Radicalization of the Republican Party - Page 3 - Survivalist Forum
Survivalist Forum

Advertise Here

Go Back   Survivalist Forum > >
Articles Classifieds Donations Gallery Groups Links Store Survival Files


Notices

Advertise Here
Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Why the Republican Party fails Medieval Man Political News and Discussion 18 02-28-2014 07:02 PM
36 Hours that may have changed the Republican Party? momwithaprep Political News and Discussion 16 03-10-2013 12:41 PM
Republican party = party of evil? Really? _______ Political News and Discussion 7 08-19-2012 02:19 PM
Republican, Democrat, or green party which party do you think will turn things arou? Sped Man Financial Forum 62 07-22-2012 06:40 AM
Just how bad is the Republican party?? Grandpa Pipes Political News and Discussion 79 05-13-2012 09:22 PM
a GIFT from Obamao to the Republican party American Chestnut Political News and Discussion 5 08-25-2011 08:45 PM
is the republican party finished? miss becky General Discussion 5 12-29-2010 01:47 PM
Tea Party and the splintering of the Republican Party. urban General Discussion 84 12-12-2009 09:30 AM

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 10-05-2013, 12:36 PM
delta27's Avatar
delta27 delta27 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,585
Thanks: 9,179
Thanked 4,734 Times in 1,739 Posts
Default



Advertise Here

Quote:
Originally Posted by freeak View Post
I cannot imagine too many people did...the guy said the Republicans took majorities in both houses of Congress in 2010. Umm...not they didn't; they only took the one house.
which guy? the author of the article or someone who posted? (I must not have read carefully enough...I'll go back and reread.)

edit: missed that (it was the author of the article)

I was concentrating on the general message of the article, but that was an important detail he screwed up (and I missed).
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-05-2013, 12:43 PM
delta27's Avatar
delta27 delta27 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,585
Thanks: 9,179
Thanked 4,734 Times in 1,739 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moccasin View Post
Your imagination is stretched and you can't tell the difference between a leftist and a libertarian?
...
You're no libertarian...you are a leftist.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moccasin View Post
...Saying such things is hardly persuading people your comments are to be taken seriously.
You've said so before (when we discussed McCarthy the other day).



edit: to refresh your memory...

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moccasin View Post
The Republican Party has been going down the wrong path for almost 50 years, ever since Nixon. They have consistently traded long term considerations - and abandoned their own principles - for short term power by embracing in turn arch conservatism and Red-baiting, social conservatives, the Neo-cons, and now the Tea Party. Always the belief is the party will prevail over the discordant elements in these movements while benefiting from their strength; always the result is the party is disrupted and shoved further out of the main stream when these groups come in and take charge. That does not mean there are not intelligent, thoughtful voices inside the GOP pointing out what is going wrong and how to correct it; what it means is they are ignored by a party that seems determined to run full tilt into a brick wall, and is even pressing down the accelerator as they go.

And now the wall is getting closer. Much of the fury inside the GOP right now is because they are realizing that since they have constantly shrunk their base, they are becoming a second string player. Especially since their base is dying off. Meanwhile demographics and reality are making the Democrats strong naturally, without having to sell their souls and take up extremist positions to gain political power. Again, there are people in the GOP pointing all this out and that getting behind Ted Cruz would simply be to continue the trend of the past fifty years and shove the gas petal down just a little further, They are, of course, being called weak and traitors and ignored by those who know no history and think if they insist reality is what they say it is loud enough, they will make it so...



Demagogue - A leader who obtains power by means of impassioned appeals to the emotions and prejudices of the populace rather than by rational argument.

You are making the classic - and common - mistake of paying attention only to what a politician says, not what he does. That is backwards. Politicians lie and mislead by nature; it is what they do that shows their real character. You look at what Ted Cruz has done - his behavior during the Hagel confirmation hearings, the bills he has sponsored, this latest talkathon during which he proposed no ideas on how to fix the out of control insurance situation in the U.S., just repeated warnings about how Obamacare will destroy the country - and all this should raise warning flags by the thousands regarding him.

