PDA

View Full Version : How to handle Ronald Reagan?




AlterEgo
08-23-2010, 03:37 PM
August 23, 2010

Dear Friend of Liberty,

As the 2010 election approaches, a lot of Republican politicians are trying to posture as government-cutters, and they often hold up Ronald Reagan as an example.

But although Reagan often talked about supporting smaller government, most Libertarians know that in practice he did exactly the opposite. For example:

* Reagan boosted import tariffs and trade restrictions.
* Reagan cut marginal income tax rates, but he also raised Social Security taxes.
* Reagan increased farm subsidies.
* Reagan sent the federal debt through the roof.
* Federal spending under Reagan grew from $678 billion to $1.14 trillion.
* Reagan set the record for the highest average spending as a percent of GDP over his administration. (Obama may beat him.)

Many people are complaining right now about unemployment under Barack Obama. In the first 18 months of Obama's presidency, unemployment has increased from 7.7 percent to 9.5 percent.

Did you know that during the first 18 months of Reagan's presidency, unemployment increased from 7.5 percent to 9.8 percent? That's even worse, but I don't hear a lot of Republicans mentioning it.

Many Republican politicians, operatives and talk show hosts like to talk positively about Reagan and try to portray him as delivering smaller government. They don't say that about George W. Bush. I presume that's to try and convince voters that Bush was bad in some ways, and we should all try to be more like Reagan.

Some polls show Reagan is reasonably well-respected these days. I think the positive reactions are often based on misconceptions, and that brings up an interesting point: how should Libertarians deal with the Ronald Reagan myth?

To address that question, we put up a new poll today. Please share your opinion.

Sincerely,

Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee

Fozz
08-23-2010, 03:39 PM
I'm waiting for the poll.

Acala
08-23-2010, 03:43 PM
I handle RR like I do discussing WWII: I don't bring it up unless I am forced into it. Then I tell the truth.

But with RR you can also say that he was prevented from doing what he really wanted to do by his deteriorating mental condition.

Fozz
08-23-2010, 03:46 PM
RP, as well as most paleoconservatives and libertarians, praise Ronald Reagan for the good ideas that he espoused.

00_Pete
08-23-2010, 03:51 PM
First he didnt do anything, he was just standing there. I beleive he had his heart in the right place and there is no indication he was Illuminatus, however his administration was packed with Illuminatus or their puppets, and the administration, as a whole, is the entity that calls the shoots. Just the fact that the president advisors have total control over the reports the president receives on his deck grant them complete power.

However people should be pragmatic and pretend they either like him, kind-of-like-him (like Ron Paul does) or are neutral towards him. He is a sacred-cow for many people so pragmatism and efficiency must be the priority.

Vessol
08-23-2010, 03:54 PM
RP, as well as most paleoconservatives and libertarians, praise Ronald Reagan for the good ideas that he espoused.

Ronald Reagan was all talk and no action.

Sola_Fide
08-23-2010, 03:57 PM
Whenever one of my Conservative friends talks to me about Reagan, I always tell them to study about Goldwater.

Goldwater>>>>>>Reagan


I am waiting for the time when the term "Reagan Conservative" is replaced by "Goldwater Conservative" or "Jefferson Conservative".


It could happen...

Danke
08-23-2010, 03:57 PM
I think give Presidents too much credit, what about Congress?

klamath
08-23-2010, 03:59 PM
And continue to be losertarians. I don't have much use for a party that cannot win an election so they are safe in never having anyone compare they words with actions. I would love to see how well a libertarian holds up principle if they ever got elected to any thing.

dannno
08-23-2010, 04:00 PM
Who has that bumper sticker,

"We're Bushed of Reaganomics - Ron Paul '88"

Old Ducker
08-23-2010, 04:00 PM
August 23, 2010

Dear Friend of Liberty,

As the 2010 election approaches, a lot of Republican politicians are trying to posture as government-cutters, and they often hold up Ronald Reagan as an example.

But although Reagan often talked about supporting smaller government, most Libertarians know that in practice he did exactly the opposite. For example:

* Reagan boosted import tariffs and trade restrictions.
* Reagan cut marginal income tax rates, but he also raised Social Security taxes.
* Reagan increased farm subsidies.
* Reagan sent the federal debt through the roof.
* Federal spending under Reagan grew from $678 billion to $1.14 trillion.
* Reagan set the record for the highest average spending as a percent of GDP over his administration. (Obama may beat him.)

