I’m sure people here know a lot more about JFK than I do. I have often remembered his famous quote though:
“Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country.”
I find that a very inspiring quote, and it suggests to me that the speaker doesn’t believe in big government, please enlighten me if I’m wrong.
More quotes at goodreads:
He had a good speechwriter.
He was much better than any Democrat nowadays, but just about any Democrat back then was.
The Socialist tendencies of the Democrats, including him, just weren’t as aggressive and out-in-the-open at that point.
The Peace Corps, Women’s equal pay, Civil Rights Act, minimum wage hike, Affirmative Action, etc etc, were all socialist programs.
His philandering made Bill Clinton look like a Boy Scout (but it was easier to hide it back then).
Apparently he drew the line at the crimes of the CIA, who then got rid of him (my guess, anyway).
From Jillian:
I do admire JFK. I think he was about a good a President as it is possible to be, although FDR was also in that category. Although something of a hagiography; William Manchester’s “Portrait of a President” is a great description of the man, and the Office of President.
It is with some despair that I look at the current, and recent past, holders, and contestants, for the Office.
Where is the erudition? Where is the strength of character? Where is the simple political skill?
Liz; those programs you appear to dismiss as “socialist”; do you think they should be ended? Are you proposing that the ideal American lifestyle is some Davy Crockett type frontier existence?
As for his philandering, I don’t understand it, but then I am not afflicted by a monstrous libido, as appararently he, Johnson, Clinton, and others were (and are).
Many of those policies made Western workers uncompetitive, leading to business moving abroad or encouraging mass immigration policies.
You wrote this in the other thread:
Dept. of Labor lawyers conducted a vicious campaign against Oracle, and others, alledging “systemic discrimination” because the demographic makeup of their engineering depts. did not reflect society at large (ie: not enough blacks). In my 55 years career in electrical design engineering I have met 1 black person who was competent.
Without wanting to get into a debate about the competency in general of black people in engineering (I don’t have any experience there anyway), it’s precisely these kind of “anti-discrimination” policies that we’re talking about with Kennedy surely?
My view - businesses should be free to hire whoever they choose, that’s the way to keep our businesses competitive. If you don’t like a business’s hiring policy, then go and work for someone else, or better still start your own business.
Those programs were “fronts” for socialist policies that were hidden in them. Affirmative Action, for instance, led to hiring incompetent people.
FDR, although he may have had some good qualities, was a raging socialist.
What do think the New Deal was all about??
There is a huge difference between legislation designed to ensure the civil rights of a persecuted minority, and govt. action to force quotas based on the idiotic idea that peple all have the same abilities.
I don’t like anti-discrimination laws, they deny my personal liberty and trample on my property rights. I don’t like institutionalised class discrimination either, and believe me, I grew up working class in England, I have plenty of experience in class distinction and class privilege/prejudice.
As for legislation designed to improve social conditions, and how it makes workers “less competitive”. Well, when the working class were starving to death and ruthlessly exploited in god-awful factories they were more “competitive”. Part of my work in electrical engineering was in commissioning industrial equipment in factories in Mexico. Working conditions were universally appalling: Mexicans were expected to work in conditions not seen in America since the 1800s, and don’t think their condition made the products less expensive, all ,it did was put more money into the pockets of already bloated fat-cats and sleazy politicians.
The US should be levying tariffs to counter the lower environmental and labor conditions abroad, and building up our own worker productivity.
If that is true (in general, Mexico being only one example) then why do you think so many companies decided to move their production lines abroad? How did moving production half way round the world somehow enrich fat cats if it wasn’t profitable?
E.g.:
Yay, Liz! Right on the nail!
About the “accompllshments” of JFK (to answer Chauncey):
Yes, he was courageous.
But -
Peace Corps - a horror.
Khrushchev screwed him over right royally.
He hugely betrayed the rebels against Castro. Okay, he finally did the right thing by blockading Soviet shipping.