Actually, the warning flags ARE there. Some people simply won't see them and will ignore those pointing them out. Just as others refused to worry about Obama's warning flags in the rush to get him elected. He, too, was supposed to be one of the 'good guys' who would save the country...
Quote:
Originally Posted by delta27 View Post
You started out ok with your first sentence or two, but then you got it exactly backwards.

Conservative and libertarian-leaning constitutionalists have been an insurgent force within the Republican Party for that period of time that you mention. Our influence has waxed and waned. We've been taken for granted and shunted aside when no longer needed. It's no coincidence that the highest points of Republican popularity/success is when the conservative forces are in the lead and on the march pushing for limited government.

Ted Cruz and Mike Lee are two of the "intelligent, thoughtful voices inside the GOP pointing out what is going wrong and how to correct it" and it is the party establishment that "seems determined to run full tilt into a brick wall, and is even pressing down the accelerator as they go."

As happens quite often with you, you've pretty much got it all backwards and upside down.

I'm not making any mistake. I am watching what Cruz is doing as well as what he is saying. He's been consistent. I support him fully. I was against the Hagel nomination and supported Cruz in that too. I'm one of those Tea Party types that you decry. Cruz is doing exactly what he was elected to do and what I want him to do. If the GOP ends up destroyed by it, then so be it. I want the people in office to stand up for the constitution and conservative ideals and Ted Cruz is doing exactly that.


(Oh, and the "red-baiting" you mention...read some history, the files and evidence we gained access to (as well as formerly classified intelligence entering the public domain) after the Soviet Union collapsed...McCarthy has been fully vindicated. You need look no father than the successful communist take-over of the Democrat Party.)
Quote:
Originally Posted by Moccasin View Post
I think not. History will tell which of us is correct. I expect it will be me.

<snip>



So because there were (SHOCK!) spies and Communists in the U.S. government, that means that McCarthy, who never found any Commies in the state department, movie industry, Army, or all the other places he swore were full of them... who could never produce any evidence to back up his allegations... who lost the support of the public when the Army hearings were televised and people could see what their 'champion' was actually like... was vindicated in all he said and all the lives he destroyed with his reckless, unfounded accusations.

Obviously, therefore, if someone charged you were a pedophile because you were on the Internet, and you were publically identified as such and lost your job and became a social pariah as a result; since there ARE pedophiles on the Internet, that means such an accuser would be vindicated in making such a statement.

I really find it hard to take seriously the comments of someone who could think McCarthy was anything more than a lying thug. Please feel free to continue saying what you wish; I and everyone else will give you all the credence deserved.
Quote:
Originally Posted by delta27 View Post
Read this and you might change your mind (if you're honest)...

http://www.amazon.com/Blacklisted-Hi...0391088&sr=1-1

Quote:
Accused of creating a bogus Red Scare and smearing countless innocent victims in a five-year reign of terror, Senator Joseph McCarthy is universally remembered as a demagogue, a bully, and a liar. History has judged him such a loathsome figure that even today, a half century after his death, his name remains synonymous with witch hunts.

But that conventional image is all wrong, as veteran journalist and author M. Stanton Evans reveals in this groundbreaking book. The long-awaited Blacklisted by History, based on six years of intensive research, dismantles the myths surrounding Joe McCarthy and his campaign to unmask Communists, Soviet agents, and flagrant loyalty risks working within the U.S. government. Evans’s revelations completely overturn our understanding of McCarthy, McCarthyism, and the Cold War.

