Mark Foley
Trent Lott
Strom Thurmond
Jesse Helms
Spiro Agnew
Duke Cunningham
Richard Nixon

Actually, as I’ve said before, the current crop of Republosers makes me kinda said that we were so tough on Tricky Dick.

*John F. Kennedy was a liberal. He said so himself. Therefore, “liberals” cannot be opposed to all tax cuts.

*The enormous majority of non-partisan biblical scholars these days do not believe Jesus made the claim that he was the one-and-only Son of God. He didn’t do so in the synoptic gospels, only in John, and John was probably compiled by Greek-speaking ghostics about a century after the Crucifiction. The Doctrine of Trinity really didn’t take over and become church orthodoxy until the 4th century. If you want to believe in the Trinity that’s fine with me, but by the same token I have no problem at all considering Jesus to be a wise teacher who was not a God.

No, you didn’t claim Kennedy as a conservative hero, you simply defended the notions of those who do.

Liberals are opposed to marginal tax rate decreases. Always have been.

That is a gross oversimplification. It seems to escape you that JFK is an excellent counter-example.

JFK’s rate reductions, which cut the top rate, would have been assailed by liberals as nothing but “tax cuts for the rich.”

Your “would have been” here tells me that you don’t actually know how people at the time responded to the Kennedy tax plan. It’s not that hard to find out. Many liberals did oppose it, but many did not. Some of the strongest opponents were actually conservative business interests. Why? because they recognized that Kennedy’s tax cuts were not a supply-side giveaway but part of a comprehensive program of demand-side stimulus.

Ever notice, Jay, how reality always turns out to be a bit more complicated than your pat theories?

As for “four guys from the 1700s”, greatness transcends time

Yes, and what made these men great the revolutionary ideas that made them the progressives of their day.

Oh, wait, I’m meant to be the EXTREEMIST LIBRUL aren’t I?

A couple others:

Mitt Romney**
Rudy Guliani
John Roberts**
Sen. McCain
Dubya

Newt Gingrich
Pat Robertson
Reagan
Dare I say George Allan
Walter Mondale**

Oh, the founding fathers… but they were all racists and bigots right?

Paul Wolfowitz
Richard Perle

and they had cheerleaders pushing their agenda:

Donald Rumsfeld
Dick Cheney

That would be the same Rumsfeld who had no problem selling arms and chemical agents to evil Saddam.

The story of “Team B” and how they manipulated, twisted, and just plain made up intelligence to support a massive military build up under Reagan (along with funneling arms to the Middle East and South/Central America) by touting an “evil empire” that hated our freedoms is painfully familiar.

Of course, an inconvenient fact ignored by the cons in their mythologizing about Reagan and the Soviets was that all that military build up on the part of the U.S. had no effect on Soviet military spending. We simply poured money into the military welfare system with no discernible benefit other than padding some wallets while draining most everyone elses.

Okay, Jay, so if liberals have always been opposed to tax cuts, please find us evidence that liberals decried Kennedy’s tax cuts as ‘tax cuts for the rich.’ There’s no would have about it. Either they did at the time or they didn’t.

Would have been? Were they? Or are you comparing liberals now to liberals then?
Because if you are, the sentence above need a few more qualifiers otherwise you just sound like an idiot.

Hey, Jay what did Jesus say about torture? He was all for it, right?

JFK’s tax cuts can be called “conservative” only if you believe the lie that liberals oppose all tax cuts all the time.

Liberals are opposed to marginal tax rate decreases. Always have been. As such, JFK’s rate reductions, which cut the top rate, would have been assailed by liberals as nothing but “tax cuts for the rich.”

As for “four guys from the 1700s”, greatness transcends time. Ideas and philosophy are more important than worshiping at the altar of somebody like FDR and LBJ who while making excellent contributions to society (FDR’s leadership during the war, LBJ and his push for civil rights) both contributed heavily to the bloated government we have today and programs that have helped to foster a society that will have a permanent underclass forever dependent on the government teat. It’s not something to be proud of or boast about.

Hmm… one college professor (who apparently was appalled at Bush’s unfunded tax cuts) and four guys from the 1700′s.

Maybe you should add Hippocrates: he was anti-abortion all the way back in 450 BC.

All those guys were progressive for their own times. The conservatives in John Locke’s day believed in the divine right of kings and in dispossessing Scottish peasants.

Friedman? He was well respected even by many liberal economists, but only worshipped by the Grover Norquist wing of the 30-percenters. Most Americans probably have little idea who he is.

And JFK? That’s a good one. Do you honestly believe that if JFK were alive today he would agree with you about anything? Get real.

JFK’s tax cuts can be called “conservative” only if you believe the lie that liberals oppose all tax cuts all the time.

Your citing of him shows just how far you have to stretch to find any “conservative” from recent history who can be called a “hero” without making people gag.

Oliver should thank you for proving his point for him.

As for conservative heroes, there are plenty:

Milton Friedman
John Locke (He rolled over in his grave when those twits on the Supreme Court handed down their Kelo ruling)
Alexander Hamilton
John Jay
James Madison (The Federalist Papers are the polar opposite to just about everything liberals espouse with regard to the role of the federal government)

And Mike, JFK did the one thing that liberals are never supposed to do: he lowered marginal income tax rates. IE, he cut taxes for THE RICH. Bad bad Kennedy.

And he did not defeat the Soviets either. Reagan endorsed the Team B estimates, which overestimated the Soviet strength versus what the CIA said — and even more than what the Soviets turned out to have at the time. Overspending did help (along with bad weather and the lack of arable land in Russia) defeat the Soviets — Kennedy’s and Johnson’s. (Incidentally, I think both men also spent too much on the military as well as Reagan.)

Anything else is a myth.

And Reagan (or, more to the point, his cronies) gave nukes to the Pakistanis. Defend that.

Jesus had some pretty darn liberal views and yet the religious right has no compunctions invoking his name to try and inflict their theocratic agenda on the rest of us.

Meanwhile, James Dobson and Jerry Falwell are working on getting a camel thru the eye of a needle.

All the heros of our past were the liberals of their day. That includes Jesus. This is because history consistently proves that the conservatives are always wrong.

Those who don’t know history are doomed to repeat it, and so are those who hold their hands over their ears and say “la la la la” whenever the word “history” is mentioned.