JFK more conservative than Obama/McCain

SanAntonio_JetFan · 09-06-2008, 08:59 AM

By today's standards, wouldn't JFK be considered more conservative than either McCain or Obama?

1. He was for cutting both corporate and personal income taxes.
2. He was for personal responsibility over govt welfare.
3. He was high on military spending and was a hawk on foriegn policy.
4. He ran a thrifty govt.

SanAntonio_JetFan · 09-06-2008, 01:15 PM

Nothing? Zero? Nada?

Boynton Beach Jets · 09-06-2008, 01:32 PM

[quote=SanAntonio_JetFan;2730576]By today's standards, wouldn't JFK be considered more conservative than either McCain or Obama?

1. He was for cutting both corporate and personal income taxes.
2. He was for personal responsibility over govt welfare.
3. He was high on military spending and was a hawk on foriegn policy.
4. He ran a thrifty govt.[/quote]

That is scary

cr726 · 09-06-2008, 01:51 PM

He was for Nation Building as well, remember who laughed right into his face about that issue?

Still waiting for Bush to take care of the military that was ignored during the Clinton years (not arguing about Clinton, he did ignore the military).

[QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2730816]Nothing? Zero? Nada?[/QUOTE]

SanAntonio_JetFan · 09-06-2008, 02:09 PM

And his "diplomatic" solution to the Cuban missle crisis wasn't to sit down and sing cumbaya with Castro and Kruschev, it was basically, "Get the missles the f*ck out of Cuba and get them out now".

Whatever happened to that kind of Democrat? If modern Democrats were like that, I'd definitely be part of that party.

Don't even get me started on Harry Truman.

MachineGunFunk · 09-06-2008, 02:22 PM

Lets not forget his greatest accomplishment:

[IMG]http://evilbeetgossip.film.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/marilyn_monroe.jpg[/IMG]

cr726 · 09-06-2008, 02:23 PM

You are bragging about the Bay of Pigs?

[QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2730945]And his "diplomatic" solution to the Cuban missle crisis wasn't to sit down and sing cumbaya with Castro and Kruschev, it was basically, "Get the missles the f*ck out of Cuba and get them out now".

Whatever happened to that kind of Democrat? If modern Democrats were like that, I'd definitely be part of that party.

Don't even get me started on Harry Truman.[/QUOTE]

Queens Jet Fan · 09-06-2008, 02:42 PM

[QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2730576]By today's standards, wouldn't JFK be considered more conservative than either McCain or Obama?

1. He was for cutting both corporate and personal income taxes.
2. He was for personal responsibility over govt welfare.
3. He was high on military spending and was a hawk on foriegn policy.
4. He ran a thrifty govt.[/QUOTE]
1. Nice of the conservatives to call cutting taxes a con position. Wrong. Conservates are, or at least used to be known for fiscal responsibilty and balanced budgets. Actually throughout history Cons have sometimes been in favor of tax increases to balance a budget.

The main difference between Cons and Libs here are that liberals believe in a more progressive tax code. That's the difference not whether you cut taxes.

2. Liberal postion also
3. Depends how and where you spend it and whether you are in a time of war. Certainly not a con or lib position.
4. He did? Thrifty means con? Not really. It's all in the priorities and where the $ is spent.

JetsVault03 · 09-06-2008, 02:51 PM

I've always thought this. JFK would be booed at a DNC, and viewed as Bush 2.0 and neo-con to the core.

SanAntonio_JetFan · 09-06-2008, 03:05 PM

[QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan;2731024]2. Liberal postion also
[/QUOTE]

Since when?

fukushimajin · 09-06-2008, 03:14 PM

[QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2730576]By today's standards, wouldn't JFK be considered more conservative than either McCain or Obama?

1. He was for cutting both corporate and personal income taxes.
2. He was for personal responsibility over govt welfare.
3. He was high on military spending and was a hawk on foriegn policy.
4. He ran a thrifty govt.[/QUOTE]

Mostly this is non-sense. Like every other historical figure, Churchill, Pope John Paul II, ML King the modern Conservative movement likes to try to bring them over to their camp. To be clear: MLK and Kennedy would urinate on the modern GOP and their "conservative" notions.

It is just as easy (and more true) for me to say: Nixon was more liberal than either Obama & McCain because he signed the clean air act & created other huge regulatory agencies. How do you think he would have felt about talking to Iran?

Here's an article for you: WARNING!!! it is hard and pretty accurate.

[url]http://www.slate.com/id/2093947[/url]

Try harder next time.

