilled that he came to our base in Norfolk, Va. He was killed and the dreams of a generation were snuffed. We could use another leader with his grace and charm, vision and abilities. Conservative? No. Progressive? For sure.

  3. It all comes down to an addiction to control. So..ask yourselves..Can they control me? If your answer is a resounding “NO!,” then they’ve already lost their battle for total national control. The Tea Party takes its marching orders from two of THE most manipulative men on the planet, Charles and David Koch. Cantor, Issa, Ryan and the rest of the “Shut Down” bois don’t move their bowels without Koch approval. These are men? Or are they bloodsucking money hungry shills who believe that, by association with the Koch manipulators, they will become the empirical minions who are the only ones who make all the rules…ergo..their control addiction.

    Now we all know what happens to addicts of any kind..they grow more mentally unbalanced with their obsessive need. Let them. This is a government of the people, for the people, BY the people. If we allow a tiny bunch of misfits to be so important, we hand over control of our lives to these control addicts. No thanks. I’ll just label them the Twerpies I know they are. In fact, you’d all be hard put to tell one of them from the other…that’s why I call them the Bois from Brazil. The Kochs only employs clones who know how to take orders and never think for themselves. Without each other, the Tea Party is already on the scrap heap.

    • Let’s correct the mistake of 1865: let the baggers secede. And be sure to take the Kochs, Dick Armney, Karl Rove, Dick Cheney ect with you.

      • I am of the mindset that allowing secession will only admit our failure to communicate properly the meaningful intent of the Constitution. The Tea Party, like all passing fancies of those grossly insecure individuals needing maximo attention, is not sustainable. All anyone has to do to prove that is listen to their platitudes and gospels. One size in the US has never fit all and never will. And thank God for that!

        • Read: “American Nations; A History of the Eleven Rival Regional Cultures of North America” by Colin Woodard. It convinced me that there never really was a “united” states. Further, that we are not any more “one” nation than Iraq is today.

          • Your gospels of division doesn’t fly. It takes a “united” front to send men and women to war as in WWII. It takes a “united” country to assist internationally when major diasters occur. Until mentalities like yours cease and desist trying to tear this country apart, we will always have hateful men with evil intent to fragment what we really are: Americans. If you are not, what are you doing in this country you believe is so divided?

            Anyone who is an American never fits into any other foreign society except as a “second class” citizen who only gets offered jobs AFTER the nationals in the country get first crack. This is NOT true in the US where millions have come to have the kind of freedom the divider men in this country are praying they can tear to shreds.

            The Confederacy didn’t survive for one reason: If it had, they would today be foreigners not entitled to the dearth of federal tax cuts, subsidies and other bennies they get as a result of paying allegiance to the “UNITED” States of America. Disgruntled middle age men today read from a script they hope and pray will convince others is division. It’s anything but. Ask anyone in NJ who recalls numerous states sending assistance during Hurricane Sandy. Keep your divisive gospels in your Bible of Division. That’s the only place where it will ever count.

            Americans are “UNITED” when it counts most…when we rely on each other for cooperation and a future for our kids.

          • I’m not going to attack your conviction; I simply think you are wrong. Read the book I suggested. It is not a right wing book, or a southern diatribe. It is looking at this dysfunctional country in the cold light of reality. Ask yourself, as in a non functional marriage, what is the point of keeping two people (or two countries) together who simply have two different world views, two different value systems, and two different agendas? More dysfunction? On the other hand, I can see some potential benefits for splitting the country. Number one on the list is the end of American imperial aspirations. Number two is a revival of the economic prospects of the middle class and a more equatable treatment of the working class. I have taken off my rose colored glasses and now realize I have little in common with the Birchers, the evangelicals, or the racists of the south. I would like a life free of their influence. Nor do I think that we have a perfect political system or that there is something particularly “sacred” about the founding fathers. We, as a nation, have a great deal to answer for. Specifically, the appropriation of American lands from the Native Americans (we stole them) and the importation of Africans for the economic gain of southerners so they could live an aristocratic life. I see nothing of “american exceptionalism” in that. All I see is arrogant presumption. And that it wasn’t a necessity; it was a choice. As two nations, perhaps both could do better in the future.

          • Your post has to be the most erroneous statement any citizen of ANY country of the entire world can make. I am soooo fed up with that generation of men out there always at the ready to destroy, kill and refuse to do their patriotic duty to their country. NO you cannot divide the US no matter how many of these treasonous gospels those of you mentality preach. As for the rest of your posted suppositions. They are wrong. Did Ghenghis Khan worry about the lands he invaded? Or any of the male marauders in World History? All I see from your posts is a clear cut dismantling of society that would leave gaping chasms of opportunities for the wealthiest greedies men in this country to take over. No one takes over me or MY country. Those who want division need to try living in the Middle East. Your post is schismatic of what happens when Baths hate, Shiites hate, Pakistanis hate and Saudis all hate enough to kill 4,000 innocent Americans on 9/11. I’d love to see a man like you try to protect your little “kingdom” when, not if, it goes under attack. All those little microcosms of manhood wouldn’t be enough in divided states to save your butts. That takes an entire country. Women are bored to death with men today who have all of these divisive propositions of how much better life would be if it was a tiny little kingdom, one for each man in the country where he could play Lord of the Universe. Dream on. Not going to happen. And…there’s a five letter word you guys of the divisionary troops all hate: WRONG…as in YOU are wrong.

          • I’m sorry; I think you are dead wrong. You ignore history and the nature of social structure. I would point out to you Woodward’s passage about the nature of “state” vs. “nation”. “Americans – because of this particular historical circumstance – often confuse the terms “state” and “nation”, and are among the only people in the world who use STATEHOOD and NATIONHOOD interchangeably. A “state” is a sovereign political entity like the United Kingdom, Kenya, Panama, or New Zealand, eligible for membership in the United Nations and inclusion on the maps produced by Rand McNally or the National Geographic Society. A “Nation” is a group of people who share – or believe they share – a common culture, ethnic origin, language, historical experience, artifacts,and symbols. Some nations are presently stateless – the Kurdish, Palestinian, or Quebecois nations, for instance. Conversely, there are plenty of states – some of them federated – that aren’t dominated by a single nation, like Belgium, Switzerland, Malaysia, Canada and, indeed, the United States”.