Poor guy had a perpetually sore back. And he was shot to death. I’m no fan, as I said, but I am very sorry for what he endured and how his life was ended.
As for his quoted speeches, there is not one that I find particularly impressive, and some, though expressed as if memorable apothegms, are actually quite shallow. The worst of them, I think, is that one about not asking what your country etc.
Who asks, “What can my country do for me?” Have you ever asked it?
And as for asking. “What can I do for my country?” - well, most of us would defend it, unless one was a traitor like, say, John Kerry, or Joe or Hunter Biden, or Barack Obama. (Substitute “my people” for my country", and George Soros can be added to the little black list.)
JFK did some good service for his country. His space program was grand. And yes, he was a cultured man with good manners, some erudition, an attractive personality. A philanderer first class, but that did not interfere with his public service.
He was a star. He looked like a star. He was NOT one of the great president of the USA.
FDR was one of the very bad ones domestically - a socialist as Liz says, with Communists advising him, and his rotten policies prolonging the depression - and he liked of all people the monster Stalin … but he did lead the nation to victory in WWII.
Reagan and Trump are the two truly great presidents of the last hundred years. Reagan - along with Thatcher - won the Cold War. Trump put a stop - temporary only as it turned out - to the tragic decline of the marvelous American republic. Now the decline has resumed and continues at ever increasing pace.
I meant for the consumer; of course profitability was enhanced, that was the whole point.
If you believe that the point of society is to increase profits , then, honestly there is nothing much I can say to you. My ideas about society would be so contrary that we would have no common ground at all, and essentially no basis for discussion…
There were elements of the Civil Rights Act that damaged property rights.
Where did I say that (obviously I didn’t)? I’ve spent a lot of time thinking and writing about politics, religion and social issues for several years due to my concerns about where we’re heading, without gaining anything financially (or attempting to) from doing that, so you’re jumping to all kinds of unwarranted conclusions.
“If you believe that the point of society is to increase profits” - well, yes, that is pretty much the whole point of Capitalism, aka Free Enterprise, also known as “the pursuit of happiness”.
The problem now is that our corrupt “public-private partnership” - the fascist cronyism of government with corporations, funnels all the profits to them, and destroys the wealth of the middle class.
That’s where socialist policies have led us.
Yes, the “ask what you can do for your country” was a high sounding bromide. Coming from a socialist, it is more likely that it meant “sacrifice yourself for the collective” than anything else.
Profit is ‘the whole point of Capitalism, aka Free Enterprise, also known as “the pursuit of happiness”.’
That is so well said! Perfect. Thank you, Liz!
Liz: So you would prefer to return to the days of Laissez faire, dog eat dog, be the biggest rat, eff the poor, “are there no workhouses”, etc.
Well, TG, the electorate does not agree with you, and never will. FDR buried forever those insane notions, there is zero chance they will ever be resurrected and for that we should be forever grateful.
From a small business owner.
Father_Lode: This is a Forum where conservatives debate issues. Conservatives in the West are capitalists. We trust the free market.
If you are here to advocate socialism you are unlikely to find allies.
Is this “my way or the highway”?
I don’t advocate “socialism”. Like “racism” or “racist” it is dog whistle word meant to silence legitimate points of view that differ from the accepted.
I am a little brusque, I am 74 years old and have no interest in kissing-ass, or even being obsequiously polite, although I hope I don’t come across as rude and confrontational.
You say you don’t ban peple from this forum, but if you want me to sod-off, I will, then you can all bay at each other in your echo chamber.
You come across as rude and confrontational. Also as a socialist.
I would never tell a member to “sod-off”. When I have to ask someone to leave - which only happens if they do something criminal like incite murder - I do so politely. No one is telling you to “sod off”.
Please continue as long as you like to express your socialist views and any others you wish to tell us about on this Forum. But why get all girlie-hurt when we argue with you? As an enemy of profit, as an admirer of FDR, and as a hater of Trump, don’t you expect opposition on this site?
Some of the information you have given us - for instance about shortages in your trade - is interesting and important.