• Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.

Why are my Values as a Republican the same as JFK's and the Dem's gone Socialist that JFK opposed!

Brother Matthew

Active Member
May 8, 2019
32
24
62
Ft. Wayne, IN
✟23,749.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
This address describes who I AM as a Republican ;-)
Why have the Democrat's abandon these ideas which we hold true, who has stolen their party.
Read this and tell me if you identify with this as well?

"John F. Kennedy


Inaugural Address

Friday, January 20, 1961

Vice President Johnson, Mr. Speaker, Mr. Chief Justice, President Eisenhower, Vice President Nixon, President Truman, reverend clergy, fellow citizens, we observe today not a victory of party, but a celebration of freedom—symbolizing an end, as well as a beginning—signifying renewal, as well as change. For I have sworn before you and Almighty God the same solemn oath our forebears prescribed nearly a century and three quarters ago.

The world is very different now. For man holds in his mortal hands the power to abolish all forms of human poverty and all forms of human life. And yet the same revolutionary beliefs for which our forebears fought are still at issue around the globe—the belief that the rights of man come not from the generosity of the state, but from the hand of God.

We dare not forget today that we are the heirs of that first revolution. Let the word go forth from this time and place, to friend and foe alike, that the torch has been passed to a new generation of Americans—born in this century, tempered by war, disciplined by a hard and bitter peace, proud of our ancient heritage—and unwilling to witness or permit the slow undoing of those human rights to which this Nation has always been committed, and to which we are committed today at home and around the world.

Let every nation know, whether it wishes us well or ill, that we shall pay any price, bear any burden, meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe, in order to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge—and more.

To those old allies whose cultural and spiritual origins we share, we pledge the loyalty of faithful friends. United, there is little we cannot do in a host of cooperative ventures. Divided, there is little we can do—for we dare not meet a powerful challenge at odds and split asunder.

To those new States whom we welcome to the ranks of the free, we pledge our word that one form of colonial control shall not have passed away merely to be replaced by a far more iron tyranny. We shall not always expect to find them supporting our view. But we shall always hope to find them strongly supporting their own freedom—and to remember that, in the past, those who foolishly sought power by riding the back of the tiger ended up inside.

To those peoples in the huts and villages across the globe struggling to break the bonds of mass misery, we pledge our best efforts to help them help themselves, for whatever period is required—not because the Communists may be doing it, not because we seek their votes, but because it is right. If a free society cannot help the many who are poor, it cannot save the few who are rich.

To our sister republics south of our border, we offer a special pledge—to convert our good words into good deeds—in a new alliance for progress—to assist free men and free governments in casting off the chains of poverty. But this peaceful revolution of hope cannot become the prey of hostile powers. Let all our neighbors know that we shall join with them to oppose aggression or subversion anywhere in the Americas. And let every other power know that this Hemisphere intends to remain the master of its own house.

To that world assembly of sovereign states, the United Nations, our last best hope in an age where the instruments of war have far outpaced the instruments of peace, we renew our pledge of support—to prevent it from becoming merely a forum for invective—to strengthen its shield of the new and the weak—and to enlarge the area in which its writ may run.

Finally, to those nations who would make themselves our adversary, we offer not a pledge but a request: that both sides begin anew the quest for peace, before the dark powers of destruction unleashed by science engulf all humanity in planned or accidental self-destruction.

We dare not tempt them with weakness. For only when our arms are sufficient beyond doubt can we be certain beyond doubt that they will never be employed.

But neither can two great and powerful groups of nations take comfort from our present course—both sides overburdened by the cost of modern weapons, both rightly alarmed by the steady spread of the deadly atom, yet both racing to alter that uncertain balance of terror that stays the hand of mankind's final war.

So let us begin anew—remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.

Let both sides explore what problems unite us instead of belaboring those problems which divide us.

Let both sides, for the first time, formulate serious and precise proposals for the inspection and control of arms—and bring the absolute power to destroy other nations under the absolute control of all nations.

Let both sides seek to invoke the wonders of science instead of its terrors. Together let us explore the stars, conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.

Let both sides unite to heed in all corners of the earth the command of Isaiah—to "undo the heavy burdens ... and to let the oppressed go free."

And if a beachhead of cooperation may push back the jungle of suspicion, let both sides join in creating a new endeavor, not a new balance of power, but a new world of law, where the strong are just and the weak secure and the peace preserved.

All this will not be finished in the first 100 days. Nor will it be finished in the first 1,000 days, nor in the life of this Administration, nor even perhaps in our lifetime on this planet. But let us begin.

