Nanker Posted December 5, 2010 Posted December 5, 2010 Somehow, I don't think so. "But the most direct and significant kind of federal action aiding economic growth is to make possible an increase in private consumption and investment demand — to cut the fetters which hold back private spending. In the past, this could be done in part by the increased use of credit and monetary tools, but our balance of payments situation today places limits on our use of those tools for expansion. It could also be done by increasing federal expenditures more rapidly than necessary, but such a course would soon demoralize both the government and our economy. If government is to retain the confidence of the people, it must not spend more than can be justified on grounds of national need or spent with maximum efficiency." Yes, this is just a rhetorical question. But the ideas and leadership put forth in this speech is light years away from where the leadership of the Democrats is today. So much so, that I believe anyone espousing these views today would not stand a snowball's chance in Hell of being nominated for President of the US.
Booster4324 Posted December 5, 2010 Posted December 5, 2010 So much so, that I believe anyone espousing these views today would not stand a snowball's chance in Hell of being nominated for President of the US. I think you are correct, which is a sad commentary on the Democratic party. One of their legendary leaders would be unacceptable to the party due to his beliefs. The Democrats need to purge their ranks, Pelosi and her ilk have to go if they are to be relevant IMO.
PastaJoe Posted December 5, 2010 Posted December 5, 2010 And Lincoln couldn't get nominated by the Republicans because of his views on federal authority vs states rights.
/dev/null Posted December 5, 2010 Posted December 5, 2010 And Lincoln couldn't get nominated by the Republicans because of his views on federal authority vs states rights. Hey if we're going back that far into the past, lets keep going. Thomas Jefferson couldn't get the nomination of the party he founded
DC Tom Posted December 5, 2010 Posted December 5, 2010 Hey if we're going back that far into the past, lets keep going. Thomas Jefferson couldn't get the nomination of the party he founded Why stop there? Oliver Cromwell couldn't get elected Lord Protector today...
/dev/null Posted December 5, 2010 Posted December 5, 2010 Why stop there? Oliver Cromwell couldn't get elected Lord Protector today... Would Caesar be elected Consul?
DC Tom Posted December 5, 2010 Posted December 5, 2010 Would Caesar be elected Consul? No more than Sin-Muballit would choose Hammurabi as his successor...
LeviF Posted December 6, 2010 Posted December 6, 2010 Jesus was a Conservative Jesus was a Crossmaker
/dev/null Posted December 6, 2010 Posted December 6, 2010 Jesus was a Conservative Jesus was a Crossmaker Jesus was a Carpenter. Jesus was self employed. Ergo Jesus was a small business owner. Small business owners are in the 250k range. Which begs the question on everybody's mind... Could switching to Geico really save you 15%?
Magox Posted December 6, 2010 Posted December 6, 2010 Jesus was a Carpenter. Jesus was self employed. Ergo Jesus was a small business owner. Small business owners are in the 250k range. Which begs the question on everybody's mind... Could switching to Geico really save you 15%? Not only that, he taught people how to fish for self sustainability reasons, well.... except the progressives of course.
/dev/null Posted December 6, 2010 Posted December 6, 2010 No more than Sin-Muballit would choose Hammurabi as his successor... Neither Sin-Muballit nor Hammurabi were voted into their positions. You are projecting modern philosophies into ancient times. For example, Alexander the Great and DADT. Phillip of Macedon never could have appointed a flamer like his son to be General. Sure the Butt Monkey conquered the known world (and kept going), but modern politics has progressed
OCinBuffalo Posted December 7, 2010 Posted December 7, 2010 Neither Sin-Muballit nor Hammurabi were voted into their positions. You are projecting modern philosophies into ancient times. For example, Alexander the Great and DADT. Phillip of Macedon never could have appointed a flamer like his son to be General. Sure the Butt Monkey conquered the known world (and kept going), but modern politics has progressed Actually, there is evidence that Philip of Macedon was as much a butt monkey, if not more so. And, from my cultural understanding, which is not as good as my military, it was more along the lines of: You were a penetrator or You were a penetratee. The guys in charge got to do the penetrating, as it was their right. Therefore, most of the Hellenic leadership was technically...bisexual. And, bisexual is not gay. But, that's not really the right way to look at it. To put things in today's terms, a better example would be: DC_Tom is the penetrator and conner is the penetratee The rest is obvious. It doesn't make Tom "gay". It just makes him "dominant".