...
edit:

one of the comments from the Amazon page...
Quote:
Evans aims to give empirical proof that those Senator McCarthy accused of spying for the Soviet Union in the 1950s were guilty of it: e.g. two decades of House and Senatorial memos, 1930s Congressional spy investigations, government reports on security, official lists of named security risks, two decades of FBI reports with margin notes, transcripts of FBI wiretaps, notes from political strategy meetings squirreled away in boxes, and so forth. This pastiche of evidence plays the devil with the book's narrative for the first few chapters. Be that as it may, if one accepts these documents as factual, then one must accept the guilt of those McCarthy accused. In Evan's view, McCarthy was more sinned against than sinning. He conducted his inquiries fairly, did not slander, and did not steamroller anyone. He was an exceptionally bright, lower-class, self-made man who raced through high school and law college. He was a judge while only in his thirties. As junior Senator from Wisconsin (age 41) he threatened to mortify the Whitehouse, Democratic Senate, and State Department, with revelations of a "massive" communist penetration of the U.S. government. Each threatened institution had enough individual power to poleax him. Despite that, the first wave of retribution couldn't touch him, because what he said about communist infiltration was "old news" in Washington circles, and there was years of evidence to prove it. When Democrats lost the House and the Presidency in 1952, McCarthy alienated Eisenhower by soundly condemning George Marshall for losing China, then going after some of Eisenhower's job nominees as communists sympathizers (which Evans argues they were). By 1954 McCarthy held a tiger by the tail, and it finally ate him with some Republican help.

According to Evans, those who brought McCarthy down did to him what legend says he did to others--they smeared him by innuendo, told outrageous lies about him, even deleted or altered sections of Senatorial reports, to make him look not just bad but horrible. It worked. Newspaper cartoonists of the day drew pictures of him coming out of sewers walking on his knuckles; Hollywood films have ever since depicted him as a Neanderthal booze-hound . . . hence the title: Blacklisted by History. Yet, writes Evans, what the junior Senator from Wisconsin charged was practically dead-on correct in nearly every instance. He was being fed information by fed-up government insiders. (Interestingly enough, notes Evans, several important items connected to the truth of McCarthy's charges, once in government archives, were removed decades ago. Their titles are still listed but the documents are gone.) Evans put forth an argument for reevaluating who and what Joseph McCarthy was. Perhaps most important of all, he suggests that a counterfeit, confabulated story of "McCarthyism" is the dominant one held to this day by popular history.
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-05-2013, 05:02 PM
aramchek's Avatar
aramchek aramchek is offline
Prepared
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 15,749
Thanks: 1,718
Thanked 18,477 Times in 8,483 Posts
Default

Most people in the US are fooled partisans, sheeple stuck in the left-right blame-the-other-guy box that the corporate media and their dividers-and-conquerers have put them into. The people here are no exception to the rule.

The party elite in both the Republicrats and Demopublicans are run by the Bilderbergs, which is why people like Paul Wellstone (now gone) or Ron/Rand Paul will never get any sort of endorsement for high office. They're kept on a short leash.

The Rethugs, for better or worse, at least still entertain some idea of populist sentiment. And on keeping taxes low and supporting the 2nd Amendment they are true to their word.

The Dims, on the other hand, talk a tough talk against the Rethugs but end up supporting the same wars, Gitmo, Patriot, Blackwater, bailouts, Fed, etc. Some say that in the US we have a corporate party, and a status quo party. I think that's pretty accurate. The Democrats have had little or nothing visionary since probably FDR's day, and may as well not exist as a party.

The Tea Party subset, although they've been co-opted, are a refreshing change at least.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to aramchek For This Useful Post:
Old 10-05-2013, 07:29 PM
Jojo's Avatar
Jojo Jojo is offline
Indefatigable
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Oklahoma
Age: 59
Posts: 17,966
Thanks: 43,059
Thanked 41,915 Times in 12,968 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PapaWhiskyBravo View Post
I'm missing something aren't I!
Yes, you are expecting unbiased answers from the very people the article was written about.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Jojo For This Useful Post:
Old 10-05-2013, 07:39 PM
stephpd's Avatar
stephpd stephpd is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Delaware
Age: 61
Posts: 5,601
Thanks: 9,125
Thanked 11,003 Times in 3,842 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by zatoichi View Post
The Republicans already had one. His name was Reagan.
Reagan was even better then Obama in that he fooled the Republicans that he was a conservative. Like a governor from a socialist state like CA would ever be a conservative. Thus we had a RINO (Socialist/ Democrat that was a Republican In Name Only) that didn't have to reach across party lines, just convince the party loyal he was a conservative. The Democrats knew he was a socialist. Obama never able to make that leap across party lines since nobody would consider him a conservative. Romney on the other hand was in the same mold as Reagan, though lacking that cult of personality. He fooled plenty in the party he was a conservative, just like Reagan had done.

