PDA

View Full Version : A Time for Choosing, aka The Speech



Odysseus
06-09-2011, 12:27 PM
Reagan's 1964 speech in support of Barry Goldwater's nomination. I'm sure that it's been posted here before, but it is always relevent.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Given as a stump speech, at speaking engagements, and on a memorable night in 1964 in support of Barry Goldwater's presidential campaign. This version is from that broadcast.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I am going to talk of controversial things. I make no apology for this.

It's time we asked ourselves if we still know the freedoms intended for us by the Founding Fathers. James Madison said, "We base all our experiments on the capacity of mankind for self government."

This idea? that government was beholden to the people, that it had no other source of power is still the newest, most unique idea in all the long history of man's relation to man. This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American Revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

You and I are told we must choose between a left or right, but I suggest there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down. Up to man's age-old dream-the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism. Regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would sacrifice freedom for security have embarked on this downward path. Plutarch warned, "The real destroyer of the liberties of the people is he who spreads among them bounties, donations and benefits."

The Founding Fathers knew a government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they knew when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. So we have come to a time for choosing.

Public servants say, always with the best of intentions, "What greater service we could render if only we had a little more money and a little more power." But the truth is that outside of its legitimate function, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector.

Yet any time you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we're denounced as being opposed to their humanitarian goals. It seems impossible to legitimately debate their solutions with the assumption that all of us share the desire to help the less fortunate. They tell us we're always "against," never "for" anything.

We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we have accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem. However, we are against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments....

We are for aiding our allies by sharing our material blessings with nations which share our fundamental beliefs, but we are against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world.

We need true tax reform that will at least make a start toward I restoring for our children the American Dream that wealth is denied to no one, that each individual has the right to fly as high as his strength and ability will take him.... But we can not have such reform while our tax policy is engineered by people who view the tax as a means of achieving changes in our social structure....

Have we the courage and the will to face up to the immorality and discrimination of the progressive tax, and demand a return to traditional proportionate taxation? . . . Today in our country the tax collector's share is 37 cents of -very dollar earned. Freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp.

Are you willing to spend time studying the issues, making yourself aware, and then conveying that information to family and friends? Will you resist the temptation to get a government handout for your community? Realize that the doctor's fight against socialized medicine is your fight. We can't socialize the doctors without socializing the patients. Recognize that government invasion of public power is eventually an assault upon your own business. If some among you fear taking a stand because you are afraid of reprisals from customers, clients, or even government, recognize that you are just feeding the crocodile hoping he'll eat you last.

If all of this seems like a great deal of trouble, think what's at stake. We are faced with the most evil enemy mankind has known in his long climb from the swamp to the stars. There can be no security anywhere in the free world if there is no fiscal and economic stability within the United States. Those who ask us to trade our freedom for the soup kitchen of the welfare state are architects of a policy of accommodation.

They say the world has become too complex for simple answers. They are wrong. There are no easy answers, but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right. Winston Churchill said that "the destiny of man is not measured by material computation. When great forces are on the move in the world, we learn we are spirits-not animals." And he said, "There is something going on in time and space, and beyond time and space, which, whether we like it or not, spells duty."

You and I have a rendezvous with destiny. We will preserve for our children this, the last best hope of man on earth, or we will sentence them to take the first step into a thousand years of darkness. If we fail, at least let our children and our children's children say of us we justified our brief moment here. We did all that could be done.

AmPat
06-09-2011, 12:40 PM
After reading some posts here, I suspect that a modern Reagan would be met by DIMS/LIBS/Media, and "Conservatives" much like Palin and Coulter. :(

Arroyo_Doble
06-09-2011, 01:07 PM
Up to man's age-old dream-the maximum of individual freedom consistent with order or down to the ant heap of totalitarianism.

Leave out the caveat, "consistent with order" and he makes a good argument in that sentence. Although up and down are arbitrary.

txradioguy
06-09-2011, 04:38 PM
After reading some posts here, I suspect that a modern Reagan would be met by DIMS/LIBS/Media, and "Conservatives" much like Palin and Coulter. :(

Bingo!!!

But then "Republicans" thought the same things about Reagan in '76.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
06-09-2011, 05:44 PM
Bingo!!!

But then "Republicans" thought the same things about Reagan in '76.

IT'S ALL A COMMIE CONSPIRACY! EVERY REPUBLICAN BUT REAGAN WAS A RUSSIA LOVIN' COMMIE!

Odysseus
06-09-2011, 05:48 PM
IT'S ALL A COMMIE CONSPIRACY! EVERY REPUBLICAN BUT REAGAN WAS A RUSSIA LOVIN' COMMIE!