            I believe that the fundamental unit of human society is the tribe, not the state, or even the nation. Big amalgamations of people without underlying reasons for single identity, inevitably break apart under their own weight.
            Lastly, I fail to see the reverence that you hold for a nation that is so obviously divided in such fundamental ways as to force it’s citizens to live under a government and agenda that they obviously hate.

          • No…Morbius you are deadly wrong. It takes courage and strength to admit that your skewed views of “history” aligned to your specifications and creative thinking are diametrically opposed to exactly why the first settlers came to create the “UNITED” States. Only men like you want everything sliced, diced and burned into lethal destruction. No army in any history of the world EVER succeeded in winning by disunity. Not even you can prove that. And yes. The world began with tribes. Neanderthal men who ventured out of their caves to the brave world to find food and other survivalist necessities. They left behind in the caves, women and children. In a unified Neanderthal civilization, only men who banded together managed to breed your generation of anti anti anti anti everything. Had they not presented a united front in those early days of civilization, your kind would not be here.

            Our nation isn’t divided. It’s being sliced and diced by minds like yours. Was the US divided during WWII when men fought to stop Hitler? When the women left back home in the US worked in munitions plants and the government asked for rations and they willingly complied?

            Hitler is a man who is THE most tribal example of Aryian male domination over the planet. If that’s your best shot at proving the US isn’t united, give it up already. Most patriotic Americans who really profess a profound respect for their country are not fooled by today’s Bull Divisionists. There’s only one reason for dividing this country: to make what remains the private domination fifedoms of the those like you who believe men are superior. You can present all the history you like to support such a warped ideal. Women in the US do not want division. We want men to stop acting like a bunch of children yet to reach maturity. Women in the US will not tolerate such division. So right there your suppositions all go down the toilet. Men like you love to gloss over the fact that there exists on the planet TWO genders, the female of which will not support, tolerate or endure any more of the childish male attitudes of planetary dominance. Not when our tax dollars are at stake.

            Your mind is a closed door. No opportunity in this lifetime happens by the hand of a single man without cooperation of others. You need help. Your posts prove there are very mentally unabalanced men in this country who are sociopathically inclined to “Divide and Conquer.” Sorry. the women in the US don’t like that BS nor will we pay our taxes to promote a unilateral dictatorship ruled by a band of sociopathic men. Hitler tried and failed. Your kind will too. All it takes is for a sweeping disaster like Katrina or Hurricane Sandy to prove our unequivocable unity. I hold an allegiance to the country that gives me such unparalleled freedom because that’s my duty as an American. Men like you have forgotten what your patriotic duty is: Ask not what your country can do for YOU YOU YOU …try and remember your posts are coming from a badly segmented mind that was cultivated in some bizarre disunification process at birth. The entire Daycare Generation is now proving what a bunch of ingrate, narcissistic, selfish bunch they are. Raised by perfect strangers with whom they couldn’t bond and they now try to tear the only fabric left this country has to bear witness to the ideals of the Founding Fathers: All men are created equal..Not some men..not divided men…ALL.

          • Your mind is closed, and I’ve already offered proof for my arguments. I served this country in the military: did you??? I’ve never attacked women, but you’ve twisted my arguments in your mind to make it seem as if I did. You are a white women, over 65 probably, living in the south. Your also probably an evangelical. You and I have little in common, except maybe the money we spend. You seem to have little curiosity, nor are you willing to entertain any examination of your beliefs. In short, you are an intellectual dead end. Some of your posts have merit; this last diatribe is unworthy of you.

          • Accusing the most open minded woman on the planet of having a “closed mind,” is a joke coming from a monolithic mind who posts drivel about chopping up the entire country into small dictatorial fifedoms. I haven’t twisted anything. You can’t admit your post is fraught with errors.

            First of all, name one nation on the planet divided into tiny microparishes that manages to live without outside assistance. Open minds know this just is a figment of narrow minded imaginations. I don’t need curiosity to know the kind of subtle path to sabotage bred upon narrow minded insistence only your opinions are valid or worse, fact. I have named several instances in history, which your first post alluded to, where it would have been next to impossible for tiny patchworks of fifedoms to survive without the outside world. You’ve been spending waaaaaaaaay too much time on a computer and have lost the realities of every day living that always, always, always requires unity, cooperation and a communal goal to get anything done. The most autocratic men always nose dive into division when their childish male egos cannot supplant united efforts with anything remotely resembling “unity.” No. This country will not now nor ever be divided. It takes ALL Americans to do for their country as JFK once stated. Not some Americans with a back room agenda of divide and conquer. That regresses back too far into ancient history. Divide the states and the first state to go under would be Texas, followed by Alaska, Oklahoma, Kentucky and Virginia. Texas infiltrated every other state with its Big Energy tentacles. What would you thus propose? That all states cave to one state’s only industry?

            There already was an attempt at dividing the country. And they got their butts beat. We all know from our history books what happened to the Confederacy. It had zero chance of surviving without slavery. It went under and to this day relies more heavily on federal tax dole outs. The rebel divide and conquer mentality only proved in foresight that the survival of a nation lies with the fittest…not the dividers and conquerors.

          • I notice that you didn’t deny my characterization of you, so I assume it to be true. Wrapping yourself in the flag and nationalism doesn’t make it true. Did you serve in the US military??? I did. I think that gives me at least some consideration. Do you ever read a book, other than some Bircher pamphlet? I doubt it. I’m frankly tired of the Bircher rhetoric, and see the reality of our different agendas; you don’t. If the south wants to be a third world nation, I say let them. If they want feudalism/fascism, I say let them. I just don’t want to live there. As far as energy, the blue states would be free to work on alternative energy sources with out the crushing influence of big oil and without paying corporate welfare to these oil giant gluttons.