What Reagan and Obama have in common is great speech writers and the cult of personality to stand up and read anything with conviction.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to stephpd For This Useful Post:
Old 10-05-2013, 07:49 PM
Baddogg5's Avatar
Baddogg5 Baddogg5 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Northern California
Age: 60
Posts: 11,254
Thanks: 12,045
Thanked 21,987 Times in 7,431 Posts
Default

I fear we are screwed. the republicans will loose the House and senate seats and loose to Hillary in 2016.

Ever seen pics or been to Detroit? Not to worry your town will be just like it by 2020
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-05-2013, 07:58 PM
delta27's Avatar
delta27 delta27 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,585
Thanks: 9,179
Thanked 4,734 Times in 1,739 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephpd View Post
Reagan was even better then Obama in that he fooled the Republicans that he was a conservative. Like a governor from a socialist state like CA would ever be a conservative. Thus we had a RINO (Socialist/ Democrat that was a Republican In Name Only) that didn't have to reach across party lines, just convince the party loyal he was a conservative. The Democrats knew he was a socialist. Obama never able to make that leap across party lines since nobody would consider him a conservative. Romney on the other hand was in the same mold as Reagan, though lacking that cult of personality. He fooled plenty in the party he was a conservative, just like Reagan had done.

What Reagan and Obama have in common is great speech writers and the cult of personality to stand up and read anything with conviction.
Seriously?

You're just plain wrong!

California wasn't a socialist state when Reagan was governor. California didn't go full on socialist 'til the early 90's. Yes, you had liberal enclaves like San Francisco and Berkeley before then, but that wasn't the whole state.

I posted an audio book of Reagan's radio addresses from the 70's and there's a regular book called "Reagan: In His Own Words" (or "In His Own Hand") that is an alternative. Those were addresses he wrote himself. He was very much a conservative. He was the farthest thing from a socialist and it's offensive that you would label him so.

Read/listen to that book (his radio addresses). If you have an ounce of integrity you'll change your mind.

a documentary of note...

In the Face of Evil: Reagan's War in Word and Deed
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0427380/
Amazon (Thumbnails) cover
Amazon (Thumbnails)
Quote:
Ronald Reagan was the President of the Screen Actor's Guild during the incredibly violent Hollywood trade union strike in the 1940's. Reagan saw first-hand the brutality, destruction and oppression that defined the communist party as it attempted to overtake the unions to convert them into propaganda mills for the Soviet Union. The strike incited in him a call to action and an unshakeable belief that communism was a "form of insanity" which must be wiped from the earth. From SAG President, to GE Spokesman, Governor of California and finally, to President of the United States, this film chronicles the rise of Ronald Reagan, his unwavering conviction that America was the world's last best hope of man, and shows why he is hero to over a billion people who he helped free from the bonds of Soviet domination.
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-05-2013, 08:02 PM
delta27's Avatar
delta27 delta27 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,585
Thanks: 9,179
Thanked 4,734 Times in 1,739 Posts
Default

"The Speech"


Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to delta27 For This Useful Post:
Old 10-05-2013, 08:07 PM
stephpd's Avatar
stephpd stephpd is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Delaware
Age: 61
Posts: 5,601
Thanks: 9,125
Thanked 11,003 Times in 3,842 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by PapaWhiskyBravo View Post
You guys need an 'Obama'.


That's what the Republicans need, someone to rouse the idealism of the old American freedom and embody those ideals too. The trick will be however is to rouse those ideals in the new American youth which is no longer predominately white or religious.