Switch to decaf, kiddo. You'll be happier.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
06-09-2011, 06:07 PM
Switch to decaf, kiddo. You'll be happier.

I don't see shadowy conspiracies and cabals hiding around every corner and in the politics of someone I disagree with, unlike the Birchers/Tea Partiers, nor do I even drink coffee.

Odysseus
06-09-2011, 07:00 PM
I don't see shadowy conspiracies and cabals hiding around every corner and in the politics of someone I disagree with, unlike the Birchers/Tea Partiers, nor do I even drink coffee.

You don't seem to see much of anything lately, but you do apparently drink Kool Aid.

Arroyo_Doble
06-09-2011, 07:02 PM
Yea, CaughtintheMiddle. Stop cock blocking the Reagasm.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
06-09-2011, 07:11 PM
You don't seem to see much of anything lately, but you do apparently drink Kool Aid.

Ice Water is my summer drink of choice.
So, was Eisenhower a communist agent like the John Birch Society (rebranded and spun off as the "Tea Party") said?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
06-09-2011, 07:13 PM
Yea, CaughtintheMiddle. Stop cock blocking the Reagasm.

http://www.berfrois.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/03/reagan-jesus.jpg

Constitutionally Speaking
06-09-2011, 07:51 PM
Ice Water is my summer drink of choice.
So, was Eisenhower a communist agent like the John Birch Society (rebranded and spun off as the "Tea Party") said?


The tea party and the birchers are not related.

Rockntractor
06-09-2011, 07:58 PM
The tea party and the birchers are not related.

He has gone over to the lib side entirely I think. Disappointing, I'm wrong and many on the board are right.
He is adopting Wei's sarcasm and spits talking points as well as the best of them. Excuse the hell out of me for thinking he had his own mind, he is just another head in the herd.:(

KhrushchevsShoe
06-09-2011, 11:36 PM
I think CITM is hitting a stage a good deal of young people now are reaching. They see the ridiculousness on the right, and the ridiculousness on the left, and just realize the whole thing is ridiculous. The partisan war may just run out of soldiers one day.

The problem is the collateral damage from it is probably going to destroy this country before the people old enough to give a shit about R's and D's finally die off.

Rockntractor
06-09-2011, 11:45 PM
I think CITM is hitting a stage a good deal of young people now are reaching. They see the ridiculousness on the right, and the ridiculousness on the left, and just realize the whole thing is ridiculous. The partisan war may just run out of soldiers one day.

The problem is the collateral damage from it is probably going to destroy this country before the people old enough to give a shit about R's and D's finally die off.

And of course you haven't picked a side.

KhrushchevsShoe
06-10-2011, 12:14 AM
And of course you haven't picked a side.
What's the point? The Barack Obama presidency has shown us that our choices are right or center-right. Neither appeal to me.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
06-10-2011, 12:16 AM
What's the point? The Barack Obama presidency has shown us that our choices are right or center-right. Neither appeal to me.

You didn't learn that when Clinton did more for the GOP than Bush SR did?

Rockntractor
06-10-2011, 12:17 AM
What's the point? The Barack Obama presidency has shown us that our choices are right or center-right. Neither appeal to me.

Alas! That sound in the distance, could it be Venezuela calling you home?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
06-10-2011, 12:26 AM
Alas! That sound in the distance, could it be Venezuela calling you home?

"If you disagree with the right wing, get out of America!"
Yeah, no. Make me. Try it. My grandfather took lead in France for this country. My great grandfather was in the Trenches for this country before him, and so on. I'm not leaving, and Laissez-Faire economics is not the only option.

Bailey
06-10-2011, 12:30 AM
He has gone over to the lib side entirely I think. Disappointing, I'm wrong and many on the board are right.
He is adopting Wei's sarcasm and spits talking points as well as the best of them. Excuse the hell out of me for thinking he had his own mind, he is just another head in the herd.:(

Its a shame we lost him but I really dont think we ever had a chance

KhrushchevsShoe
06-10-2011, 12:55 AM
You didn't learn that when Clinton did more for the GOP than Bush SR did?

That's a good point, but living through Clinton I always thought he tried but just failed.

Rockntractor
06-10-2011, 01:07 AM
"If you disagree with the right wing, get out of America!"
Yeah, no. Make me. Try it. My grandfather took lead in France for this country. My great grandfather was in the Trenches for this country before him, and so on. I'm not leaving, and Laissez-Faire economics is not the only option.

I would think that someone who thinks Obama isn't far enough left would be happier in a communist country.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
06-10-2011, 01:11 AM
I would think that someone who thinks Obama isn't far enough left would be happier in a communist country.

If we judged it by your yardstick, we've been a communist country for over 100 years now.

Rockntractor
06-10-2011, 01:16 AM
If we judged it by your yardstick, we've been a communist country for over 100 years now.