          • Slather your posts in gloss. They are still wearing the patina of anarchist. I wrap myself in a flag that my brothers fought in the Korean and Viet Nam War to protect while anarchists like you watched from the sidelines. Frankly, YOU are reading from the Bircher Bible yourself there pallie. The south thought they wanted to be a third nation before the Civil War when they couldn’t keep free slave labor. Is this what you propose? Allowing a “third nation” of freeloading DogPatcher lazy butts to eat up the profits they earn in every state but their own? To return to free slave labor? The southern culture is rife with male superiority. In a day and age when women are financially independent and are at this very moment holding down more jobs than men, there are no southern belles ready to sit on the verandas while they are nothing more than brainless arm candy. And, in case you missed it, the contingent of politicians in the south are sidler men who kiss up to any nouveau riche guy who waves a dollar bill past their noses.

            This country belongs to every American…not some righteous, anarchist Americans who are as selfish and self-important as Ayn Rand herself. Take the hint.

          • Wrong…I couldn’t possibly EVER live in the south. It’s just altogether too backward and lacking in natural progress for me. The other reason I wouldn’t ever live in the south? That culture breeds dominant males like rabbits every year.

            I live in a progressive blue state that pays more in federal taxes and gets back less than any conservative state…NJ.

            I am proud of my state for many reasons. When the going gets tough, the tough in NJ get going. We have one of the lowest records of welfare in the country. Our asses our out of bed every day at 5 AM and on the road to our jobs and we don’t return until 6 PM in most cases. NJ has it all…the best Ivy league colleges and universities and it leads the nation in hi-tech industries along the Rt. 1 corridor. We have every conceivable Fortune 50 Business represented in NJ and we re No. 2 in the production of solar energy.

            Our politicians cooperate with each other and don’t possess that slash and burn, kill or be killed attitude in some of the other backward states.

            NJ may be a blue state but it’s a state that is strong enough to be knitted together by our Revolutionary and Civil War history as well as the numerous vets from WWII, Viet Nam and Afghanistan/Iraq. This is the reason per square mile, NJ is the more populated state. We have beaches, parks, museums and a rich, rich history as one of the original states to enter the union. Union…as in unity you seem unable to mentally process. NJ won’t allow TX or any other Bully Boi state to infiltrate our state with their pollution or their corrupt Big Slime Boi Businesses. There’s an old old old saying…IN unity….there is strength. Go it alone and see how far you’ll get.

          • Point 1: I went to the trouble of copying Woodward’s definitions of “state” and “nation”… that is what is germane here. I’m not talking about “fiefdoms” or mini countries…. a combination or reorganization of states would be fine. But Woodard’s point remains. I think a combination of the northeast, a few more liberal northern Midwestern states, and the far west (CA, especially) and maybe combine with some Canadian provinces could more accurately serve that constituency.
            Now were in the world is all this animosity toward men coming from???? I’m not advocating a totalitarian state. Something more like the Scandinavian countries is what I have in mind. There was never an reference to “autocratic men” or “male egos”. Your way out in left field on that one, lady.
            As far as the energy economy, this would give the new liberal configuration to work on alternate energy development, with out the oil industries interference.
            I am not a southern sympathizer… Just the opposite. I want to be rid of fascism/feudalism/evangelicalism as a political objective.
            You never addressed my portrait of you. I assume that means I was correct in my assumptions.
            I am willing to admit that Lincoln was mistaken in keeping the so called “union” together. I have little in common with the south or its agenda. Frankly, we northerners would be better off without ’em.

  4. What really amazes me…is how so many Presidents of the USA have actually gotten away with “MURDER” my lips and how there are so many cover-ups for it…and what was the most surprising event of the day was that, John Boehner and his wife signed up for the, “ObamaCare” within the last two days…how touching…when they won’t have to pay for it…the taxpayers monies will pay for it…everything that the people in the Senate and the House and Congress and their paychecks…spending monies and health insurance and the rents on their homes…are all paid for by the taxpayers….interesting…I guess they thought that we are all stupid, americans…wrong..I have studied history so much that people don’t even realize when they put this news on…that it sounds like John Boehner is going to pay for the ObamaCare Insurance…wrong…I am glad…that the President took my suggestion to delay the ObamaCare for another year…by then we should have more democrats in the House and the Senate…then it can be voted in to be Funded…which the republicans have refused to do….then it will be easier on the American People needing health insurance…they have everything paid for them…the people in Congress gets paid $197,000 a year…and the people in the House and the Senate gets paid $174,000 a year….with spending monies and house payments made and their health insurance all gets paid by the taxpayers…so, why shouldn’t the ObamaCare be funded by the Federal Government…let the American people have something that the government can pay for them…it isn’t right…at all…and we are not only ruled by Congress but, since George Washington…we have had these Secret Societies…like the Skull & Bones the Ulltimate1…the Masons…and try this one along with the C.I.A belonging to the group of Skull and Bones..a satinsits group
    the N.S.A belongs within the C.I.A. the group that does work for these secret Societies like killings…etc…they were involved with the killing of JFK and Bobby Kennedy and Martin Luther King…and start reading all about, Hillary Clinton, working for the Warren Commission…that hid the classified documents about how the elder Bush organized the assaination of JFK along with Lyndon B. Johnson…and they belonged to the group Skull & Bones along with Bill Clinton….who had communists connections as well as the Bushes…and Hillary’s dealings with the mobsters dealing with money deals…too…it is interesting…if people would look into these Presidents…and then someone decent comes along…they are told they have to go along within the government and the way it is run…I am glad…I would never consider going into is really dirty…but, it didn’t just start it started from the very first President and went down…and on the news…Fidel Castro…affirmed what I have been saying for the longest…that Lee Harvey Oswald had nothing to do with JFK’S killing he was used as a Pasty…believe me…and the truth is starting to really come out…and cannot wait till blast old man Bush putting the contract out on that man’s life..using the mafia…from France to help that was Lyndon B. Johnson’s orders to get those men and Bush made sure there was no protection around that motercave coming around the grassy corner with the high wall…where the real killers were waiting…whatever is hidden will come out to the light…