Queens Jet Fan · 09-06-2008, 03:18 PM

[QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2731053]Since when?[/QUOTE]

Since forever.

SanAntonio_JetFan · 09-06-2008, 03:20 PM

[QUOTE=fukushimajin;2731067]Mostly this is non-sense. Like every other historical figure, Churchill, Pope John Paul II, ML King the modern Conservative movement likes to try to bring them over to their camp. To be clear: MLK and Kennedy would urinate on the modern GOP and their "conservative" notions.

It is just as easy (and more true) for me to say: Nixon was more liberal than either Obama & McCain because he signed the clean air act & created other huge regulatory agencies. How do you think he would have felt about talking to Iran?

Here's an article for you: WARNING!!! it is hard and pretty accurate.

[url]http://www.slate.com/id/2093947[/url]

Try harder next time.[/QUOTE]

"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." This is about socialized medicine? Right?

fukushimajin · 09-06-2008, 03:44 PM

[QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2731078]"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." This is about socialized medicine? Right?[/QUOTE]

He meant the peace corps.

Here's a primer on the "New Frontiers" inititative:

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Frontier[/url]

One social program after another...this is first time anybody ever tried to call the 1960's "too conservative". Its silly really.

Queens Jet Fan · 09-06-2008, 03:46 PM

[QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2731078]"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." This is about socialized medicine? Right?[/QUOTE]

You truly need to study history before you post this sh*t.

Piper · 09-06-2008, 04:28 PM

[QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2730576]By today's standards, wouldn't JFK be considered more conservative than either McCain or Obama?

1. He was for cutting both corporate and personal income taxes.
2. He was for personal responsibility over govt welfare.
3. He was high on military spending and was a hawk on foriegn policy.
4. He ran a thrifty govt.[/QUOTE]

Absolutely.

intelligentjetsfan · 09-06-2008, 05:06 PM

[QUOTE=JetsVault03;2731035]I've always thought this. JFK would be booed at a DNC, and viewed as Bush 2.0 and neo-con to the core.[/QUOTE]

I never thought that.

I do think that he would have been booed by the conservatives for pulling the advisors out of vietnam after the '64 election. Because that is exactly what he would have done. And that is why he was killed......

[I]Kennedy increased the number of U.S. military in Vietnam from 800 to 16,300. It remains a point of controversy among historians whether or not Vietnam would have escalated to the point it did had Kennedy served out his full term and possibly been re-elected in 1964.[25] Fueling this speculation are statements made by Kennedy's and Johnson's Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara that Kennedy was strongly considering pulling out of Vietnam after the 1964 election. In the film "The Fog of War", not only does McNamara say this, but a tape recording of Lyndon Johnson confirms that Kennedy was planning to withdraw from Vietnam, a position Johnson states he disapproved of.[26] Additional evidence is Kennedy's National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) #263 on October 11, 1963 that gave the order for withdrawal of 1,000 military personnel by the end of 1963. Nevertheless, given the stated reason for the overthrow of the Diem government, such action would have been a dramatic policy reversal, but Kennedy was generally moving in a less hawkish direction in the Cold War since his acclaimed speech about World Peace at American University the previous June 10, 1963.

[B]After Kennedy's assassination, new President Lyndon B. Johnson immediately reversed his predecessor's order to withdraw 1,000 military personnel by the end of 1963 with his own NSAM #273 on [/B][B]November 26, 1963.[/B][/I]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy#Vietnam[/url]

JetsFan2012 · 09-06-2008, 05:10 PM

[QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2731229]I never thought that.

I do think that he would have been booed by the conservatives for pulling the advisors out of vietnam after the '64 election. Because that is exactly what he would have done. And that is why he was killed......

[I]Kennedy increased the number of U.S. military in Vietnam from 800 to 16,300. It remains a point of controversy among historians whether or not Vietnam would have escalated to the point it did had Kennedy served out his full term and possibly been re-elected in 1964.[25] Fueling this speculation are statements made by Kennedy's and Johnson's Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara that Kennedy was strongly considering pulling out of Vietnam after the 1964 election. In the film "The Fog of War", not only does McNamara say this, but a tape recording of Lyndon Johnson confirms that Kennedy was planning to withdraw from Vietnam, a position Johnson states he disapproved of.[26] Additional evidence is Kennedy's National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) #263 on October 11, 1963 that gave the order for withdrawal of 1,000 military personnel by the end of 1963. Nevertheless, given the stated reason for the overthrow of the Diem government, such action would have been a dramatic policy reversal, but Kennedy was generally moving in a less hawkish direction in the Cold War since his acclaimed speech about World Peace at American University the previous June 10, 1963.

