Make sure you read the name at the bottom of the quote
If you read that quote without seeing who said it, you would think George W. Bush, or some other hate/war monger said it. But no, it was John F. Kennedy.
How far left have we fallen. It was not that long ago that even the left wanted to fight for our country. There is no doubt that Kennedy could not be a Democrat and say the things he said back in the 60's...
"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." Wow...
That has been replaced with...
"Ask not what can I do for my country, but how much can I get out of it."
This is proof that this country has fallen farther left...
Someone like Kennedy who passed the biggest tax cut in United States history and made statements like the two quotes above is today's Republican.
Today's liberal would never go to war to defend liberty. Today's liberal, Russ Feingold, wants us to cut and run when times get tough...they do not want success.
That is why many people say they are conservatives, not Republicans....Today's Republicans are really Republican-lite of someone from the 60's or maybe even as early as the 1980's.
Republicans have to remember where the "middle ground" used to be, and where it is today. The right has to stop letting the media portray them as far right wing extremists...many of them are actually to the left of JFK.
Just think about Ted Kennedy saying the quote at the top of this blog...there would be outrage from the left for him to be drown in a river.
Posts
6 comments:
I've said it a million times, the JFK Democrats will eventually come over to the Republican Party.
They were the Reagan Democrats, and were likely the swing-vote in the 2004 election as well......Even though they may not admit it.
There's no way they can continue to swing with the insane Left.
----------
I know many are also anti-FDR (and he wasn't my favorite either), but even he would be considered a Righty by today's standards.
----------
"Today's Republicans are yesterday's Democrats, and today's Democrats are yesterdays Marxists." - Michael Savage.
Exactly my point...thanks pero and Dr. Savage.
Sadly, that statement also points out there is no party of Conservatives.
And since I don't beleive in wasting my time on Turd Parties, I'm stuck with the damn (R)'s.
My old sig used to be:
(R, by default - AZ)
Any liberal in this country would and will defend liberty, our liberty. But Iraq ain't it!!
And, please keep up with the actual news, not what Rush and Hannity say. Feingold did not, has not, is not advocating "cut and run." You wish! He is not even advocating a deadline. He is advocating a TARGET! A target date that we should try to achieve based on the success of milestones we have some control over. See, a TARGET is actually a PLAN. A plan is something, you see, that the current administration has never heard of. A plan is something the Republicans constantly accuse the Democrats of NOT HAVING.
But at least one Democrat has offered one. And since it is simple and obviously head and shoulders above whatever this adminstration could conjure, they will try to change the meaning of it and smear the person "who dares speak it."
Jim...
I wish Bush would be more agressive and say we will kick everyones ass and then start to leave...Russ says he wants to win and then leave...but I bet he is not willing to do what it takes to win...didn't he vote against going?
That means he does not believe in being there...that is why he wants to leave so quickly.
Feingold did vote against going to war. My guess is that EVERYONE would like to "win and then leave." But what does "win" mean.
I believe Feingold wants to set a target date by which certain goals are met. "Stay the course" has no meaning if it has no end. Feingold does not want to "cut and run". He wants to set a target date for when the Iraqi army will be stood up to take the place of Americans securing the country. Milestones, dates, goals--that's what a target implies. You can set goals for recruiting, arming, training and deploying Iraqis. But I don't see how the administration is going to achieve goals that are pretty much completely out of their hands, that is the factions of Iraq agreeing to get along together and pass a constitution that will achieve stability.
This is not a deadline. The whole point of the target is that the Iraqis will be ready to maintain security. So that kills the argument of the insurgents waiting for the US to leave. The country is either secure or it is not. The US leaves when security is assured. If Iraq cannot be secured, if the Iraqis are not willing to fight for their country, then screw 'em. We leave and they can have it. Otherwise, if we stay it is clear it's not for them, it's for their oil.
I'll bet Feingold is willing to work with the military, our allies, and the Irqaqi people to set and meet achievable goals.
"Stay the course?" What does it mean and how long is it?
Post a Comment