      • I am informing everyone…there were several people within our government that have killed others off…and to reveal other issues directely to you…you are not one that will look behind the secenes to see what is really going on…and just are jealous of people like myself..that deals with the true facts about what has and is still going on within our government…and by the way…Obama…didn’t write the ObamaCare…and you don’t really want to look into that either…others have been really impressed by what I have commented on…and some of the State Senators are impressed by my writing ability…if you were a smart person…you would study history a lot more to find out about the Secret Societies…etc that are running the USA and their involvment with many things…it is ashame that you are so into the “ME GENERATION”…and you don’t let others speak up…it is all about what you say…sorry…that you live in the dark ages…and like staying stupid…

  5. “Liberal” is a beautiful and all-inclusive word. Our Founders / Framers were “liberals” – just look at the Declaration of Independence, Constitution and their communications.

    The GOP first “muddied” the word “liberal” GOP when they “accused” Dukakis of being a “card carrying liberal.” At that time, they did what now the TGOP do best — LIE. They continually drum their own interpretation of misinformation to a still ill-informed and under-informed electorate.

    In a speech, Jack Kennedy listed the characteristics of a liberal: briefly one who cares and is inclusive of everyone. This part has been played often during these last days of remembrance.

    An informative book is, “Conservatives Without Conscience” by John W. Dean. In this book one bit of information is that today’s “conservatives” are not conservative…they are “authoritarian.”

      • Exactly! That would be the sum of what the TGOP is and you’re right, they should be called out for what they truly are — “filthy fascists.”

        Great post … Perfect!

          • I received today’s email and responded to it. I couldn’t do so earlier because my browser was harassing me again. 🙂

  6. Political opportunism, and appropriating the record of an opponent is not new. The GOP’s attempt to appropriate JFK’s accomplishments by claiming that he was a conservative, the GOP’s efforts to take credit for Clinton’s remarkable achievements, and the very likely probability of conservatives taking credit for the economic policies that President Obama put in place to prevent the unthinkable and his foreign policy achievements, have more to do with their dismal record of governance than with their contributions to policies they once opposed.

    • Wow ….if you measure Kennedy on his DEEDs , his words , and his policy then in todays standard he would be considered one of those ultra right wing Conservatives . Also unlike todays Obama Socialist Dem Party …Kennedy actually loved America and he never would’ve supported policy that made America a nanny state just so his party could have a voting majority

      • Well, perhaps you can talk about the social programs JFK had begun planning and that LBJ after assuming the presidency quickly and successfully moved into the process of legislative action. Is it your opinion that Ted Sorenson, Nicholas Katzenbach, and RFK et al. as actors in the Southern desegregation issues and ancillary civil rights events occurring in those days were not acting in accord with JFK’s egalitarian policies but were working independently of him to perfect a voting majority through establishing what you pejoratively call the “nanny state” aimed especially at the black citizens of the Country?

        • So he was on board with the Republicans of the day then . Lets see the Republicans overwhelmingly supported the civil rights act and LBJ hated it . The Dems filibustered it and gave it very tepid support . Dr King was a Conservative Registered Republican and Romney’s dad was the first National Leader to march with Dr King , in fact one of the only ones . If you read my post you would see that I said that Kennedy wouldn’t have supported Socialist Policy designed to just give his party a voting majority but rather what would have done what was good for America . Remember his quote about not seeking a Democrat solution or a Republican solution but an American one ? Unlike todays Self serving Socialist Dem party he would have supported policy that made America great , not a dependent nanny state like todays Dems advocate …I know you want to win elections so you can gloat but is that what is good for your kids or the future of this Country ?

          • It must be difficult not understanding what others are saying.

            First, please explain why you believe that the political center can be described as “socialist”.

            Second, in a brief response I would like to know how you believe efforts to make sure the poor don’t starve and everyone can access healthcare without needing the fortune of Bill Gates can in any way be called a “nanny state”.

            And finally, please learn to construct an argument that is cogent, targeted on specific points without veering into non-sequiturs, and supported by reason and fact.

          • Please try to curtail your condescension and you might get people to respond better I have answered everyone of your questions and you respond with spin and deflection . Maybe you should look at your own post and learn to construct a cogent argument to support your own positions and by the way you just named 3 things so which ” targeted or specific point ” should I answer ?
            I never would describe the Political Center Socialist and I never did .
            There is a difference between giving a hand up and making people purposely and purposefully dependent . I wouldn’t want anyone to go hungry but there is a difference between helping the needy and funding the lazy just so they support your agenda /party

          • Actually you did equate the current democratic party with socialism in your comment beginning with “Unlike todays Self serving Socialist Dem party…”

            And I’m sorry but you keep missing the fundamental flaw in your argument. Today’s parties are NOT the same as they were in 1964. You cannot just go back to the voting record since the 1780s to support your claim without ALSO addressing the fundamental shift that happened in the 1960s. I’m more than willing to listen to any argument, but you cannot ignore the glaring weaknesses in your argument.

