Quote from John F. Kennedy

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

WSJ? OP-Eds? In other words, OPINIONS written in a Rupert Murdoch publication by RWW dipshits. Like you!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAAAA, Junior!

Thanks for playing.

As Ronnie would say - "There you go again, dipshit!"

You just demonstrated to everyone the third D of your Dipshittery strategies - DEFLECT. If you can't deal with the substance of an argument, try to impeach the source.

.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Zat so?

You're dam straight.


Jim

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by lustylad

As Ronnie would say - "There you go again, dipshit!"

You just demonstrated to everyone the third D of your Dipshittery strategies - DEFLECT. If you can't deal with the substance of an argument, try to impeach the source.

.

I've already told you that I have no thoughts on "WHY THEY HATE US." Why should I address a question for which I have no answer? I don't really give a shit why. Just that they do.

Why don't you elucidate me, Lawrence of Arabia?

Deflect that Pipsqueak.

[Seedy]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

Unfortunately, us "libtards" have to deal with knuckle dragging, uneducated, misinformed, inbred hillbilliy RETARDS like YOU, Seedy.

Suck my dick. LMFAO

[lustylad]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

I've already told you that I have no thoughts on "WHY THEY HATE US." Why should I address a question for which I have no answer? I don't really give a shit why. Just that they do.

Why don't you elucidate me, Lawrence of Arabia?

Deflect that Pipsqueak.

Huh? Now you're deflecting all the way to a previous thread. Beam yourself back down to Clarksville, you moron. I am referring to your inability IN THIS THREAD to challenge the substance of the two pieces I posted on JFK. So you reach into the ASSUP TOOL BOX and take out dipshittery tool #3 - DEFLECT. By attacking the Wall Street Journal. Three problems with that. 1) The WSJ has an impeccable reputation. 2) The articles are "op-ed" pieces so they don't have to reflect the Journal's own editorial opinions. 3) You're too lazy to look up anything on the authors themselves.

So you just made yourself look weak, stupid, desperate, lazy and uninformed. But we already knew that about you, right dipshit?

.

[Munchmasterman]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You do realize that in today's political climate JFK is a conservative? He believed in a strong defense, lower taxes, less government interference, and (like a neocon) a presence of the United States in the world.

Your current liberals are no way like JFK. Even a die hard liberal like George McGovern would not want to be a part of them.

John F. Kennedy described a liberal as follows:

...someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties — someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a 'Liberal', then I’m proud to say I’m a 'Liberal'

He would be a liberal. He says so himself. Can't you read?

Looks like we can add another name to the list of people you mischaracterize and attempt to reinterpret their actions and words to your own ends,

Nice try at a hijack.

[JD Barleycorn]

Can't you read Ass munch? I said that TODAY Kennedy would be considered a conservative. Someone else wrote that he was a conservative in his time. Actually, someone posted a column by someone else who said that. I didn't say it so go learn to read. Even Kennedy considered himself a liberal which just goes to so you how far left (socialist-fascist) the modern liberal is today.

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Can't you read Ass munch? I said that TODAY Kennedy would be considered a conservative.

Can't you read JDIdiot? Someone who claimed to believe with the following, would not be a "conservative" in today's political climate.

From JFK himself:

"someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties."

Here are a few prime examples:

What part of caring "about the welfare of the people" is a modern day, conservative value?

What part of caring about their "civil rights" is a modern day, conservative value?

Modern day conservatives do not care whether "the people" have access to adequate health care or adequate housing.

Modern day conservatives do not care about improving "the people's" public school system and/or whether they have adequate jobs.

Those are things JFK actually said that he believed in and those clearly are not modern day conservative values.

Quit trying to fit JFK into your modern day, Far Right-Wing WACKO box. He clearly would not fit!

What is amazing is that you continue to spew your bullshit and then try to pass your BS off as being something factual.

Since you're speculating about JFK. I am going to do the same. In today's political climate, JFK would laugh at the modern day Tea Partiers.

What you need to do is try to figure out ways to redirect your political ideology to be something more along the lines of the Abe Lincoln and JFK's of today's political world. As opposed to the Far Right-Wing Idiots that you now cling to, those being individuals such as Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Rush Slimebaugh and Ted Nugent.

[JohnnyCap]

I wasn't alive then, but I have trouble believing that most of the issues modern government faces, including presidential ineptitude in the face of the oligarchy, were created before JFK.