Many people are complaining right now about unemployment under Barack Obama. In the first 18 months of Obama's presidency, unemployment has increased from 7.7 percent to 9.5 percent.

Did you know that during the first 18 months of Reagan's presidency, unemployment increased from 7.5 percent to 9.8 percent? That's even worse, but I don't hear a lot of Republicans mentioning it.

Many Republican politicians, operatives and talk show hosts like to talk positively about Reagan and try to portray him as delivering smaller government. They don't say that about George W. Bush. I presume that's to try and convince voters that Bush was bad in some ways, and we should all try to be more like Reagan.

Some polls show Reagan is reasonably well-respected these days. I think the positive reactions are often based on misconceptions, and that brings up an interesting point: how should Libertarians deal with the Ronald Reagan myth?

To address that question, we put up a new poll today. Please share your opinion.

Sincerely,

Wes Benedict
Executive Director
Libertarian National Committee



Reagan insider: ‘GOP destroyed U.S. economy’

By Paul B. Farrell, MarketWatch
ARROYO GRANDE, Calif. (MarketWatch) — “How my G.O.P. destroyed the U.S.
economy.” Yes, that is exactly what David Stockman, President Ronald Reagan’s
director of the Office of Management and Budget, wrote in a recent New York
Times op-ed piece, “Four Deformations of the Apocalypse.”

Get it? Not “destroying.” The GOP has already “destroyed” the U.S. economy,
setting up an “American Apocalypse.”

Yes, Stockman is equally damning of the Democrats’ Keynesian policies. But
what this indictment by a party insider — someone so close to the
development of the Reaganomics ideology — says about America, helps all of
us better understand how America’s toxic partisan-politics “holy war” is
destroying not just the economy and capitalism, but the America dream. And
unless this war stops soon, both parties will succeed in their collective
death wish.

But why focus on Stockman’s message? It’s already lost in the 24/7 news
cycle. Why? We need some introspection. Ask yourself: How did the great
nation of America lose its moral compass and drift so far off course, to
where our very survival is threatened?

We’ve arrived at a historic turning point as a nation that no longer needs
outside enemies to destroy us, we are committing suicide. Democracy.
Capitalism. The American dream. All dying. Why? Because of the economic
decisions of the GOP the past 40 years, says this leading Reagan Republican.

Please listen with an open mind, no matter your party affiliation: This
makes for a powerful history lesson, because it exposes how both parties are
responsible for destroying the U.S. economy. Listen closely:

Reagan Republican: the GOP should file for bankruptcy

Stockman rushes into the ring swinging like a boxer: “If there were such a
thing as Chapter 11 for politicians, the Republican push to extend the
unaffordable Bush tax cuts would amount to a bankruptcy filing. The nation’s
public debt … will soon reach $18 trillion.” It screams “out for austerity
and sacrifice.” But instead, the GOP insists “that the nation’s wealthiest
taxpayers be spared even a three-percentage-point rate increase.”

In the past 40 years Republican ideology has gone from solid principles to
hype and slogans. Stockman says: “Republicans used to believe that
prosperity depended upon the regular balancing of accounts — in government,
in international trade, on the ledgers of central banks and in the financial
affairs of private households and businesses too.”

No more. Today there’s a “new catechism” that’s “little more than money
printing and deficit finance, vulgar Keynesianism robed in the ideological
vestments of the prosperous classes” making a mockery of GOP ideals. Worse,
it has resulted in “serial financial bubbles and Wall Street depredations
that have crippled our economy.” Yes, GOP ideals backfired, crippling our
economy.

Stockman’s indictment warns that the Republican party’s “new policy
doctrines have caused four great deformations of the national economy, and
modern Republicans have turned a blind eye to each one:”

Stage 1. Nixon irresponsible, dumps gold, U.S starts spending binge

Richard Nixon’s gold policies get Stockman’s first assault, for defaulting
“on American obligations under the 1944 Bretton Woods agreement to balance
our accounts with the world.” So for the past 40 years, America’s been
living “beyond our means as a nation” on “borrowed prosperity on an epic
scale … an outcome that Milton Friedman said could never happen when, in
1971, he persuaded President Nixon to unleash on the world paper dollars no
longer redeemable in gold or other fixed monetary reserves.”

Remember Friedman: “Just let the free market set currency exchange rates, he
said, and trade deficits will self-correct.” Friedman was wrong by
trillions. And unfortunately “once relieved of the discipline of defending a
fixed value for their currencies, politicians the world over were free to
cheapen their money and disregard their neighbors.”