          • Yes I did compare the compare today’s Dems with Socialists and that is proven through the policy decisions and policy they have put in place designed to make America a majority dependent Nanny State , That is how you accomplish Socialism . Do a google search and look up Cloward Piven and ask yourself if that isn’t the exact thing happening in our Country . I never Compared the Political Center to that because the this Country is still a majority center right .
            There is no flaw in showing a centuries long track record on the issues . You support your argument only with the conjecture of what happened in the 60’s ? Are you referring to the Southern Strategy ? Nixon reached out to Southern Democrats who were unhappy with the Dems …So You use your own conjecture to then claim that those Dems were racist ??? If they were racist why would they switch from a Party that supported their views ? I mean the Dems supported a KKK dragon as a Senator for decades and the Republicans had Dr King

          • LBJ correctly predicted that his signing the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act would lose the south for the Democrats. He was, as everyone knows, intent on following the trail of FDR, who, like Eleanor, hardly hated civil rights issues The sun set on the South comprised of Democrats and rose the next day so to speak on a Republican South. Johnson knew what lay ahead of him in terms of the difficulty to the South on board, and he worked hard and successfully with Illinois Senator Ev Dirksen, the Republican leader on board with his caucus, for the voting. In those days and continuing today in our historical archives Dirksen was given deserved great credit for his cooperation. The South has never forgiven the litigation, and continues today with its attitudes through the sub silentio presence of the Klan and those good old days and of the more notorious white supremacy crowd (just ask Trent Lott and his revealing praise of Strom Thurmond that was shown on television and after which Lott left his leader’s job). I do not agree that Johnson hated those Acts nor do I agree that Bobby Kennedy and the others I referred to hated them.

            Alternatively and as an aside concerning hatred, Johnson’s medicare and medicaid programs were hated and fought tooth and nail by the Republicans squealing socialism and worse, just as they do today seeing it as bad for America. It was good for America then and good now, and even the crazy Teabaggers recognize this. In my opinion, Johnson, still clothed in the FDR mantle, saw himself at the same time as fulfilling JFK’s policies had he lived.

            At the time of the assassination Kennedy had indicated he would reduce the defense budget, among other things that Republican and Southern Democratic war hawks surely did not approve, and I suggest that not one of them would have agreed that he was working for the good of America; in fact, he would likely have been charged with an un-American political strategy to win votes for his party. Enough research on the subject reveals that while JFK was not as liberal as many in the Democratic party, he was indeed a liberal and surely in no sense a political conservative nor an independent “working for what was best for America and not as a Democratic or a Republican party member.”

          • I can see you put a lot of thought into that and I respect your comments . I can even agree with a lot of it

          • Thanks, and I have respected yours as well: I have enjoyed it. This reply is a bit late because like so many of us I have entered the Thanksgiving-Christmas mode. May you and yours have a great Thanksgiving.

      • Lets see, called Mrs. Martin Luther King – very conservative move. Called out the troops on Alabama – yeah, the conservatives howled in glee on that one, just ask George Wallace; Promoted the civil rights act, yup another conservative bona fide; Pushed for Medicare before his assassination, the right leaning deeds just keep adding up, don’t they.

        Don’t try to rewrite history, there are many of us still around who lived through it.

        • See you prove your ignorance and that your own view of Conservatives is driven by talking points you get fed to you . Romney’s dad marched with King way before it was popular . Conservatives also don’t view Americans as Black Americans or White Americans but rather as Americans . They would’ve supported Kennedy calling Mrs. King or King himself . They were both Conservative Republicans . the Republicans overwhelmingly supported the Civil rights act and voted for it overwhelmingly while the Dems filibustered it and gave it tepid support …. Nice try but no cigar …I think Clinton got the Cigar however … Kennedy didn’t envision the Medicare system we have today and would not have supported that …I lived it too

          • Hardly, my friend. You didn’t claim Romney was a liberal, you claimed Kennedy was a far right conservative. And I’m less concerned about what Romney’s father did (and clearly he was the better Romney) than what Kennedy did.

            And PLEASE don’t tell me that conservatives are color blind. Kennedy calling Mrs. King was a politically stupid act right before the election, but a morally powerful one. It could have cost him the presidency, but he did it anyway.

            And you are missing the significant point that the southern Dems of 1960-64 are the GOP of today thanks to LBJ pushing through the Civil Rights Act initiated by Kennedy.

            Finally, what Kennedy DID support was the future. You conservatives try to recreate a mythical (and frankly scary and fictional) past. So please don’t think that I’ve been drinking the same kool aid as you.

          • You deal in conjecture and not fact . I NEVER claimed Romney’s dad was a Liberal I was pointing out that Conservatives marched with King well before any Dem did …
            Reagan used to say all the time that Liberals and Dem look at Black Americans and White Americans and Conservatives view them and treat all Americans as Americans …We don’t look at color and that is proved out by the way Dems and Liberals constantly resort to the race card .
            LBJ tried to grab the high road because Conservatives were supporting the Civil rights act . THE VOTING PROVES THAT .
            The Dems Filibustered it while Republicans voted for it 99% strong . Meanwhile after the filibuster LBJ had to twist enough Dem arms to get it passed . maybe they should start teaching REAL history in the schools because it seems Dems don’t know it .
            Yes I agree Kennedy looked to the future and inspired us ..He supported NASA as a way to inspire Great Nationalist feelings . Obama cancelled NASA

      • With the possible exception of FDR, JFK represents what the Democratic party is all about, and he was not shy to admit it. As for President Obama, it takes a person completely devote to his country to put up with the lies, innuendo, distortions, and hyperbole he has endured since he became President. History will judge him as one of our greatest President because of his accomplishments, character, and long term vision. Are you suggesting that ACA, a healthcare program that requires all Americans to pay premiums will transform the USA into a nanny state? Or are you saying that equality is un-American? Which of President Obama’s policies are going to turn America into a nanny state?

        • Your perception of the way History will view him will only be true if that history is written by Liberals . He has been treated with total kid gloves by the media despite the worst record of any modern President . When Jimmy Carter calls you a failure that is telling . All of his policy has and is making America dependent and a nanny state . Look up Cloward Piven

          • You are avoiding my question. Which social programs have been put in place by President Obama that is turning the USA into a nanny state?
            Considering the economic chaos he inherited, the fact that Americans had lost their ability to dream for the first time in history, what he has accomplished as President, and the level of obstructionism he has faced, President Obama ranks among the best in U.S. history.