[B]After Kennedy's assassination, new President Lyndon B. Johnson immediately reversed his predecessor's order to withdraw 1,000 military personnel by the end of 1963 with his own NSAM #273 on [/B][B]November 26, 1963.[/B][/I]

[url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy#Vietnam[/url][/QUOTE]

He was killed because the mob helped him get elected and then his brother, the Attorney General, went after the very guys who put him in office.

JetsFan2012 · 09-06-2008, 05:12 PM

I've actually heard this argument before. On some levels, it makes a lot of sense. It's pretty funny how the diehard liberals in this thread are insulted that their hero, Jack Kennedy, might have actually held conservative values.

"No! Liberals invented conservatism before conservatives were conservatives... Yeah!"

The partisanship in this forum is amusing sometimes. We're all guilty of it, myself included.

nuu faaola · 09-06-2008, 05:17 PM

JFK was very liberal for his time, but a tough liberal.

1) He was an advocate of using the federal government to enforce civil rights laws, and of making the federal laws more aggressive so as to impose on states rights. That stance --and the reaction to the laws it led when they eventually passed-- basically created the GOP's southern dominance because it became the party opposed to a federal government role in ensuring civil rights. Pretty much blows your thesis right there.

2) The great society programs passed by LBJ --the greatest entitlement expansion in U.S. history other than the New Deal-- was essentially the fulfillment of a JFK initiative.

3) He was a huge advocate for --and a brilliant practitioner of-- diplomacy as a means of avoiding war. He would hate the current GOP's derisive attitude toward diplomacy.

4) He had absolutely no use for the overtly religious politics employed by much of today's GOP.

09-06-2008, 08:59 AM	#1
SanAntonio_JetFan Hall Of Fame Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 5,481	JFK more conservative than Obama/McCain By today's standards, wouldn't JFK be considered more conservative than either McCain or Obama? 1. He was for cutting both corporate and personal income taxes. 2. He was for personal responsibility over govt welfare. 3. He was high on military spending and was a hawk on foriegn policy. 4. He ran a thrifty govt.

09-06-2008, 03:14 PM	#11
fukushimajin All Pro Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,130	[QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2730576]By today's standards, wouldn't JFK be considered more conservative than either McCain or Obama? 1. He was for cutting both corporate and personal income taxes. 2. He was for personal responsibility over govt welfare. 3. He was high on military spending and was a hawk on foriegn policy. 4. He ran a thrifty govt.[/QUOTE] Mostly this is non-sense. Like every other historical figure, Churchill, Pope John Paul II, ML King the modern Conservative movement likes to try to bring them over to their camp. To be clear: MLK and Kennedy would urinate on the modern GOP and their "conservative" notions. It is just as easy (and more true) for me to say: Nixon was more liberal than either Obama & McCain because he signed the clean air act & created other huge regulatory agencies. How do you think he would have felt about talking to Iran? Here's an article for you: WARNING!!! it is hard and pretty accurate. [url]http://www.slate.com/id/2093947[/url] Try harder next time. Last edited by fukushimajin; 09-06-2008 at 03:15 PM. Reason: Added

09-06-2008, 01:15 PM	#2
SanAntonio_JetFan Hall Of Fame Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 5,481	Nothing? Zero? Nada?

09-06-2008, 01:32 PM	#3
Boynton Beach Jets Woody Johnson must go!!!! All Pro Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: Boynton Beach, Florida Posts: 6,166	[quote=SanAntonio_JetFan;2730576]By today's standards, wouldn't JFK be considered more conservative than either McCain or Obama? 1. He was for cutting both corporate and personal income taxes. 2. He was for personal responsibility over govt welfare. 3. He was high on military spending and was a hawk on foriegn policy. 4. He ran a thrifty govt.[/quote] That is scary

09-06-2008, 01:51 PM	#4
cr726 Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,327	He was for Nation Building as well, remember who laughed right into his face about that issue? Still waiting for Bush to take care of the military that was ignored during the Clinton years (not arguing about Clinton, he did ignore the military). [QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2730816]Nothing? Zero? Nada?[/QUOTE]

09-06-2008, 02:09 PM	#5
SanAntonio_JetFan Hall Of Fame Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 5,481	And his "diplomatic" solution to the Cuban missle crisis wasn't to sit down and sing cumbaya with Castro and Kruschev, it was basically, "Get the missles the f*ck out of Cuba and get them out now". Whatever happened to that kind of Democrat? If modern Democrats were like that, I'd definitely be part of that party. Don't even get me started on Harry Truman.