Do you want to quit being ridiculous and start posting again or do you want to behave like a troll?

CaughtintheMiddle1990
06-10-2011, 01:22 AM
Do you want to quit being ridiculous and start posting again or do you want to behave like a troll?

A serious question:
Do you honestly think Obama is more to the left than TR, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, LBJ, and Nixon were? Those are 7 of the most important and influential Presidents of the last century and their policies would be called quite Liberal today. Those men weren't accused of being Socialists or Communists in their lifetimes except by fringe elements like the Birchers....

Rockntractor
06-10-2011, 01:27 AM
A serious question:
Do you honestly think Obama is more to the left than TR, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, LBJ, and Nixon were? Those are 7 of the most important and influential Presidents of the last century and their policies would be called quite Liberal today. Those men weren't accused of being Socialists or Communists in their lifetimes except by fringe elements like the Birchers....

Obama is as far to the left as he feels he can get away with.

KhrushchevsShoe
06-10-2011, 01:45 AM
Obama is as far to the left as he feels he can get away with.

How? The healthcare bill is corporate welfare and he hasnt done anything to stop Wall St. from pillaging everyone in this country. The guy is a corporate tool, you guys should love the man.

Rockntractor
06-10-2011, 01:48 AM
How? The healthcare bill is corporate welfare and he hasnt done anything to stop Wall St. from pillaging everyone in this country. The guy is a corporate tool, you guys should love the man.

The healthcare bill is designed to morph into single payer.

txradioguy
06-10-2011, 02:05 AM
Yea, CaughtintheMiddle. Stop cock blocking the Reagasm.

You tell 'em fanboy!

txradioguy
06-10-2011, 02:06 AM
How? The healthcare bill is corporate welfare and he hasnt done anything to stop Wall St. from pillaging everyone in this country. The guy is a corporate tool, you guys should love the man.

He designed Obamacare to kick take over in stages...slow creep to single payer so no one realizes it until it's too late. He's practically nationalized the banks and has placed caps on CEO salaries. How can you say he's a "corporate tool"?

txradioguy
06-10-2011, 02:07 AM
Do you want to quit being ridiculous and start posting again or do you want to behave like a troll?

I never bought his act that he was trying to reform or was becoming Conservative.

Odysseus
06-10-2011, 12:06 PM
Yea, CaughtintheMiddle. Stop cock blocking the Reagasm.
Perhaps if we picked a someone more to your liking? You seem enamored of third world liberation movements. Perhaps a Robert Mugabe speech?

Ice Water is my summer drink of choice.
So, was Eisenhower a communist agent like the John Birch Society (rebranded and spun off as the "Tea Party") said?
ROFLOL!!! You just went off the deep end. The Birchers were so far gone that no conservative would have anything to do with them. They're our equivalent of Code Pink, or ACORN, except that the Democrats never throw out anyone on the left for being too radical.

I think CITM is hitting a stage a good deal of young people now are reaching. They see the ridiculousness on the right, and the ridiculousness on the left, and just realize the whole thing is ridiculous. The partisan war may just run out of soldiers one day.

The problem is the collateral damage from it is probably going to destroy this country before the people old enough to give a shit about R's and D's finally die off.
Except that eventually, you come to a point where you realize that ideas do matter, and that bad ones can destroy a nation if they are implemented. The cynical pose of "they're all the same" is simply laziness.


A serious question:
Do you honestly think Obama is more to the left than TR, Wilson, FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, LBJ, and Nixon were? Those are 7 of the most important and influential Presidents of the last century and their policies would be called quite Liberal today. Those men weren't accused of being Socialists or Communists in their lifetimes except by fringe elements like the Birchers....

Well, yeah. TR never wanted to tear down the capitalist system. He didn't subscribe to Marxism, and had no patience for radicals. Wilson actually did try to impose socialism (his program was even called "Wartime Socialism", as WWI provided him with the crisis that he needed to implement it), but I'm not sure that he would qualify as a communist. FDR was not a communist, but a lot of his people were, including his first Veep, Henry Wallace. Truman certainly wasn't one, and nobody in their right mind would accuse Ike of having been one. LBJ wasn't, either. He was a classic political boss who saw the opportunity to expand the patronage system in the federal government to create a permanent class of dependent constituents, something that was previously only done at the state and local level, but it's interesting to note how similar corrupt patronage policies and socialist or communist policies are. Nixon wasn't really much of an ideologue. He considered himself a pragmatist who would do whatever worked. His imposition of wage and price controls was not so much an attempt at communism as an attempt at Keynesian economics, and Keynes, for all his faults, was not a communist either. BTW, I also don't believe that Carter or Clinton were communists, just big-government liberals. So, no, I don't think that they were communists, and I don't know too many serious people who do.