          • Dom I don’t know why it is always I who is supposed to answer your questions when you never answer mine ( you chose to spin and deflect for the Obama without ever conceding a single thing ) anyway here is two . the QE policy and Obamacare . The Part time exemptions were cited by the very Unions that supported Obamacare as being the end of the middle class . After all the Train Wreck of a Tax Law incentivizes the hiring of ONLY Part Timers and has led to lay offs and firings with Companies that are close to the 50 employee limit

          • Dom not that you answer my questions choosing to just spin and deflect and repeat talking points . Here are two for you the QE policy of the fed and Obamacare . The very Unions who supported Obamacare now realize that the exemption for Part Timers incentivizes Companies to Only hire Part Timers . Also Companies near the 50 employee cut off are firing and laying people off . This has already started to happen in front of the delay Obama gave Companies in an attempt not to lose the mid terms . As for the Obstruction Obama has faced ??? Well while the GOP has fought him for the good of the economy they haven’t accomplished a thing of signifigance because they only control the House …It is a flawed argument

          • Some companies, especially those in sectors that do not require high skill levels, have been converting some of their full time positions to part time. That is not new, and I am afraid that practice is going to get much worse, regardless of ACA, which is likely to help our business sector reduce cost and increase profits without reducing staffing or their benefit packages. I assure you, based on personal experience, that large corporations such as GE, Boeing, Lockheed, HONEYWELL, and others have no intention to change their benefit packages. The reason for that involves the need to compete for a dwindling number of highly qualified and experienced individuals to fill the vacancies they have.
            Our labor problems have a lot more to do with inadequate education to fill vacancies, unrealistic expectations, and the failure to prepare our population for the challenges ahead when we transitioned from a heavy industry, assembly line model, to a service model, ignore the need to educate our people and ignoring the fact that many service jobs can be done remotely.

          • I disagree and statistics show that this explosion in Part time only positions is unprecedented . It has exploded in the last 5 years and it will continue DUE TO OBAMACARE ( not the ACA ) I know you all don’t want to tie Obama’s name to it and he doesn’t want that either but it is what it is .

          • Part time and temporary work have been an integral part of our economy since before we were all born. Large corporations seldom use them because they need continuity, reliability, and a skill workforce. The ones that use part timers are usually retailers, farmers, and other such industries. What went up during President Obama’s tenure was the number of unemployed, as a result of the great recession he inherited.

          • Yes there are always part timers but NEVER have they been this great of a percentage of an already small workforce . And I agree Unemployment has gone way up under Obama . 2.6 million fewer people are working and that has nothing to do with what he inherited it has to do with HIS policy …#obamabuiltthat AND #obamaownsit

          • If it hadn’t been for President Obama’s leadership, focus, and long term vision we would still be struggling to overcome the effect of the 2007 recession. Do you remember who was in the White House when the great recession began? Do you remember who said that the U.S. economy was on the verge of collapse in 2008? Do you remember who proposed the TARP to bailout the bank that contributed to the mess we were in?
            I understand the emphasis that most Republicans place on blaming President Obama, one of the greatest presidents in the history of the USA. Heck, if I was a Republican I would to. Nobody with an ounce of sanity would want to run on the GOP record. Unfortunately for the GOP, most Americans are not suffering from amnesia or Alzheimer.

          • Tarp was THE GREAT SUCCESS that saved the economy . It has been repaid with interest . It was a win win for America and the U S Treasury . It is the Only thing that worked . The DE STIMULUS was a massive failure with a very few jobs being created at a cost of about 2.5 mil per each temp job created . it only allotted 6% of the money for the so called build projects . It was a hoax and another Obama LIE and Fraud designed to mostly bail out pensions . Look at the way it was spent do a google search .
            Speaking of not wanting to run on YOUR record . Obama didn’t want the economy brought up during the last election and of course everytime it was about to become an issue the Liberal Media would give us a Treyvon to distract . It should of been the over riding issue because poll after poll showed that to Americans it was the number one issue and it didn’t even get covered . Obama certainly didn’t bring it up other then to say the oft repeated talking point that things are improving just not as fast as anyone could’ve hoped they would . In reality as I keep pointing out things were getting much worse .

        • JFK represented the Dem Party that I was proud to be a part of . He hated Communism and Socialism and would be against almost everything todays Dems stand for . He never would of said is I had a son to create a racial divide . I don’t have to suiggest anything in regards to the Train Wreck of OBAMACARE …and please if you are oh so proud of his signature achievement and Obama why not call it Obamacare ? Obamacare DOES NOT require everyone to pay premiums . It only requires people who work and their Companies to do so . Poor people get free stuff on the backs of workers who are all losing their coverage …( SEE WEALTH REDISTRIBUTION FOR VOTES ) and most Dems who work for the Govt get their plans paid for by the same producers who are paying for the Dem entitlement voters . It has NOTHING to do with any type of equality and it is totally unfair to the average worker . That is why everyone who has to actually use Obamacare is mad as Hell and Obama wants to delay it all past the mid terms . After that they will try to sell Killary as the only LIAR who can fix it …Of course only Liberals will be dumb enough or devoted enough to be used as tools in that LIE

          • When I call ACA Obamacare I do it with great trepidation because I am very much aware that the concept was conceived by the Heritage Foundation, a right wing think tank. The largest redistribution of wealth took place in Iraq, when $1T was blown, largely in contracts to companies that supported W’s election and his agenda.
            I do agree that most Americans have healthcare coverage through their employers. However, the suggestion that those who are currently unemployed and uninsured, and those who are working but cannot afford insurance premiums don’t have to pay insurance premiums and are getting it for free is 100% inaccurate. Subsidies are being provided in amounts that vary dependent on earnings. Those who are barely making enough to put food on the table only have to pay a few dollars to get the Bronze option, those who make an average wage get some subsidies, and those whose earnings are substantial get nothing.
            One of my sons is a small business owners. He signed up for ACA and will start paying $700 a month for family coverage on 1/1/14. No subsidies as a result of high earnings.