Now that's something I think the Republican right will struggle with, judging by some of the attitudes I've witnessed on these boards to those who are neither white or religious.
The Republican's will always have a problem giving up the social conservatism. Without that difference in the social issues they'd be the same as the Democrats. Thus over 40 years ago with the fracture that became the Libertarian party. That's not to say some libertarians aren't religious. They just don't think government has any more business in religion then it does on social spending. Convincing the Republican party of this has been a lost cause. So much so that the next closest group to Libertarians is the Constitution party where they talk about conservative fiscal and social policy.

Today, with the RINO's running the Republican party the only difference between Dems and Repubs is social policy since both have pushed a liberal fiscal policy. Thou the use of the term liberal meaning socialist, except when talking about Libertarians. For them liberal is closer to the classic use of the word. Ie, liberty or freedom from the government on both social and fiscal policy.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to stephpd For This Useful Post:
Old 10-05-2013, 08:27 PM
Steverino's Avatar
Steverino Steverino is offline
Sam Adams was right....
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: SillyCon Valley
Posts: 7,881
Thanks: 3,265
Thanked 17,674 Times in 5,243 Posts
Default

The Party isn't radicalized.. the playing field has just been moved to the left..

In this country the masses believe "moderation" means moving more to "center"..

Republican moderation goes from: left<--center<--right,
Democrat moderation, goes from: left-->center-->right

yet both parties extremists think this is "compromising"...


The root of the problem is that in the US, the success of the liberal agenda through politics & policies over the last 50 years has resulted in society as a whole moving to the left..

The Presidential debates now are controlled by the Commission on Presidential Debates... (run by Dems & Reps). The CPD has restructured the debate requirements to exclude all parties who cannot achieve 15% in opinion polls. This pretty much guarantees no competition from independent parties.. and most importantly.. independent conservative parties.

This forces "moderation" of the conservative party in power to the left... and makes it impossible for a real conservative run for President. It makes it EASY to label traditional/Constitutional conservatives as "radicals" because their views are not considered mainstream, especially given 50 years of the left subverting conservative values and changing the cultural morality. This is why the Republican Party feels the need to moderate their platform to the left.. but this is playing into the left's plan.

This is why the radical left doesn't scream so much anymore... because most of their wish list is getting done.. pretty much at the same pace the playing field has been moving leftward.

Because by making the STARTING point for Dems and Reps, further left than it ever has been...

...................advantage Democrats.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Steverino For This Useful Post:
Old 10-05-2013, 08:29 PM
stephpd's Avatar
stephpd stephpd is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Delaware
Age: 61
Posts: 5,601
Thanks: 9,125
Thanked 11,003 Times in 3,842 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by delta27 View Post
Seriously?

You're just plain wrong!

California wasn't a socialist state when Reagan was governor. California didn't go full on socialist 'til the early 90's. Yes, you had liberal enclaves like San Francisco and Berkeley before then, but that wasn't the whole state.
No, you're wrong. I lived in CA in the 70's and it was already far, far left.

It is a poor choice to look at what a person writes of themselves. Better to judge them by their actions.

Prior to holding office Reagan was a registered Democrat. He wanted to be active in anti nuke rallies till his boss, Warner Bros, put a stop to that. In August of 1962, Reagan formally switched to the Republican Party, stating, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me". But all through the 40's and 50's he was a Democrat. He was also opposed to the Civil Rights Act saying ""if an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, it is his right to do so."

Reagan, prior to being governor was the leader of the largest and strongest union in CA. The screen actors guild, serving multiple terms representing the union.

While governor he was a tax and spender. He raised taxes 11 times in his 2 terms as governor and doubled the spending., something he'd continue to do with the federal government while POTUS. (tripling the debt within 8 years) Within 4 months of being governor he signed the ******** bill in CA. He also banned the open carry of loaded handguns while governor.