JFK may very well be as revered as he is for one reason above all others: he got shot down. He could easily still be alive today, 97 he'd be, with the reputation of a lying, philandering drunken cheat. But get picked off in your prime after a few good speeches and history treats you well.

[i'va biggen]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Can't you read Ass munch? I said that TODAY Kennedy would be considered a conservative. Someone else wrote that he was a conservative in his time. Actually, someone posted a column by someone else who said that. I didn't say it so go learn to read. Even Kennedy considered himself a liberal which just goes to so you how far left (socialist-fascist) the modern liberal is today.

JFK was a world away from a tea turd which sets the bar for conservative now. As you see in republican primaries trying to replace members who are not conservative enough.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by bigtex

Can't you read JDIdiot? Someone who claimed to believe with the following, would not be a "conservative" in today's political climate.

From JFK himself:

"someone who cares about the welfare of the people — their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties."

Here are a few prime examples:

What part of caring "about the welfare of the people" is a modern day, conservative value?

What part of caring about their "civil rights" is a modern day, conservative value?

Modern day conservatives do not care whether "the people" have access to adequate health care or adequate housing.

Modern day conservatives do not care about improving "the people's" public school system and/or whether they have adequate jobs.

Those are things JFK actually said that he believed in and those clearly are not modern day conservative values.

Quit trying to fit JFK into your modern day, Far Right-Wing WACKO box. He clearly would not fit!

What is amazing is that you continue to spew your bullshit and then try to pass your BS off as being something factual.

Since you're speculating about JFK. I am going to do the same. In today's political climate, JFK would laugh at the modern day Tea Partiers.

What you need to do is try to figure out ways to redirect your political ideology to be something more along the lines of the Abe Lincoln and JFK's of today's political world. As opposed to the Far Right-Wing Idiots that you now cling to, those being individuals such as Ted Cruz, Sarah Palin, Michelle Bachman, Rush Slimebaugh and Ted Nugent.

Per JFK, he would be against a society such as the one that lib-retards like you have created, BigKoTex: the BUTTer bar ASShat. He was for a strong foreign policy -- not the whimpy shit you voted for in the last two elections -- and JFK was against perennial handouts from the government:

"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country."

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Per JFK, he would be against a society such as the one that lib-retards like you have created, BigKoTex: the BUTTer bar ASShat. He was for a strong foreign policy -- not the whimpy shit you voted for in the last two elections -- and JFK was against perennial handouts from the government:

"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what your country can do for you — ask what you can do for your country."

Ain't that sweet? IB is jumping to the defense of his identical twin brother JD. They join together as one in order to fight off the vicious attacks from those who know they are both full of bullshit!

[JohnnyCap]

Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

I wasn't alive then, but I have trouble believing that most of the issues modern government faces, including presidential ineptitude in the face of the oligarchy, were created before JFK.

JFK may very well be as revered as he is for one reason above all others: he got shot down. He could easily still be alive today, 97 he'd be, with the reputation of a lying, philandering drunken cheat. But get picked off in your prime after a few good speeches and history treats you well.

Fuck. Were not created before JFK. None of this shit is new, maybe worse now due to the speed of info, but that will correct. But what I meant to say is that I don't live in some fairly land where JFK was a golden boy and if only he'd have lived, we'd all be ducky.

[Yssup Rider]

My bad Junior. Your pap is SO engaging and challenging that I forgot which ridiculous thread I was posting in.

However, when I questioned the objectivity of OP-EDs from the WSJ, you cried foul (in typical fashion). But now, rather than defending the content, you are defending the publication (in typical fashion) and the writers. Kennedy was murdered years before MLK. You want to argue that these guys were his best friends, a la whir-LIE-turd, thereby making their opinion FACT? Have at it.

You want to fling insults (obviously that's your raison d'être). Have at it.

But OP-ed pieces from guest columnists representing the RWWs, who are so desperate to claim great leaders from the past because they have none, do not constitute FACTS in my book.

Now run home and get your shine box, Junior!

[Guest040616]

Originally Posted by JohnnyCap

JFK was a golden boy and if only he'd have lived, we'd all be ducky.

None of us will ever know what would have happened if JFK had lived. There is a very good chance that his successor would have been Bobby and not LBJ. Beyond that, who knows?

One thing I feel quite certain of, the 60's would have been much different had JFK lived!