And without discipline America was also encouraging “global monetary chaos
as foreign central banks run their own printing presses at ever faster
speeds to sop up the tidal wave of dollars coming from the Federal Reserve.”
Yes, the road to the coming apocalypse began with a Republican president
listening to a misguided Nobel economist’s advice.

Stage 2. Crushing debts from domestic excesses, war mongering

Stockman says “the second unhappy change in the American economy has been
the extraordinary growth of our public debt. In 1970 it was just 40% of
gross domestic product, or about $425 billion. When it reaches $18 trillion,
it will be 40 times greater than in 1970.” Who’s to blame? Not big-spending
Dems, says Stockman, but “from the Republican Party’s embrace, about three
decades ago, of the insidious doctrine that deficits don’t matter if they
result from tax cuts.”

Back “in 1981, traditional Republicans supported tax cuts,” but Stockman
makes clear, they had to be “matched by spending cuts, to offset the way
inflation was pushing many taxpayers into higher brackets and to spur
investment. The Reagan administration’s hastily prepared fiscal blueprint,
however, was no match for the primordial forces — the welfare state and the
warfare state — that drive the federal spending machine.”

OK, stop a minute. As you absorb Stockman’s indictment of how his Republican
party has “destroyed the U.S. economy,” you’re probably asking yourself why
anyone should believe a traitor to the Reagan legacy. I believe party
affiliation is irrelevant here. This is a crucial subject that must be
explored because it further exposes a dangerous historical trend where
politics is so partisan it’s having huge negative consequences.

Yes, the GOP does have a welfare-warfare state: Stockman says “the neocons
were pushing the military budget skyward. And the Republicans on Capitol
Hill who were supposed to cut spending, exempted from the knife most of the
domestic budget — entitlements, farm subsidies, education, water projects.
But in the end it was a new cadre of ideological tax-cutters who killed the
Republicans’ fiscal religion.”

When Fed chief Paul Volcker “crushed inflation” in the ’80s we got a “solid
economic rebound.” But then “the new tax-cutters not only claimed victory
for their supply-side strategy but hooked Republicans for good on the
delusion that the economy will outgrow the deficit if plied with enough tax
cuts.” By 2009, they “reduced federal revenues to 15% of gross domestic
product,” lowest since the 1940s. Still today they’re irrationally demanding
an extension of those “unaffordable Bush tax cuts [that] would amount to a
bankruptcy filing.”

Recently Bush made matters far worse by “rarely vetoing a budget bill and
engaging in two unfinanced foreign military adventures.” Bush also gave in
“on domestic spending cuts, signing into law $420 billion in nondefense
appropriations, a 65% percent gain from the $260 billion he had inherited
eight years earlier. Republicans thus joined the Democrats in a shameless
embrace of a free-lunch fiscal policy.” Takes two to tango.

Stage 3. Wall Street’s deadly ‘vast, unproductive expansion’

Stockman continues pounding away: “The third ominous change in the American
economy has been the vast, unproductive expansion of our financial sector.”
He warns that “Republicans have been oblivious to the grave danger of
flooding financial markets with freely printed money and, at the same time,
removing traditional restrictions on leverage and speculation.” Wrong, not
oblivious. Self-interested Republican loyalists like Paulson, Bernanke and
Geithner knew exactly what they were doing.

They wanted the economy, markets and the government to be under the absolute
control of Wall Street’s too-greedy-to-fail banks. They conned Congress and
the Fed into bailing out an estimated $23.7 trillion debt. Worse, they have
since destroyed meaningful financial reforms. So Wall Street is now back to
business as usual blowing another bigger bubble/bust cycle that will
culminate in the coming “American Apocalypse.”

Stockman refers to Wall Street’s surviving banks as “wards of the state.”
Wrong, the opposite is true. Wall Street now controls Washington, and its
“unproductive” trading is “extracting billions from the economy with a lot
of pointless speculation in stocks, bonds, commodities and derivatives.”
Wall Street banks like Goldman were virtually bankrupt, would have never
survived without government-guaranteed deposits and “virtually free money
from the Fed’s discount window to cover their bad bets.”

Stage 4. New American Revolution class-warfare coming soon

Finally, thanks to Republican policies that let us “live beyond our means
for decades by borrowing heavily from abroad, we have steadily sent jobs and
production offshore,” while at home “high-value jobs in goods production …
trade, transportation, information technology and the professions shrunk by
12% to 68 million from 77 million.”