Now, before I look at whether Obama is a communist, the purpose of this thread was not to call him one, but to point out that SEIU is a communist organization, or at least that it is led by persons who are communists. I don't want them jailed, interned or otherwise threatened, but I do want their agenda to be honestly debated. We can't do that if they keep hiding what they stand for. Now, let's look at Obama...

Obama may not be an actual communist. He has certainly been steeped in communism, and he has surrounded himself with communists. He was a member of a communist organization called the "New Party" from 1995-1996. He actively sought out classes taught by Marxist Professors (his own words). He worked for ACORN, as a community organizer, a term which is derived from Saul Alinsky's theories and doctrine of stealth revolution. ACORN was founded by communists. Now, SEIU, has outed itself as a communist organization. Obama's childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a member of the Communist Party and a radical activist who published communist newsletters. His political mentor and ghost-writer, Bill Ayers, is a communist. He has appointed avowed communists to positions within the government. None of this is hyperbole. So, does this make him a communist? Possibly. It certainly shows that he has surrounded himself with Marxists at every opportunity. But, he may just be a former campus lefty who, having been repeatedly taught that all the cool kids were communists, and all of the cool profs were communists, has simply adopted the pose. But, is it legitimate to even ask the question, given the sheer volume of communist organizations, friends and mentors that he has surrounded himself withwithout being accused of being a Bircher, birther or other perjorative? Can we even ask the question?

BTW, I don't think that Obama is a communist so much as an opportunist, but communism has certainly attracted its share of those. My take on him is that he has pretty much coasted through life, and mastered the art of letting other people see him as what they want him to be, and that he has no real core values other than his own personal aggrandizement. I think that he's a narcissist who has found an ideology that suits his narcissism, since it allows him to make grand, sweeping changes and flatters him with the illusion that he is a great man. When you really think about what you know about Obama, two traits emerge: The first is that he is a braggart. He takes credit for just about everything good that happens around him, the Osama Bin Laden hit being the prime example. His speeches are all about him. His self-absorption is obvious. The flip side of this is that he is extremely thin-skinned. He cannot take criticism. For example, when GEN McChrystal spent months trying to get a decision on a plan for Afghanistan, which has critical international ramifications, Obama dithered for months, and only acted when the criticism mounted, but when McChrystal's aides were quoted joking at his expense in a scurrilous music magazine, he had the general in his office, from Afghanistan, within 24 hours. It's all about him.

The second trait is that he is lazy. He likes to brag, but he has not done very much worth bragging about. This is why he keeps his past as close hold as he does, not because he was born in Kenya, or converted to Islam in Indonesia, but because his accomplishments are spectacularly mediocre. Look at his refusal to release his college transcripts. If he were a great scholar, don't you think that he'd have made sure that we knew it? That his grades were public knowledge? He was the editor of the Harvard Law Review, but usually, that requires some serious legal scholarship, including extensive publication. Obama has almost no published work prior to his two books, which not only differ radically in style from his few published articles, but from each other. Obama craves adoration, but he's never done the work to get it.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
06-10-2011, 04:03 PM
Perhaps if we picked a someone more to your liking? You seem enamored of third world liberation movements. Perhaps a Robert Mugabe speech?

ROFLOL!!! You just went off the deep end. The Birchers were so far gone that no conservative would have anything to do with them. They're our equivalent of Code Pink, or ACORN, except that the Democrats never throw out anyone on the left for being too radical.

Except that eventually, you come to a point where you realize that ideas do matter, and that bad ones can destroy a nation if they are implemented. The cynical pose of "they're all the same" is simply laziness.



Well, yeah. TR never wanted to tear down the capitalist system. He didn't subscribe to Marxism, and had no patience for radicals. Wilson actually did try to impose socialism (his program was even called "Wartime Socialism", as WWI provided him with the crisis that he needed to implement it), but I'm not sure that he would qualify as a communist. FDR was not a communist, but a lot of his people were, including his first Veep, Henry Wallace. Truman certainly wasn't one, and nobody in their right mind would accuse Ike of having been one. LBJ wasn't, either. He was a classic political boss who saw the opportunity to expand the patronage system in the federal government to create a permanent class of dependent constituents, something that was previously only done at the state and local level, but it's interesting to note how similar corrupt patronage policies and socialist or communist policies are. Nixon wasn't really much of an ideologue. He considered himself a pragmatist who would do whatever worked. His imposition of wage and price controls was not so much an attempt at communism as an attempt at Keynesian economics, and Keynes, for all his faults, was not a communist either. BTW, I also don't believe that Carter or Clinton were communists, just big-government liberals. So, no, I don't think that they were communists, and I don't know too many serious people who do.

