JFK was not a conservative democrat. At most he was a "moderate-centrist" with some of his positions to the right of the liberal Democratic party. Even this guy, who is conservative himself and rails against the myth of JFK as progressive, won't call him conservative.
Quote: "
When the truth is discovered, it becomes clear that far from being a progressive liberal, JFK was a moderate-centrist with viewpoints that were considerably to the right of the Democratic party's liberal wing.
"
http://mcadams.posc.mu.edu/stjohn.htm
Also, here are some of JFK's accomplishments:
Quote: "
His economic programs launched the country on its longest sustained expansion since World War II; before his death, he laid plans for a massive assault on persisting pockets of privation and poverty.
Responding to ever more urgent demands, he took vigorous action in the cause of equal rights, calling for new civil rights legislation. His vision of America extended to the quality of the national culture and the central role of the arts in a vital society.
He wished America to resume its old mission as the first nation dedicated to the revolution of human rights. With the Alliance for Progress and the Peace Corps, he brought American idealism to the aid of developing nations. But the hard reality of the Communist challenge remained.
"
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/jk35.html
Let's see here. Expansion of government economic programs, vigorous action in the cause of civil rights, central role of arts and culture in society, and Alliance for Progress and Peace Corps?
Sounds pretty liberal to me.
Also, doesn't this:
Quote: "
conservative democrat
"
Contradict this?
Quote: "
conservative=republican
liberal=democrat
"
Quote: "
but he is the highest democratic threat to the american people!
"
How? Do you have any facts or reason to support this?
@ion stream
"Well, if the 13 colonies didn't go to war, America would not exist."
You don't know that for sure. Australia became an independent nation rather peacefully if I recall(Australians please correct me on this if I'm wrong). But I'd agree that the war was necessary. I'd like to point out that I'm not completely anti-war. I supported the war in Afghanistan(though seeing how badly it was managed I've been thinking lately that we were probably better off staying home).
"If World War I and II never happened, we'd be making Hitler Jr's bed right now."
Actually, if WWI hadn't happended Hitler would have died a miserable death as a bum in some German gutter. The harsh punishment of Germany's economy after WWI directly attributed to Hitler's rise to power and popularity.
"Likewise, if we didn't go to war in Iraq, far more attacks would have followed 9/11."
Again, I will repeat for those that missed the first time:
IRAQ HAD NO CONNECTION TO 911!
Go read my previous posts a page back. I thoroughly debunked that myth.
"This idea is based on the shoe bomb attempt and anthrax attack."
Which had absolutely nothing to due with Iraq and everything to due with Al Qaeda which, by the way, hadn't infiltrated Iraq. Go read my previous link to a
government website that showed that Al Qaeda had no operations in Iraq.
"Many call Bush a war mongering killer, which is a liberal-media based lie."
The only lie I see is that the media is liberal. The media is corporate.
Some of the media is, at best, left-leaning at times. I don't think anyone here is going to claim that FOXNews is liberal and they are a big part of the media.
For the most part the media is extrememly centrist and won't rock the boat. The media is run by corporations that are worried about their bottom line and it is common business sense that you don't make money by offending your customers. In fact, the media only recently started criticizing the war after it became clear in the polls that the majority of people see Iraq as a mistake. I don't think that is a coincidence. Profit motive keeps the media from getting to risky.
"Would Bush have gone to war if we weren't attacked?"
This is tough to say. We know that Bush was surrounded by Neo-cons who have wanted to attack Iraq for at least half a decade. Whether they could have pulled it off politically without 9/11 is open to debate.
"Either way, Iraq and Afghanistan have been giving us trouble for a while, not just since 9/11. It's not a new thing."
Iraq hasn't really given us that much trouble as Afghanistan has by harboring Bin Laden. In fact, according to Powell in 2001, the sanctions had worked and Iraq was not a threat.
Quote: "
Powell told the Senate Foreign Relations Committee March 8 that the United Nations sanctions regime has kept Iraqi President Saddam Hussein in check. "Even though we know he is working on weapons of mass destruction, we know he has things squirreled away, at the same time we have not seen that capacity emerge to present a full fledged threat to us," he said.
"
http://usembassy.state.gov/islamabad/wwwh01030904.html
By the way, if you don't believe that the neo-cons manfactured this Iraq war case then how do explain the above that was said by Powell? Our government seemed quite certain pre-Office of Special Plans that Iraq was no threat.
"Anyways, war is not the only topic. Keep that in mind. And please, don't listen to FOX, ABC, NBC,CBS, and all the pretty much major stations, they're incredibly biased (liberally)."
That fact that you included FOX in your "incrediably biased (liberally)" list leads me to question how well aware of their biases you really are.
Personally, I don't care about bias unless it keeps one from stating the truth. Just because someone is biased doesn't mean they are incapable of telling the truth. Claiming such is know as an "Ad Hominem" attack which is latin for "toward the man". It is a logical fallacy. What matters is reasoned argument and the veracity of facts that support it. Just my .02.
@Konrad
"Yeah, I understand. I can't prove it. All I can say is that he is my uncle for Christ's sake. It was nice when people actually believed you for something you said."
Yes, but I'm afraid in this day and age taking one's word is too much of a risk. Thanks for understanding my POV though.
"Again, my bad, t'was a typo."
Ahh...I see. Thanks for the clarification.
"How's this for internal criticism?"
Not exactly what I was asking for. I was wondering who in Kerry's campaign had called in to question his decisions as Senator and none of those quotes cite anyone doing that.
In fact, the only cricitism from democrats that I see there is that he isn't doing enough to defeat the opposition not that his positions on any of the issues are wrong. Even then they were described as "whispers". Nothing really substantial. When John McCain comes forth and says you've made "serious mistakes" and this guy is the guy campaigning for you then I'd call that substantial.
The second quote doesn't look like it came from any democrats. In fact, knowing the general political trend toward the right in the military, I'd bet money that those former commanders are conservative republicans.
Finally, the last quote doesn't even deal with policy or politics at all aside from abortion. It seems to be more of a religous despute than a political one.
Sorry to disappoint ya, but I'm afraid you'll have to try again.