In your hands, my fellow citizens, more than in mine, will rest the final success or failure of our course. Since this country was founded, each generation of Americans has been summoned to give testimony to its national loyalty. The graves of young Americans who answered the call to service surround the globe.

Now the trumpet summons us again—not as a call to bear arms, though arms we need; not as a call to battle, though embattled we are—but a call to bear the burden of a long twilight struggle, year in and year out, "rejoicing in hope, patient in tribulation"—a struggle against the common enemies of man: tyranny, poverty, disease, and war itself.

Can we forge against these enemies a grand and global alliance, North and South, East and West, that can assure a more fruitful life for all mankind? Will you join in that historic effort?

In the long history of the world, only a few generations have been granted the role of defending freedom in its hour of maximum danger. I do not shrink from this responsibility—I welcome it. I do not believe that any of us would exchange places with any other people or any other generation. The energy, the faith, the devotion which we bring to this endeavor will light our country and all who serve it—and the glow from that fire can truly light the world.

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

My fellow citizens of the world: ask not what America will do for you, but what together we can do for the freedom of man.

Finally, whether you are citizens of America or citizens of the world, ask of us the same high standards of strength and sacrifice which we ask of you. With a good conscience our only sure reward, with history the final judge of our deeds, let us go forth to lead the land we love, asking His blessing and His help, but knowing that here on earth God's work must truly be our own."
John F. Kennedy: Inaugural Address. U.S. Inaugural Addresses. 1989
 

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi BM,

After reading through the treatise, I'm not particularly sold to your idea that those of the Democratic party don't support those same ideals.

They want to live at peace with our neighboring nations. I don't think that Democrats want to live in another generation or another time. I believe that Democrats also seek a world where the strong are just and the weak secure and peace is preserved. Personally, I believe the Democrats more than the Republicans to be seeking more for peace and securing the rights and provisions of the weak. Even in the issue of abortion, there are a great many Republicans who are pro-choice and a great many Democrats who would not support pro-choice. However, securing the rights and provisions of the weak is more than just about abortion.

I also believe that Democrats also support President Kennedy's reference to Isaiah in letting the oppressed go free and undo the heavy burden on the people. I also believe that the Democrats embrace scientific endeavors and desire to explore the stars and conquer the deserts, eradicate disease, tap the ocean depths, and encourage the arts and commerce.

Do you have any evidence that individuals who are registered as Democrats don't support any of these things?

So let us begin anew—remembering on both sides that civility is not a sign of weakness, and sincerity is always subject to proof. Let us never negotiate out of fear. But let us never fear to negotiate.

Civility is not a sign of weakness. Gosh, hands down you've got to give lack of civility to the Republican side of the table.

I understand that you believe President Kennedy's address to be a great and moving oration, and I would agree. However, the issues brought up within it's words, and the support thereof, are not defined and divided by particular party association.

God bless,
In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Hi again BM,

Now, if you, as you claim, believe that this oration defines you as a Republican, then I'd encourage you to work on issues that provide for the weak among us. That you work on disarmament and denuclearization and support all efforts to do so. That you proclaim to fellow Republicans, and especially the present leader, that civility is not a weakness. You should be giving your support to those of other nations to ease their poverty and struggle also. Just as President Kennedy exhorts you.

The point is that not even the Republican party, as it stands today, supports most of what President Kennedy was attempting to make us understand about ourselves, our nation, and our world. Trust me, or don't, neither the Republican nor the Democratic party are striving for the ideals that President Kennedy was putting forth in his address.

God bless,
In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0

Brother Matthew

Active Member
May 8, 2019
32
24
62
Ft. Wayne, IN
✟23,749.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
It is as I said either you see it and feel it or you don't, for the most part both sides should I would hope identify with the sentiment and words laid forward to the point of what intolerance?
It is simple, the words in the speech do you agree with and identify with them? Are U R or D? that's it.
People get lost if you say something they don't like for what ever reason, want to make more out of something and that is I am sorry to say that seems to come from the D side at least that has been my experience.
It seems to be intolerance and in other cases practically hate, that is not the conduct of someone that believes in ideals of that speech.
So thus the question, note never said all or even I'm right or wrong just the question, not financial, not ideals outside of the context of the speech.
 
Upvote 0

Yarddog

Senior Contributor
Site Supporter
Jun 25, 2008
16,938
4,275
Louisville, Ky
✟1,024,094.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
If this describes you now, your fellow Republicans think that you're a liberal. This is a speech that Bernie could make.
 
