Where have they gone?

[bigmack]

What ever happened to a member of the Democratic Party that had pair?

Last time I heard one was here: jksx (http://www.mediamax.com/slbabyfile/af4a5cf6-bd6c-4a8c-950d-cdac7233ff0e/PlayList_FUIVNAQNIM.asx)

[PaceAdvantage]

Link doesn't work for me...

[Tom]

Worked for me.
And if were alive today, he wouldn't be a democrat!

[bigmack]

Worked for me.
And if were alive today, he wouldn't be a democrat!
Ain't no way he'd be a Demi, T.
For those that the link doesn't work:

JFK from his inaugrual speech:
"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 to assure the survival and the success of liberty.

This much we pledge--and more.

[betchatoo]

Not only would JFK still be a Democrat, but his opponent, Tricky Dick, would be far too liberal for today's Republican party.

[Tom]

You kidding me?
the DEMS would throw him out....remember, he was in favor of tax cuts, a dem no-no. :lol:

[Overlay]

It seems to me that the real test of "having a pair" for a politican is the willingness to cut spending in order to balance budgets. After forty years of "tax-and-spend" from the Democrats, I thought the Republicans might step up to the plate in that regard when they finally took over both houses in 1994 (since they were the party that kept calling for "fiscal discipline"). But after they got in, deficits just kept getting bigger and bigger, because they were all too willing to cut taxes, but turned out to be just as gutless as the Democrats when it came to reducing spending (especially on entitlement programs, which are the bulk of federal outlays). I asked my Republican congressman why the party had abandoned its traditional budgetary conservatism, and he said that what was really important was not the fact that there was a deficit at all, or even the absolute size of the deficit itself, but the size of the deficit in comparison to the Gross Domestic Product. And he said if you looked at it that way, the deficits in recent years had been lower (in relative terms) than at any time before. That may be true, but at some point, the accumulated interest from the debt is going to catch up with us big-time. And now the Democrats are back in power. So a pox on both parties. Maybe it's time for some fundamental change to our political system (whatever form it might take) where hard choices like spending cuts are somehow removed from political fallout.

[chickenhead]

o'lay -- I blame the citizens, we are the ones focused on taxes rather than spending. Milton Friedman said the true measure of the burden of government is not how much much it taxes but how much it spends. More people need to figure that out. The government is not going to be responsible where its citizens are not.

[Tom]

And how do we effect change when the system only gives us candidats who are bought and paid for long before the first primary?
I give you Bush/Gore and Bush/Kerry. NOWAY Bush a choice, he was an avoidance Where oweuld you like your cancer, colon or lungs?
Look a lifers like Kennedy, Kerry - they do not represent the American people, the represent Boston. we have no say in 98% of the senate. and people vote for pork spender becasue it is in THIER yard.
No way this system will ever give a representative government - they already represent the lobbyist. We area only vote-media.