Now, before I look at whether Obama is a communist, the purpose of this thread was not to call him one, but to point out that SEIU is a communist organization, or at least that it is led by persons who are communists. I don't want them jailed, interned or otherwise threatened, but I do want their agenda to be honestly debated. We can't do that if they keep hiding what they stand for. Now, let's look at Obama...

Obama may not be an actual communist. He has certainly been steeped in communism, and he has surrounded himself with communists. He was a member of a communist organization called the "New Party" from 1995-1996. He actively sought out classes taught by Marxist Professors (his own words). He worked for ACORN, as a community organizer, a term which is derived from Saul Alinsky's theories and doctrine of stealth revolution. ACORN was founded by communists. Now, SEIU, has outed itself as a communist organization. Obama's childhood mentor, Frank Marshall Davis, was a member of the Communist Party and a radical activist who published communist newsletters. His political mentor and ghost-writer, Bill Ayers, is a communist. He has appointed avowed communists to positions within the government. None of this is hyperbole. So, does this make him a communist? Possibly. It certainly shows that he has surrounded himself with Marxists at every opportunity. But, he may just be a former campus lefty who, having been repeatedly taught that all the cool kids were communists, and all of the cool profs were communists, has simply adopted the pose. But, is it legitimate to even ask the question, given the sheer volume of communist organizations, friends and mentors that he has surrounded himself withwithout being accused of being a Bircher, birther or other perjorative? Can we even ask the question?

BTW, I don't think that Obama is a communist so much as an opportunist, but communism has certainly attracted its share of those. My take on him is that he has pretty much coasted through life, and mastered the art of letting other people see him as what they want him to be, and that he has no real core values other than his own personal aggrandizement. I think that he's a narcissist who has found an ideology that suits his narcissism, since it allows him to make grand, sweeping changes and flatters him with the illusion that he is a great man. When you really think about what you know about Obama, two traits emerge: The first is that he is a braggart. He takes credit for just about everything good that happens around him, the Osama Bin Laden hit being the prime example. His speeches are all about him. His self-absorption is obvious. The flip side of this is that he is extremely thin-skinned. He cannot take criticism. For example, when GEN McChrystal spent months trying to get a decision on a plan for Afghanistan, which has critical international ramifications, Obama dithered for months, and only acted when the criticism mounted, but when McChrystal's aides were quoted joking at his expense in a scurrilous music magazine, he had the general in his office, from Afghanistan, within 24 hours. It's all about him.

The second trait is that he is lazy. He likes to brag, but he has not done very much worth bragging about. This is why he keeps his past as close hold as he does, not because he was born in Kenya, or converted to Islam in Indonesia, but because his accomplishments are spectacularly mediocre. Look at his refusal to release his college transcripts. If he were a great scholar, don't you think that he'd have made sure that we knew it? That his grades were public knowledge? He was the editor of the Harvard Law Review, but usually, that requires some serious legal scholarship, including extensive publication. Obama has almost no published work prior to his two books, which not only differ radically in style from his few published articles, but from each other. Obama craves adoration, but he's never done the work to get it.

Ok, I agree with everything you just said about Obama. I think in some ways Obama is like Clinton in that Clinton was an opportunist who didn't have any real ideology. I disagree on Clinton being a big government liberal, Hillary yes, she's an ideologue but Bill, as far as being a hardcore liberal? No. Even friends of Bill said he had no real ideology, he just went wherever he saw the winds of politics blowing--malleable is a word used to describe him in a book I have. Another friend claimed that Bll was indecisive; In his heart, a Liberal; Intellectualy, a conservative. He considered himself an Eisenhower Republican, in contrast to the more Conservative Republicans of the '90s.

And I just see a lot of the Bircher stuff re-emerging in Conservatism. The John Birch Society was one of the sponsors at the latest CPAC, for example. Beck, a leading voice in the Tea Party, has pushed the works of Skousen, who was a Bircher and considered a radical right winger, and has been pushing total unfettered Laissez-Faire economics, saying we've "been off track" for a century. So, when I see prominent Conservatives, and CPAC itself, endorsing the JBS and Birchers, or allowing them to be represented alongside them, it raises questions to me.

AmPat
06-10-2011, 04:34 PM
I don't see shadowy conspiracies and cabals hiding around every corner and in the politics of someone I disagree with, unlike the Birchers/Tea Partiers, nor do I even drink coffee.

Someday you'll mature enough to drink coffee and understand the world around you. Until then, please do us all a favor and don't vote until you grow out of your stupidity.