09-06-2008, 02:22 PM	#6
MachineGunFunk All Pro Join Date: Nov 2003 Posts: 1,176	Lets not forget his greatest accomplishment: [IMG]http://evilbeetgossip.film.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/04/marilyn_monroe.jpg[/IMG]

09-06-2008, 02:23 PM	#7
cr726 Jets Insider VIP Join Date: Jan 2005 Posts: 13,327	You are bragging about the Bay of Pigs? [QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2730945]And his "diplomatic" solution to the Cuban missle crisis wasn't to sit down and sing cumbaya with Castro and Kruschev, it was basically, "Get the missles the f*ck out of Cuba and get them out now". Whatever happened to that kind of Democrat? If modern Democrats were like that, I'd definitely be part of that party. Don't even get me started on Harry Truman.[/QUOTE]

09-06-2008, 02:42 PM	#8
Queens Jet Fan All Pro Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Roslyn Posts: 6,789	[QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2730576]By today's standards, wouldn't JFK be considered more conservative than either McCain or Obama? 1. He was for cutting both corporate and personal income taxes. 2. He was for personal responsibility over govt welfare. 3. He was high on military spending and was a hawk on foriegn policy. 4. He ran a thrifty govt.[/QUOTE] 1. Nice of the conservatives to call cutting taxes a con position. Wrong. Conservates are, or at least used to be known for fiscal responsibilty and balanced budgets. Actually throughout history Cons have sometimes been in favor of tax increases to balance a budget. The main difference between Cons and Libs here are that liberals believe in a more progressive tax code. That's the difference not whether you cut taxes. 2. Liberal postion also 3. Depends how and where you spend it and whether you are in a time of war. Certainly not a con or lib position. 4. He did? Thrifty means con? Not really. It's all in the priorities and where the $ is spent.

09-06-2008, 02:51 PM	#9
JetsVault03 Veteran Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 380	I've always thought this. JFK would be booed at a DNC, and viewed as Bush 2.0 and neo-con to the core.

09-06-2008, 03:05 PM	#10
SanAntonio_JetFan Hall Of Fame Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 5,481	[QUOTE=Queens Jet Fan;2731024]2. Liberal postion also [/QUOTE] Since when?

09-06-2008, 03:18 PM	#12
Queens Jet Fan All Pro Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Roslyn Posts: 6,789	[QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2731053]Since when?[/QUOTE] Since forever.

09-06-2008, 03:20 PM	#13
SanAntonio_JetFan Hall Of Fame Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 5,481	[QUOTE=fukushimajin;2731067]Mostly this is non-sense. Like every other historical figure, Churchill, Pope John Paul II, ML King the modern Conservative movement likes to try to bring them over to their camp. To be clear: MLK and Kennedy would urinate on the modern GOP and their "conservative" notions. It is just as easy (and more true) for me to say: Nixon was more liberal than either Obama & McCain because he signed the clean air act & created other huge regulatory agencies. How do you think he would have felt about talking to Iran? Here's an article for you: WARNING!!! it is hard and pretty accurate. [url]http://www.slate.com/id/2093947[/url] Try harder next time.[/QUOTE] "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." This is about socialized medicine? Right?

09-06-2008, 03:44 PM	#14
fukushimajin All Pro Join Date: Apr 2007 Posts: 1,130	[QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2731078]"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." This is about socialized medicine? Right?[/QUOTE] He meant the peace corps. Here's a primer on the "New Frontiers" inititative: [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Frontier[/url] One social program after another...this is first time anybody ever tried to call the 1960's "too conservative". Its silly really.

09-06-2008, 03:46 PM	#15
Queens Jet Fan All Pro Join Date: Nov 2005 Location: Roslyn Posts: 6,789	[QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2731078]"Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what you can do for your country." This is about socialized medicine? Right?[/QUOTE] You truly need to study history before you post this sh*t.

09-06-2008, 04:28 PM	#16
Piper Hall Of Fame Charter JI Member Join Date: May 1999 Location: L.I. NY (where the Jets used to be from) Posts: 13,197	[QUOTE=SanAntonio_JetFan;2730576]By today's standards, wouldn't JFK be considered more conservative than either McCain or Obama? 1. He was for cutting both corporate and personal income taxes. 2. He was for personal responsibility over govt welfare. 3. He was high on military spending and was a hawk on foriegn policy. 4. He ran a thrifty govt.[/QUOTE] Absolutely.