There is nothing in his actions to show that he was either socially or fiscally conservative. He was at all times a big (bigger) government politician. Much of the problem we have today with the federal debt can be laid at the feet of Reagan. He alone, brought deficit spending to the forefront in the Republican party. Heck even the Democrats before him never tried that nonsense (except for FDR). We had been paying down that debt all the way through Carter and almost had that paid off. Reagan changed that and every POTUS since then has continued in that tradition.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to stephpd For This Useful Post:
Old 10-05-2013, 08:35 PM
kajunman1's Avatar
kajunman1 kajunman1 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 5,588
Thanks: 7,286
Thanked 5,235 Times in 2,331 Posts
Default

If the US Constitution is radical, OK.

Obama Care's end game will end private insurance and limit healthcare.
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-05-2013, 08:42 PM
delta27's Avatar
delta27 delta27 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,585
Thanks: 9,179
Thanked 4,734 Times in 1,739 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephpd View Post
No, you're wrong. I lived in CA in the 70's and it was already far, far left.

Prior to holding office Reagan was a registered Democrat. He wanted to be active in anti nuke rallies till his boss, Warner Bros, put a stop to that. In August of 1962, Reagan formally switched to the Republican Party, stating, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me". But all through the 40's and 50's he was a Democrat.

Reagan, prior to being governor was the leader of the largest and strongest union in CA. The screen actors guild, serving multiple terms representing the union.

While governor he was a tax and spender. He raised taxes 11 times in his 2 terms as governor and doubled the spending., something he'd continue to do with the federal government while POTUS. (tripling the debt within 8 years) Within 4 months of being governor he signed the ******** bill in CA. He also banned the open carry of loaded handguns while governor.

There is nothing in his actions to show that he was either socially or fiscally conservative. He was at all times a big (bigger) government politician.
Again, you're wrong...and where you're not you're twisting it.

Yes, I knew he was originally a Democrat...that doesn't mean he wasn't a conservative. He was an anti-communist. An anti-socialist. He fought against the communists while President of the Screen Actors Guild. He was far from a socialist like you claimed.

I'll have to look up his record as Governor to be able to refute your points line by line, but you're wrong there too (at least in the twisting).

As for the federal government, he cut taxes. He slashed the highest rates from 70% down to 28%. He asked for and got increased military spending, but he asked for and DID NOT get the cuts in social spending he wanted. Are you conveniently forgetting that the Democrats controlled Congress while he was President? Which party controlled the CA legislature when he was governor?

He compromised on some things to make gains on some others. You're using the fact that he wasn't like Obama (acting like a dictator and disregarding the Constitution and the legislatures) to twist his record.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to delta27 For This Useful Post:
Old 10-05-2013, 08:51 PM
delta27's Avatar
delta27 delta27 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,585
Thanks: 9,179
Thanked 4,734 Times in 1,739 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephpd View Post
No, you're wrong. I lived in CA in the 70's and it was already far, far left.

It is a poor choice to look at what a person writes of themselves. Better to judge them by their actions.

Prior to holding office Reagan was a registered Democrat. He wanted to be active in anti nuke rallies till his boss, Warner Bros, put a stop to that. In August of 1962, Reagan formally switched to the Republican Party, stating, "I didn't leave the Democratic Party. The party left me". But all through the 40's and 50's he was a Democrat. He was also opposed to the Civil Rights Act saying ""if an individual wants to discriminate against Negroes or others in selling or renting his house, it is his right to do so."

Reagan, prior to being governor was the leader of the largest and strongest union in CA. The screen actors guild, serving multiple terms representing the union.

While governor he was a tax and spender. He raised taxes 11 times in his 2 terms as governor and doubled the spending., something he'd continue to do with the federal government while POTUS. (tripling the debt within 8 years) Within 4 months of being governor he signed the ******** bill in CA. He also banned the open carry of loaded handguns while governor.