DC Tom Posted December 7, 2010 Posted December 7, 2010 Actually, there is evidence that Philip of Macedon was as much a butt monkey, if not more so. And, from my cultural understanding, which is not as good as my military, it was more along the lines of: Well...they were Greek. (Yeah, I know..."Macedonian".) Neither Sin-Muballit nor Hammurabi were voted into their positions. You are projecting modern philosophies into ancient times. For example, Alexander the Great and DADT. Phillip of Macedon never could have appointed a flamer like his son to be General. Sure the Butt Monkey conquered the known world (and kept going), but modern politics has progressed I didn't say they were, I said Sin-Muballit wouldn't have selected Hammurabi. I was pretty bloody specific about it.
3rdnlng Posted December 7, 2010 Posted December 7, 2010 Somehow, I don't think so. "But the most direct and significant kind of federal action aiding economic growth is to make possible an increase in private consumption and investment demand — to cut the fetters which hold back private spending. In the past, this could be done in part by the increased use of credit and monetary tools, but our balance of payments situation today places limits on our use of those tools for expansion. It could also be done by increasing federal expenditures more rapidly than necessary, but such a course would soon demoralize both the government and our economy. If government is to retain the confidence of the people, it must not spend more than can be justified on grounds of national need or spent with maximum efficiency." Yes, this is just a rhetorical question. But the ideas and leadership put forth in this speech is light years away from where the leadership of the Democrats is today. So much so, that I believe anyone espousing these views today would not stand a snowball's chance in Hell of being nominated for President of the US. I like to piss off my liberal friends by claiming I'm a dyed in the wool JFK conservative. When they claim JFK wasn't conservative I bring up his tax cutting and strong defense stands. The fun then starts. http://specials.msn.com/A-List/Lifestyle/JFK-most-highly-regarded-past-president.aspx?cp-documentid=26655401
IDBillzFan Posted December 7, 2010 Posted December 7, 2010 I like to piss off my liberal friends by claiming I'm a dyed in the wool JFK conservative. When they claim JFK wasn't conservative I bring up his tax cutting and strong defense stands. The fun then starts. http://specials.msn.com/A-List/Lifestyle/JFK-most-highly-regarded-past-president.aspx?cp-documentid=26655401 I listened to Dennis Leary hawking his new book on O'Reilly the other day, and he cracked me up with his comment that he was a "Kennedy Democrat," defined as someone who believes you should cut taxes, strengthen our defense, and if you do a good job as president, be able to have all the chicks you want.
3rdnlng Posted December 7, 2010 Posted December 7, 2010 I listened to Dennis Leary hawking his new book on O'Reilly the other day, and he cracked me up with his comment that he was a "Kennedy Democrat," defined as someone who believes you should cut taxes, strengthen our defense, and if you do a good job as president, be able to have all the chicks you want. I'll have to remember that part about getting all the chicks you want. That will piss then off even more!
X. Benedict Posted December 9, 2010 Posted December 9, 2010 (edited) Somehow, I don't think so. "But the most direct and significant kind of federal action aiding economic growth is to make possible an increase in private consumption and investment demand — to cut the fetters which hold back private spending. In the past, this could be done in part by the increased use of credit and monetary tools, but our balance of payments situation today places limits on our use of those tools for expansion. It could also be done by increasing federal expenditures more rapidly than necessary, but such a course would soon demoralize both the government and our economy. If government is to retain the confidence of the people, it must not spend more than can be justified on grounds of national need or spent with maximum efficiency." Yes, this is just a rhetorical question. But the ideas and leadership put forth in this speech is light years away from where the leadership of the Democrats is today. So much so, that I believe anyone espousing these views today would not stand a snowball's chance in Hell of being nominated for President of the US. Interesting. But I think you are abstracting this to think Kennedy wanted/believed this in principle and not as a pragmatic posture. The highest tax rate in 1960? 90% or higher. Today it is around 35%. 15% lower than the Reagan years. If we tried to go back to the Reagan's tax brackets people would be screaming communisism. Actually, there is evidence that Philip of Macedon was as much a butt monkey, if not more so. And, from my cultural understanding, which is not as good as my military, it was more along the lines of: You were a penetrator or You were a penetratee. The guys in charge got to do the penetrating, as it was their right. Therefore, most of the Hellenic leadership was technically...bisexual. And, bisexual is not gay. But, that's not really the right way to look at it. To put things in today's terms, a better example would be: DC_Tom is the penetrator and conner is the penetratee The rest is obvious. It doesn't make Tom "gay". It just makes him "dominant". At least the board knows where to turn if we ever need to keep discipline in a Greek Hoplite Phalanx. Edited December 9, 2010 by X. Benedict
Recommended Posts