Where do you get the idea that Tea Partiers believe in "cabals or conspiracies?" Is there proof of this or is it your fevered and diseased brain again? Tea Partiers are not the collective hive mindset like liberals. Have you ever gone to a meeting? Have you questioned members? If so, have you tried your juvenile liberalism on them face to face?
Grow up sonny boy.:rolleyes:

Odysseus
06-10-2011, 08:39 PM
Ok, I agree with everything you just said about Obama. I think in some ways Obama is like Clinton in that Clinton was an opportunist who didn't have any real ideology. I disagree on Clinton being a big government liberal, Hillary yes, she's an ideologue but Bill, as far as being a hardcore liberal? No. Even friends of Bill said he had no real ideology, he just went wherever he saw the winds of politics blowing--malleable is a word used to describe him in a book I have. Another friend claimed that Bll was indecisive; In his heart, a Liberal; Intellectualy, a conservative. He considered himself an Eisenhower Republican, in contrast to the more Conservative Republicans of the '90s.
I'd agree with you on Clinton, except that there were times when he did demonstrate some fairly leftist thoughts, such as his note to the COL that commanded the ROTC detachment that he joined and then bailed on. Saying that you love your country but hate its military is pretty standard for thoughtless lefties. But, he was a consummate triangulator, which implies that he was pretty flexible on most issues.


And I just see a lot of the Bircher stuff re-emerging in Conservatism. The John Birch Society was one of the sponsors at the latest CPAC, for example. Beck, a leading voice in the Tea Party, has pushed the works of Skousen, who was a Bircher and considered a radical right winger, and has been pushing total unfettered Laissez-Faire economics, saying we've "been off track" for a century. So, when I see prominent Conservatives, and CPAC itself, endorsing the JBS and Birchers, or allowing them to be represented alongside them, it raises questions to me.

CPAC seriously alienated a lot of the base by allowing the Birchers in as co-sponsors. In fact, the outrage on the right was more pronounced than on the left. A number of groups boycotted the event rather than be affiliated with the Birchers. Beck's affiliation with Skousen has more to do with their membership in LDS than support for the Birchers, but I suspect that this may be why FOX dumped him. And this is where we start to see the difference between the exremes of left and right. The Birchers were shown the door back in the late fifties by conservatives who found them, well, spooky. They are trying to rehabilitate themselves as libertarians, and if they no longer believe in the crazy stuff, then they may succeed, but ultimately, they are a tainted brand and most conservatives want nothing to do with them. But, the left never marginalizes its crazies. When Jimmy Carter shares a seat at the Democratic National Convention with Michael Moore, or Obama appoints an avowed communist like Van Jones to a position of authority in the United States government, or major unions co-sponsor events with communist groups, not even front groups, but actual, avowed communists, and nobody bats an eye, you've got a serious problem with extremism on the left. Can you cite one example of the Democratic Party saying that someone on the left is too extreme for them to associate with or take support from?

CueSi
06-10-2011, 09:20 PM
Ward Churchhill. . . but I don't think it was until they found out he was faking his Native American roots.

~QC

Rockntractor
06-10-2011, 09:31 PM
Ward Churchhill. . . but I don't think it was until they found out he was faking his Native American roots.

~QC

They are still using him, he organized a group of high school student protesters in Arizona about a month ago.

CaughtintheMiddle1990
06-10-2011, 10:24 PM
I'd agree with you on Clinton, except that there were times when he did demonstrate some fairly leftist thoughts, such as his note to the COL that commanded the ROTC detachment that he joined and then bailed on. Saying that you love your country but hate its military is pretty standard for thoughtless lefties. But, he was a consummate triangulator, which implies that he was pretty flexible on most issues.



CPAC seriously alienated a lot of the base by allowing the Birchers in as co-sponsors. In fact, the outrage on the right was more pronounced than on the left. A number of groups boycotted the event rather than be affiliated with the Birchers. Beck's affiliation with Skousen has more to do with their membership in LDS than support for the Birchers, but I suspect that this may be why FOX dumped him. And this is where we start to see the difference between the exremes of left and right. The Birchers were shown the door back in the late fifties by conservatives who found them, well, spooky. They are trying to rehabilitate themselves as libertarians, and if they no longer believe in the crazy stuff, then they may succeed, but ultimately, they are a tainted brand and most conservatives want nothing to do with them. But, the left never marginalizes its crazies. When Jimmy Carter shares a seat at the Democratic National Convention with Michael Moore, or Obama appoints an avowed communist like Van Jones to a position of authority in the United States government, or major unions co-sponsor events with communist groups, not even front groups, but actual, avowed communists, and nobody bats an eye, you've got a serious problem with extremism on the left. Can you cite one example of the Democratic Party saying that someone on the left is too extreme for them to associate with or take support from?

I can definitely understand your point, and no in all honesty, I don't recall a Democratic spokesmen or politician was too left for them, although it is notable that Bernie Sanders, an proud Socialist, is independent rather than being a Democrat.