There is nothing in his actions to show that he was either socially or fiscally conservative. He was at all times a big (bigger) government politician. Much of the problem we have today with the federal debt can be laid at the feet of Reagan. He alone, brought deficit spending to the forefront in the Republican party. Heck even the Democrats before him never tried that nonsense (except for FDR). We had been paying down that debt all the way through Carter and almost had that paid off. Reagan changed that and every POTUS since then has continued in that tradition.
You added the bolded after I started responding.

Again, you're twisting it. He wanted increased military spending...but he wanted to cut social spending to offset that. He only got part of what he wanted. The Democrats used the added tax revenue from a stimulated economy (a result of slashing the tax rates) to go on a spending spree. Reagan didn't want that, but Congress controls spending...NOT the President (unless you're like Obama and disregard the Constitution).
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-05-2013, 08:53 PM
stephpd's Avatar
stephpd stephpd is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Delaware
Age: 61
Posts: 5,601
Thanks: 9,125
Thanked 11,003 Times in 3,842 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by delta27 View Post

As for the federal government, he cut taxes. He slashed the highest rates from 70% down to 28%. He asked for and got increased military spending, but he asked for and DID NOT get the cuts in social spending he wanted. Are you conveniently forgetting that the Democrats controlled Congress while he was President? Which party controlled the CA legislature when he was governor?

He compromised on some things to make gains on some others. You're using the fact that he wasn't like Obama (acting like a dictator and disregarding the Constitution and the legislatures) to twist his record.
And raised taxes on the working class. Of course the typical Democrats in control of the Congress approach. As a compromise to get what he wanted he also gave the opposition everything they wanted. That's why the Democrats loved him.

And yeah, he was a sellout during McCarthyism too, as if that's a good thing. Many folks lives and career put though hell because of those actions by people like Reagan. Most of them not even Communist or even sympathizers.


And it's in these type posts you see the cult of personality for the likes of someone like Reagan. And the disregard of fact over what they need to believe. And not all that different from the same effect Obama has on his followers.
Quick reply to this message
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to stephpd For This Useful Post:
Old 10-05-2013, 09:01 PM
delta27's Avatar
delta27 delta27 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,585
Thanks: 9,179
Thanked 4,734 Times in 1,739 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephpd View Post
And raised taxes on the working class. Of course the typical Democrats in control of the Congress approach. As a compromise to get what he wanted he also gave the opposition everything they wanted. That's why the Democrats loved him.

And yeah, he was a sellout during McCarthyism too, as if that's a good thing. Many folks lives and career put though hell because of those actions by people like Reagan. Most of them not even Communist or even sympathizers.
complete bull. You're starting to sound like a socialist yourself with that crap about "raised taxes on the working class"

He didn't give the Dems everything they wanted...he got his increased military spending and his strong stance against the Soviets and world Communism. He got his tax cuts. His compromise in 1986 which did raise taxes (by getting rid of several deductions, "simplifying the tax code") was in return for spending cuts...spending cuts that never came and he regretted after (because he was double-crossed).

The media and Democrats hated him and vilified him and ridiculed him every chance they got. Were you actually around then?

He was not "a sellout during McCarthyism"...he fought against the Communists during that time...it's what prompted him to switch parties. He stood against the communists during those hearings.

Read "Blacklisted by History" (there's a link to it in an earlier post in this thread). McCarthy was completely right and you have no clue about history apparently.
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-05-2013, 09:04 PM
delta27's Avatar
delta27 delta27 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,585
Thanks: 9,179
Thanked 4,734 Times in 1,739 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by stephpd View Post
And raised taxes on the working class. Of course the typical Democrats in control of the Congress approach. As a compromise to get what he wanted he also gave the opposition everything they wanted. That's why the Democrats loved him.

And yeah, he was a sellout during McCarthyism too, as if that's a good thing. Many folks lives and career put though hell because of those actions by people like Reagan. Most of them not even Communist or even sympathizers.


And it's in these type posts you see the cult of personality for the likes of someone like Reagan. And the disregard of fact over what they need to believe. And not all that different from the same effect Obama has on his followers.
bolded added after I started to respond.