Reactions: tulc
Upvote 0

Sparagmos

Well-Known Member
Oct 19, 2018
8,632
7,319
53
Portland, Oregon
✟285,562.00
Country
United States
Gender
Female
Faith
Non-Denom
Marital Status
Married
Kennedy’s campaign platformed included nuclear disarmament, civil rights for minorities, increasing the minimum wage, stronger labor laws and workplace protections, increasing benefits for the elderly, and more diplomacy on the world stage. Do you agree with those goals? If so, you are really a Democrat!
 
Reactions: Yarddog
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
Ask not what your Country can do for you.

Ask what you can do for your Country.

Just sounds opposite of what most Democrats think today?

M-Bob

Hi MMB,

Personally, I'm not sure it well describes the activities and agenda of the Republican party either. Are Republicans particularly better at volunteering in civic endeavors than Democrats? What exactly do you see among the Republican agenda that is of particular note that would seem to say that it is the Republicans who, on an individual bases, as President Kennedy was encouraging, do more for the country?

If we enact and encourage laws and use resources to make life better for the least of us, are we not doing something to make the nation, as a whole, a better nation? I'm just curious exactly what it is that you can point to and say, "Well, here's an example of those who are registered Republicans themselves individually who are doing something to help the nation."

Some of the 'socialist' policies that President Kennedy worked towards would be:

increasing the minimum wage.
medical care for the elderly.
broaden civil rights.
development in Appalachia to fight poverty.
he ordered federal marshalls to escort the first black man to ole Miss.

Kennedy was a man, by all known accounts, who really seemed to care more about the plight of the downtrodden than the rich. I think that this has always been a stronger fight among Democrats than Republicans. Of course, President Kennedy was a Democrat and so it's no surprise that he fought for these issues.

What's surprising is that the OP says that his political stance as a Republican is more in line with President Kennedy, and yet he's still a Republican. Go figure, huh?

So, again I'll ask. What issue is it exactly, or what general practice of some of those who may be registered Republicans, do you see that would show that they are more inclined to do something good for the country over what those who are registered Democrats do?

God bless,
In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0

Mountainmanbob

Goat Whisperer
Site Supporter
Sep 6, 2016
15,961
10,816
74
92040
✟1,118,913.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Calvinist
Marital Status
Married
Politics
US-Republican

I do believe that Republicans give more to Charities and churches?
M-Bob
 
Upvote 0

Yarddog

Senior Contributor
Site Supporter
Jun 25, 2008
16,938
4,275
Louisville, Ky
✟1,024,094.00
Gender
Male
Faith
Catholic
Marital Status
Married
I do believe that Republicans give more to Charities and churches?
M-Bob
Sources show that the rich give about 70% of all charitable donations in the US but the poor and middle give more of a percentage of their income than the rich. There is also a difference of what types of charities each donate to. The rich tend to donate to the arts and universities while the poor and middle give to human services.
 
Upvote 0

miamited

Ted
Site Supporter
Oct 4, 2010
13,243
6,313
Seneca SC
✟705,807.00
Country
United States
Gender
Male
Faith
Christian
Marital Status
Married
I do believe that Republicans give more to Charities and churches?
M-Bob

Hi MMB,

I understand that's what you believe. Do you have any evidence to support what you believe. After all, I think it pretty evident to born again believers that people will believe about anything. There are actually people who believe that those email pleas from those poor folks in Nigeria that can't get their billions of dollars out of the country and need them to send just $150 to pay the duties, and then they'll split the money with them, are actually true.

I know that there are reports that Republicans give more, but the difference in that giving seems to be largely worship tithes. Now, I'm certainly not against giving when the plate comes around in worship, but, most of that money isn't for any civic effort, but rather used for the operation of the facility and salaries. When you strip out the facility and salary costs and focus solely on how much of that giving goes out to the community or to missions of some sort, the numbers get relatively even.

We are talking here about civic giving. In a study reported in 2017 done by Michael Sance, University of Memphis, and Michele Margolis, University of Pennsylvania the following was found to be true on the issue:

"Moreover, the overall giving gap emerges because Republicans donate more to their own religious congregations, rather than nationally active religious charities. Republicans and Democrats give roughly equal amounts to religious organisations aside from their own congregations, and we also find some evidence that Democrats donate more to non-religious organisations than Republicans. In other words, the baseline difference in charitable giving emerges because Republicans are more religious than Democrats, and religious people donate generously to their religious congregations."

While I absolutely agree that giving to one's fellowship to support the operational costs of a worship facility is very important for christians, it isn't necessarily something that overflows to offer help to the community or nation at large in taking care of the needs of others. As the report points out, in those things, like maybe donating to St Judes Children's Hospital or the American Cancer Society or some other non-religious organization that offers help to those with specific needs in the community, the Democrats may actually have a slight edge.

God bless,
In Christ, ted
 
Upvote 0