I despise Michael Moore, by the way, just thought I should tell you. Have for a long time.

Here's where the issue with appointing people like Van Jones becomes a little complex, at least for me. Van Jones was/is a communist, and he says a lot of far left stuff. But at the same time, if a man is capable and can get a specific job done, does his ideology matter? If he's malleable enough to put his ideology aside to get the job you want done, than he's a useful tool. A tool you watch carefully, but a tool nonetheless.

Like for example, you mentioned that FDR's VP Henry Wallace was a communist. Yes, he was, but FDR didn't appoint him for his communist credentials, but because Wallace had proved to be a useful and capable guy as the Secretary of Agriculture for the previous 7 years. FDR didn't seem very concerned with ideology when it came to his VP picks, but either who was most politically useful, or most politically capable. So...there is a complexity with that. Another example is: FDR disliked Joe Kennedy and knew he was crooked, but he appointed him as Chairman of the SEC. When asked why he would appoint a crook to that position, he quipped, "It takes one (crook) to catch one."

Basically FDR used whoever he felt was useful or capable for a a particular job, regardless of their ideology, as long as he could control them. The man felt he could control Stalin--He (and even Harry Truman at first) viewed Stalin as something like a corrupt party boss, something very common even here back then. Both FDR and Winston underestimated Stalin greatly. When Stalin broke his Yalta promises, FDR and Churchill sent shocked telegrams to each other--they believed that either Stalin was being cowed by his party to act like a tough guy, or that someone else was really in charge of the Kremlin and Stalin was being undermined. They couldn't believe Stalin would break these promises of his own free will.

However, by the time of his death, FDR had taken a very harsh view of the USSR. After reading a report by Harriman, which was basically supporting the idea of what would become the Cold War, Roosevelt said to an aide few days before his death, "Harriman is right. We can't do business with Stalin. He has broken every one of the promises he made at Yalta." Harriman was preparing a memo that was even harsher on the USSR for FDR which was to be delivered the week he died, but by the time it was ready, Truman was President and the rest is history.

I wouldn't begrudge a conservative President if he did pick a JBS member to be in some position--it's his right to pick who he chooses so long as the guy is clean. And while there are radical fringes on both sides, there's no law against them existing or even holding power--which is both a blessing and a curse.

I do agree, though, that the DNC needs a clean sweep of the nutters, the Code Pink types and what have you.

Myself, I would've never picked someone like a Van Jones. He's a racist, for one. Anyone who believes in reparations doesn't belong in the federal government. More importantly, he has a police record and multiple arrests. I believe a constitutional amendment should be made which amends the eligibility of the Presidency to eliminate anyone with a police record. If a person is a law breaker, what makes you think they're going to uphold the law?

I guess it'd have to depend on the crime, perhaps, but I mean if you have domestic violence on your record, you can't get a gun. I agree with that gun control measure, but if we're going to limit a person's second amendment rights based on a police record, why not limit their chances for the Presidency?

CueSi
06-10-2011, 10:39 PM
They are still using him, he organized a group of high school student protesters in Arizona about a month ago.

Well, that's a come down from his nice tenured university position, so there's that.

~QC

txradioguy
06-11-2011, 05:15 AM
And I just see a lot of the Bircher stuff re-emerging in Conservatism. The John Birch Society was one of the sponsors at the latest CPAC, for example. Beck, a leading voice in the Tea Party, has pushed the works of Skousen, who was a Bircher and considered a radical right winger, and has been pushing total unfettered Laissez-Faire economics, saying we've "been off track" for a century. So, when I see prominent Conservatives, and CPAC itself, endorsing the JBS and Birchers, or allowing them to be represented alongside them, it raises questions to me.

This is just your fancy way of trying to repackage the typical Libtard meme of "Conservatives = Racists".

:rolleyes:

Conservatives and the GOP rejected the Birchers a long time ago.

Rockntractor
06-11-2011, 11:36 AM
Well, that's a come down from his nice tenured university position, so there's that.

~QC

At least that is true on the public level.
This bunch sticks together so there is no telling what kind of funds are funneled to him behind the scenes, though disgraced he is still very dangerous and now there is a revenge factor to add to the mix.

AmPat
06-11-2011, 12:14 PM
Ward Churchill-
Disgusting, lying, pathetic, disgraced pretender.
Perfect liberal candidate for national office.

Odysseus
06-11-2011, 02:54 PM
I can definitely understand your point, and no in all honesty, I don't recall a Democratic spokesmen or politician was too left for them, although it is notable that Bernie Sanders, an proud Socialist, is independent rather than being a Democrat.
But the Democrats let him caucus with them, and his voting record is actually to the right of several Democrats in the senate, including, during his brief tenure there, Barack Obama.