You're lying and twisting his record and somehow I'm the one who's in the wrong here?
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-05-2013, 09:31 PM
Moccasin's Avatar
Moccasin Moccasin is offline
Mod Certified PITA!
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Somewhere
Posts: 10,832
Thanks: 31,026
Thanked 18,470 Times in 7,084 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by delta27 View Post
You're no libertarian...you are a leftist.
I suspect your definition of a leftist is, anyone who does not slavishly agree with your opinions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by delta27 View Post
You've said so before (when we discussed McCarthy the other day).



edit: to refresh your memory...
I have looked through your wall of text reprints and see no where that I said I was a leftist. Perhaps you could be more specific. Unless you also define a leftist as anyone who points out the failings of the extreme right. Sort of like how all those in the Lincoln Brigade who went to Spain in the 1930s to try to defend that nascent democracy from Franco and his Nazi and Black Shirt backers were labeled 'Premature Anti-Fascists' as an early way to say "Commies". Because obviously only Commies would oppose right wing dictators. Your mindset, if you do not mind me saying so, seems similar.

(I have Evans' book on my buying list. When I've read it, assuming you have not moved on - or, given your attitude and habit of calling posters liars (you might want to check out the board rules before you do too much of that), been moved on - I'll get back to you.)
Quick reply to this message
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to Moccasin For This Useful Post:
Old 10-05-2013, 09:43 PM
delta27's Avatar
delta27 delta27 is offline
Survivor
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Posts: 2,585
Thanks: 9,179
Thanked 4,734 Times in 1,739 Posts
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Moccasin View Post
I suspect your definition of a leftist is, anyone who does not slavishly agree with your opinions.



I have looked through your wall of text reprints and see no where that I said I was a leftist. Perhaps you could be more specific. Unless you also define a leftist as anyone who points out the failings of the extreme right. Sort of like how all those in the Lincoln Brigade who went to Spain in the 1930s to try to defend that nascent democracy from Franco and his Nazi and Black Shirt backers were labeled 'Premature Anti-Fascists' as an early way to say "Commies". Because obviously only Commies would oppose right wing dictators. Your mindset, if you do not mind me saying so, seems similar.

(I have Evans' book on my buying list. When I've read it, assuming you have not moved on - or, given your attitude and habit of calling posters liars (you might want to check out the board rules before you do too much of that), been moved on - I'll get back to you.)
No I was pointing out that you've said this

"Saying such things is hardly persuading people your comments are to be taken seriously"

before...

"I really find it hard to take seriously the comments of someone who could think McCarthy was anything more than a lying thug. Please feel free to continue saying what you wish; I and everyone else will give you all the credence deserved."

(You had said that I wasn't to be taken seriously before. )


-------------

The fact that you're whining about the "extreme right" and Ted Cruz et al and actually suggesting that McCain and his ilk are the more sensible members of the GOP (if not him/them, then who were you alluding too?) is what tells me you're a leftist.

If you think I and Ted Cruz and the others aligned with him are "the extreme right" then you also must think our founding fathers were extreme and you must not like the constitution very much.

kudos to you for checking out the book
Quick reply to this message
Old 10-05-2013, 09:48 PM
ShellbackBill's Avatar
ShellbackBill ShellbackBill is offline
Patient Zero of WWZ
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Back in Baton Rouge
Age: 63
Posts: 5,334
Thanks: 3,666
Thanked 10,484 Times in 3,421 Posts
Default

When insanity is the norm, sanity becomes radical.
Quick reply to this message
The Following User Says Thank You to ShellbackBill For This Useful Post:
Reply

Bookmarks

Tags
civil war, politics, radical, republican, tea party



Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the Survivalist Forum forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:
Gender
Insurance
Please select your insurance company (Optional)

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.



Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:16 AM.


Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimisation provided by DragonByte SEO (Lite) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2019 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Copyright © Kevin Felts 2006 - 2015,
Green theme by http://www.themesbydesign.net