09-06-2008, 05:06 PM	#17
intelligentjetsfan All Pro Join Date: Aug 2006 Posts: 5,307	[QUOTE=JetsVault03;2731035]I've always thought this. JFK would be booed at a DNC, and viewed as Bush 2.0 and neo-con to the core.[/QUOTE] I never thought that. I do think that he would have been booed by the conservatives for pulling the advisors out of vietnam after the '64 election. Because that is exactly what he would have done. And that is why he was killed...... [I]Kennedy increased the number of U.S. military in Vietnam from 800 to 16,300. It remains a point of controversy among historians whether or not Vietnam would have escalated to the point it did had Kennedy served out his full term and possibly been re-elected in 1964.[25] Fueling this speculation are statements made by Kennedy's and Johnson's Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara that Kennedy was strongly considering pulling out of Vietnam after the 1964 election. In the film "The Fog of War", not only does McNamara say this, but a tape recording of Lyndon Johnson confirms that Kennedy was planning to withdraw from Vietnam, a position Johnson states he disapproved of.[26] Additional evidence is Kennedy's National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) #263 on October 11, 1963 that gave the order for withdrawal of 1,000 military personnel by the end of 1963. Nevertheless, given the stated reason for the overthrow of the Diem government, such action would have been a dramatic policy reversal, but Kennedy was generally moving in a less hawkish direction in the Cold War since his acclaimed speech about World Peace at American University the previous June 10, 1963. [B]After Kennedy's assassination, new President Lyndon B. Johnson immediately reversed his predecessor's order to withdraw 1,000 military personnel by the end of 1963 with his own NSAM #273 on [/B][B]November 26, 1963.[/B][/I] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy#Vietnam[/url]

09-06-2008, 05:10 PM	#18
JetsFan2012 Waterboy Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 0	[QUOTE=intelligentjetsfan;2731229]I never thought that. I do think that he would have been booed by the conservatives for pulling the advisors out of vietnam after the '64 election. Because that is exactly what he would have done. And that is why he was killed...... [I]Kennedy increased the number of U.S. military in Vietnam from 800 to 16,300. It remains a point of controversy among historians whether or not Vietnam would have escalated to the point it did had Kennedy served out his full term and possibly been re-elected in 1964.[25] Fueling this speculation are statements made by Kennedy's and Johnson's Secretary of Defense Robert McNamara that Kennedy was strongly considering pulling out of Vietnam after the 1964 election. In the film "The Fog of War", not only does McNamara say this, but a tape recording of Lyndon Johnson confirms that Kennedy was planning to withdraw from Vietnam, a position Johnson states he disapproved of.[26] Additional evidence is Kennedy's National Security Action Memorandum (NSAM) #263 on October 11, 1963 that gave the order for withdrawal of 1,000 military personnel by the end of 1963. Nevertheless, given the stated reason for the overthrow of the Diem government, such action would have been a dramatic policy reversal, but Kennedy was generally moving in a less hawkish direction in the Cold War since his acclaimed speech about World Peace at American University the previous June 10, 1963. [B]After Kennedy's assassination, new President Lyndon B. Johnson immediately reversed his predecessor's order to withdraw 1,000 military personnel by the end of 1963 with his own NSAM #273 on [/B][B]November 26, 1963.[/B][/I] [url]http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_F._Kennedy#Vietnam[/url][/QUOTE] He was killed because the mob helped him get elected and then his brother, the Attorney General, went after the very guys who put him in office.

09-06-2008, 05:12 PM	#19
JetsFan2012 Waterboy Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 0	I've actually heard this argument before. On some levels, it makes a lot of sense. It's pretty funny how the diehard liberals in this thread are insulted that their hero, Jack Kennedy, might have actually held conservative values. "No! Liberals invented conservatism before conservatives were conservatives... Yeah!" The partisanship in this forum is amusing sometimes. We're all guilty of it, myself included.

09-06-2008, 05:17 PM	#20
nuu faaola All Pro Join Date: Apr 2003 Posts: 6,253	JFK was very liberal for his time, but a tough liberal. 1) He was an advocate of using the federal government to enforce civil rights laws, and of making the federal laws more aggressive so as to impose on states rights. That stance --and the reaction to the laws it led when they eventually passed-- basically created the GOP's southern dominance because it became the party opposed to a federal government role in ensuring civil rights. Pretty much blows your thesis right there. 2) The great society programs passed by LBJ --the greatest entitlement expansion in U.S. history other than the New Deal-- was essentially the fulfillment of a JFK initiative. 3) He was a huge advocate for --and a brilliant practitioner of-- diplomacy as a means of avoiding war. He would hate the current GOP's derisive attitude toward diplomacy. 4) He had absolutely no use for the overtly religious politics employed by much of today's GOP.