I despise Michael Moore, by the way, just thought I should tell you. Have for a long time.
Most rational people do. He's a venomous, hypocritical sack of suet.

Here's where the issue with appointing people like Van Jones becomes a little complex, at least for me. Van Jones was/is a communist, and he says a lot of far left stuff. But at the same time, if a man is capable and can get a specific job done, does his ideology matter? If he's malleable enough to put his ideology aside to get the job you want done, than he's a useful tool. A tool you watch carefully, but a tool nonetheless.
But Jones has not only not demonstrated a capability to do what was expected of him (he was in charge of green jobs, which presumably would have something to do with job creation), but his far left statements demonstrated that he was more concerned with his own agenda than the good of the nation. He was a supporter of Mumia Abu Jamal, the notorious cop-killer, for example. And his statements on race demonstrated a level of bigotry that would have been unacceptable in any other job applicant.


Like for example, you mentioned that FDR's VP Henry Wallace was a communist. Yes, he was, but FDR didn't appoint him for his communist credentials, but because Wallace had proved to be a useful and capable guy as the Secretary of Agriculture for the previous 7 years. FDR didn't seem very concerned with ideology when it came to his VP picks, but either who was most politically useful, or most politically capable. So...there is a complexity with that. Another example is: FDR disliked Joe Kennedy and knew he was crooked, but he appointed him as Chairman of the SEC. When asked why he would appoint a crook to that position, he quipped, "It takes one (crook) to catch one."

Basically FDR used whoever he felt was useful or capable for a a particular job, regardless of their ideology, as long as he could control them...[/QUOTE]

I'm truncating your post because you made your point, and quite well. Now, the question is, should someone's holding of extremist views disqualify them for jobs at the federal level? In the case of FDR, I think that while Wallace had demonstrated competence in one area, the function of the Veep is to take over when the president is incapacitated or dies. Having an out and out communist as president at a time when Stalin was seeking global domination would have been, not simply a mistake, but a catastrophe on a par with the collapse of the Roman Empire and the rise of the dark ages. So, I do object to Roosevelt's selection of Wallace, and his selection of Kennedy. People have to expect that elected officials will treat them impartially, on the merits of their cases and the law. A personally corrupt individual cannot present that guarantee, because he will always put his agenda ahead of the duties of his job, and the obligation to be impartial. So putting a crook in a position of trust is equally wrong. But, here's the ultimate test. The equivalent of a communist is not a Bircher, so much as a Nazi. Both despise the middle class, loathe entrepreneurial enterprise, and seek power through centralized control of the means of production, and of course, both are willing to indulge in gross political violence on a massive scale to gain and keep power. The question that you have to ask is this: Would you accept it if a president picked David Duke or some other Neo-Nazi to head a federal agency? Would you trust him to deal with non-Aryans in an equitable and lawful manner? The same question applies to Jones and other communists. Would you trust them to consider the merits of a case that favored a wealthy person over a poor one, even if the wealthy man was in the right? This is the issue.


I do agree, though, that the DNC needs a clean sweep of the nutters, the Code Pink types and what have you.
Yes, and the next question that you have to ask yourself is, since the nutters clearly are nutters, and they destroy the national discourse, why would a major party tolerate groups or individuals that espouse racism (La Raza, Al Sharpton, Van Jones, the New Black Panther Party), violent revolution (SEIU, ANSWER), gross violations of the law in pursuit of power (ACORN), the decline of America as a global power (The Nuclear Freeze movement, ANSWER, Code Pink) and all of the other things that the fringe left stands for?


Myself, I would've never picked someone like a Van Jones. He's a racist, for one. Anyone who believes in reparations doesn't belong in the federal government. More importantly, he has a police record and multiple arrests. I believe a constitutional amendment should be made which amends the eligibility of the Presidency to eliminate anyone with a police record. If a person is a law breaker, what makes you think they're going to uphold the law?

I guess it'd have to depend on the crime, perhaps, but I mean if you have domestic violence on your record, you can't get a gun. I agree with that gun control measure, but if we're going to limit a person's second amendment rights based on a police record, why not limit their chances for the Presidency?

Except that the Lautenberg amendment has resulted in discharges of troops who copped to misdemeanors decades ago, usually as a result of a divorce (false charges of abuse are common, and lawyers used to recommend a plea deal that would prevent loss of custody, rather than a protracted court case). I've personally had to put out several very good Soldiers because their prior records barred them from further service, including a senior NCO who was only a year away from retirement sanctuary, and ended up losing his pension because he had defended himself during a domestic disturbance prior to his joining the army. It's one of those things that sounds good, but when implemented, has ugly consequences.