          • There are only small similarities to what Heritage proposed and what Obamacare Train Wreck turned out to be . So feel free to call Obama’s signature failure Obamacare . To compare contracts to contractors to Wealth redistribution doesn’t work because it wasn’t done to secure a voting majority which is the hallmark of Socialist style Wealth Redistribution . From those by their ability to those by their need … See and it is always done in the name of fairness …

          • The main differences between the multi-billion dollar contracts awarded to Halliburton, Bechtel, Blackwater USA and other companies is that the main beneficiaries of those contract – which were seldom finished – were large corporations and the Iraqi people. President Obama’s policies, including ACA, are designed to help Americans. Just a minor detail…

          • Well then explain to your flock why the ONLY Americans who like the Train Wreck of Obamacare are people who are exempt or are going to get free stuff . EVERY OTHER AMERICAN HATES IT . They also HATE that Obama LIED about it to you Liberals who either Believed his LIEs or didn’t care because they were exempt …And Dom why aren’t you calling it Obamacare out of pride if it is so wicked awesome ? Might it be because like Obama himself you don’t want his name tied to it out of shame ? OUCH ….no really OUCH right ?

          • When your hero lied about WMDs in Iraq, almost 5,000 Americans died, tens of thousands were wounded or traumatized, and by some estimates as many as 600,000 Iraqis lost their lives and over 2 million had to flee their country to survive.
            When President Obama quoted the paragraph included in ACA item 1251 he highlighted something that is true for the overwhelming majority of Americans. OBAMACARE is, and will remain, a great success in spite of all the infantilism and obstructionism that emanates from the Neanderthals.

          • Maybe Obama said that but NO ONE in America believes a word he says . He is a proven pathological LIAR and he has killed his OWN credibility

          • There is no MAYBE. His comment about the scope of ACA can be found, verbatim, in ACA item 1251. Quoting what is written in a law is not a lie, and suggesting immediately after the Benghazi attack that it may have been caused by the film that resulted in riots and protests throughout the Islamic world the same day, and in subsequent days, is not a lie either, it was a logical assumption that may turn our to have been accurate, at least as it refers to how that tragedy began.
            Having said all this, since Republicans know that is not accurate, it is incumbent on the person making the accusation to reveal the truth and how they obtained it. Are you suggesting the GOP has contacts with terrorist organizations and are privy to information that no one else has?

          • Dom you keep talking about a video . Lets be clear . The ONLY Video that Obama has EVER used as a LIE to EXCUSE and Shift blame was the YOU TUBE VIDEO … That was seen by approx. 12 people and didn’t cause ANY riot or protest because no one knew about it . You are making yourself look small with this constant talk about a Video .

          • I guess we lived in different planets when the Benghazi tragedy occurred. I film that Muslims throughout the world interpreted as an offense to their prophet resulted in protests and riots throughout the Islamic world the day before the attack against our consulate in Benghazi, and continued for a few more days.
            Coincidentally, or perhaps not, an obscure Pastor from Florida promised to burn the Quran, which made matters much worse in a part of the world where people don’t tolerate criticism of their religion.
            You can pretend that didn’t happen. That’s fine, but don’t be surprised if most of the people that read your post believe you are just a troll trying to advance the GOP agenda by denying what was evident to everyone. Then again, you may be so bore that you decided to make the most outlandish claims to have some fun, or you are hanging on to semantics to deny the obvious.

          • THE ONLY Video EVER MENTIONED by Obama or Killary was the You Tube Video . It was screened once and seen by 10 to 12 people . There is NO WAY it could’ve inflamed anyone because no one knew of it before Killary and Obama LIED about it and stated it caused this attack . All of the Intel agencies informed them that they were LYING and that the You tube Cover and EXCUSE was erroneous . When Questioned about it by members of Congress Killary said “With all due respect, the fact is we had four dead Americans. Was it because of a protest or was it because of guys out for a walk one night who decided that they’d they go kill some Americans? What difference at this point does it make? ” She didn’t even want to mention the You Tube Video at ” That POINT ” because it had been discredited .Dom I love your cult like devotion but didn’t you get these memos ?

          • I have no idea what video Barack Obama mentioned on YouTube and, honestly, I could care less. We were talking about who may have been behind the Benghazi attack and what may have influenced the attack. I – not the President – mentioned a provocative and offensive film that resulted in riots and demonstrations throughout the world, and you have pretended you know nothing about it, and keep going back to a YouTube video watched by 12 people. Again, Google Sam Bacile’s film. That is the film the GOP believes had nothing to do with the attack against our consulate.

          • Obama and his administration have ONLY mentioned the You Tube Video . He has Never mentioned any other . If you personally think some other video may have had something to do with it send your evidence to Obama . What you are saying is that this video you are talking about may have been a cause and that is YOUR opinion . You are entitled to have that opinion and I can even respect it but no one from Obama on down EVER mentioned that one . I think they would’ve if they thought they could’ve sold that . By the way from what I can ascertain we may be talking about the same video and that one definitely could not have been the cause and the CIA told Obama it wasn’t a factor . I don’t know what protest it could’ve spawned because no one had seen it . Also do you really think those nut job America hating Muslims needs an excuse to riot and protest ?

          • Bike, you are beating a dead horse. The allegations of lying about what motivated the attack against our consulate in Benghazi involve the fact that both President Obama and former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton stated immediately after the attack that it may have been influenced by the film made and released by Sam Bacile, which offended sensibilities and resulted in riots an protests throughout the Islamic world.
            With the exception of the GOP, who seems to know exactly what happened (you don’t call someone a liar without knowing the truth), nobody really knows what motivated the attack.
            Yes, radical Muslims don’t need an excuse or even motivation to commit abhorrent acts, often against their own people, but that does not justify or mitigate the actions of those inclined to add fuel to the fire.

          • Dom you are defending dead horses . Obama only mentioned the You Tube video . We are talking about the same thing and to say it sparked riots and protests is , well just wrong . This admin then put the guy in jail for what ? Excersizing his first amendment rights ? Look it really doesn’t matter what you or I think but in the court of public opinion and in the International Community Obama Killary and Rice’s LIES ruined their credibility . What they should of admitted is that we were attacked by ruthless and cowardly MUSLIM TERRORISTS and we should offer no quarter to their ” sensitivities ” …Have a great Thanksgiving

          • No what happened was what JFK feared and the Democrat Party is the Communist Party. Hope that helps

            Powered by Cricket Wireless

            ——– Original message ——–

    • As an Irish Catholic from the Northeast, it offends me that the right would even attempt to coopt our hero, John F. Kennedy as one of their own. It isn’t bad enough that he was assassinated in service to his country, lost his older brother Joe, also in service to his country, then Bobby came next. Do they, after all, have no decency? That’s rhetorical, of course, as we know the answer.

  7. I was a young teen when Kennedy was President, and I recall that my parents, Republican leaning Nixon lovers both, absolutely hated everything that President Kennedy promoted. My parents were convinced that he was evil because he promoted equality and fairness for all, in income, education, housing, and civil rights. My parents were a lot like the Republicans of today who have no problem voting against their own interests because of uninformed attitudes. So, yeah, Kennedy was liberal.

    • Kennedy was fair in nothing else. Can we say the same of today’s claimants of conservatism? When we compare GOP people of the Nixon Era, we omit to include the true conservatives like Eisenhower or Stevenson. The grains in this traditionalist conservatism was not based upon religious fundamentalists need to take over the government. Eisenhower and Stevenson kept their distance from each other and would NEVER stoop to the lows of today’s campaigning politicians who have no compunctions about lying, distorting truth in the extreme and then when they are caught in lies blithely refuse to admit their own culpability. It’s called responsibility.

  8. To quote JFK “The problems of the world cannot possibly be solved by skeptics or cynics whose horizons are limited by the obvious realities. We need men who can dream of things that never were and ask “why not?”.

    Need I say more, GOP?

  9. IMO, anyone in America now calling the current crop of crazy conservatives’ (CCCC)latest laughable attempt to re-make the liberal Democratic President John F.Kennedy into a conservative tea party clown merely “contemptible” is to much of a gentleman to spend time hanging around fora where contempt for all authority is a badge of honor.
    There will come a day when America finds a lawful way to purge land of this infestation
    of sub-humans without rendering the land unsuitable for re-population with intelligent animals such as ground hogs.

    • @THS_Warrior:disqus Here is some free advice, love is reflected in love and hate is its own reward. Really, God is All, and All Is God; so you need to love God with all your heart, soul, mind, and love your neighbor (including those who’s ideology you disagree with) as much as you love yourself.

      You express such negativity towards ‘those crazy conservatives’, almost to the point of espousing genocide. I’m sure you mean it in jest, of course, as you strike me as a Good Christian. Even so, those ‘crazy conservatives’ aren’t ‘bad’, so you shouldn’t revile them so. Personally, I try to stay clear of such negativity as you’ve brought here because I believe the One God is All Good, which leaves no room for anything “bad” anywhere in the universe. Remember James 3:11 “Doth a fountain send forth from the same place sweet water and bitter?”

      • Rats. I tried to click on the “Follow” link in your Disqus profile but you must have decided to forego having followers because your profile is “Private.” So I just gave this excellent comment (copied from one of mine elsewhere?) an Up vote and add an explanation.
        Christ Jesus clearly understood the same thing about humans as do most other enlightened humans now understand: In order to reach as many humans as possible with your mrssage, it is often necessary to communicate with each human or group of humans at the same level of consciousness that the intended audience exhibits.
        A quick review of Christ Jeses’ teachings will reveal many angry words and passages that did not express the Love that Christ Jesus is now famous for expressing.
        IMO, fighting fire with superior fire is an effective way to teach some very thick-headed humans (especially those who laugh at Goodness and call it weakness).
        If I offended you I am sorry. Until reading this comment I assumed things about you that previous comments tricked me into believing.

    • As the historian Robert Dallek noted in his superb biography An Unfinished Life, Kennedy worked hard during the 1960 presidential campaign to prove his liberalism

  10. Was Kennedy a progressive or a conservative?

    It depends … on whether, at that particular moment, tea-chugging pundits and the right wing blogosphere are attempting to praise JKF or condemn him.

  11. I believe once someone is dead ( let him rest ) and don’t try to guess what he was or could have done for the country since it’s too late because he’s not here anymore. No matter what it’s too late to think he can change the way our country is being destroyed by our present President. I am glad he’ll be gone in due time and hope no duplicate robot takes over for him.

  12. Hmm no quote from the left wing looks about Kennedy realizing that the way to grow the economy was via tax cuts and a balanced federal budget

    • Yes, the tax cut from 90 some percent to 60 some percent. Man, I wish we could have a tax cut like that again – our deficit would disappear fast! Too bad the GOP doesn’t like THAT kind of tax cut.

    • Kennedy proposed a cut of the top rate from 91% to 65%, and a cut in the top corporate rate from 52% to 47%.

      In 2014, the top tax rate is 39.6% and the corporate tax is 35%.

      Some tax cuts. Wish we could have those Kennedy rates today, our budget problems would disappear.

  13. I noticed that George Will tried to claim JFK as a conservative, thus proving again that George Will is nothing but a dirty whore.

  14. That “all men are by nature equally free and independent” has been largely replaced with a simplified expression of “free and equal”.

  15. Although technological advance consists of learning and applying knowledge we did not know before, by no means will we always enjoy its effects or be satisfied with its results.

  16. Since the liberty used by the few willing to take advantage of it is more important than any freedom we all might use, to restrict liberty to that which all might use is a fatal mistake.

Leave a reply