As the apocalypse draws near, Stockman sees a class-rebellion, a new
revolution, a war against greed and the wealthy. Soon. The trigger will be
the growing gap between economic classes: No wonder “that during the last
bubble (from 2002 to 2006) the top 1% of Americans — paid mainly from the
Wall Street casino — received two-thirds of the gain in national income,
while the bottom 90% — mainly dependent on Main Street’s shrinking economy —
got only 12%. This growing wealth gap is not the market’s fault. It’s the
decaying fruit of bad economic policy.”

Get it? The decaying fruit of the GOP’s bad economic policies is destroying
our economy.

Warning: this black swan won’t be pretty, will shock, soon
His bottom line: “The day of national reckoning has arrived. We will not
have a conventional business recovery now, but rather a long hangover of
debt liquidation and downsizing … it’s a pity that the modern Republican
party offers the American people an irrelevant platform of recycled
Keynesianism when the old approach — balanced budgets, sound money and
financial discipline — is needed more than ever.”

Wrong: There are far bigger things to “pity.”

First, that most Americans, 300 million, are helpless, will do nothing, sit
in the bleachers passively watching this deadly partisan game like it’s just
another TV reality show.

Second, that, unfortunately, politicians are so deep-in-the-pockets of the
Wall Street conspiracy that controls Washington they are helpless and blind.

And third, there’s a depressing sense that Stockman will be dismissed as a
traitor, his message lost in the 24/7 news cycle … until the final
apocalyptic event, an unpredictable black swan triggers another, bigger
global meltdown, followed by a long Great Depression II and a historic class
war.

So be prepared, it will hit soon, when you least expect.

HOLLYWOOD
08-23-2010, 04:04 PM
Reagan was just as much a Bitch to the Fascio-Corprotistic money masters as all the destructive successors.

BEIRUT 1983
AMNESTY 1986
Central America Financed Genocide
Weapons for Hostages
Global Covert Terrorism
ALAN GREENSPAN

Indy Vidual
08-23-2010, 04:13 PM
Just Say NO!

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/5/54/NRJUSTSAYNORALLY.jpg
:rolleyes:

kahless
08-23-2010, 05:26 PM
I keep hearing how Reagan was tough on immigration. I guess they are rewriting history and leaving out the part where he gave amnesty to illegals.

heavenlyboy34
08-23-2010, 05:36 PM
And continue to be losertarians. I don't have much use for a party that cannot win an election so they are safe in never having anyone compare they words with actions. I would love to see how well a libertarian holds up principle if they ever got elected to any thing.

Putting winning over principle is losing in reality. I know you enjoy the cult of democracy (I get the feeling you see it more as a sport than dealing with ideas-which is sad, but all too common), but without principle, it's nothing but a bunch of self-flagellation and hot air.

What good is "winning" if one has to sell his soul to do it?

As to " I don't have much use for a party that cannot win an election so they are safe in never having anyone compare they words with actions."-that summs up every political party, FFS! Every party spins their fuck-ups as "victories. Are you really this new to politics?

Stary Hickory
08-23-2010, 05:49 PM
How about get the question right. Reagan was not the government, he did not just rule and do whatever he wanted. He had to contend with a Democratic congress and other Social conservatives.

What happened under Reagan's watch is not all Reagan. Had he been given free reign a lot of things would have changed for the better. He was not your 100% libertarian but he is the only POTUS in my lifetime who held any kind of libertarian values at all.

kahless
08-23-2010, 06:04 PM
Ronald Reagan's Mistake
http://www.mensnewsdaily.com/archive/g/gay/2004/gay061304.htm




June 13, 2004

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
by Roger F. Gay
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I cannot stop people from calling me conservative, but can easily argue about what being conservative means. A particularly difficult part of the argument arises when I encounter the hero worship of President Ronald Reagan. The eulogizing this past week reminded me of his great accomplishments, his ability to stand courageously for American ideals, and his talent for selling ideas. It has also helped me come to terms with the man whose mistakes were as large as his successes.

Why should I make such a fuss a few days after the burial of an admirable man? In my opinion, not to do so carries the potential to destroy his reputation as a great American. I do not believe that Ronald Reagan will rest well while we suffer from his misjudgments.

My cynical side has for years suggested to me that politicians today attempt to emulate the success of the popular man who won elections. In their fervor to adopt the Reagan formula, they never admit that anything he was involved in was ever wrong. Their unwillingness to look objectively at a hero's legacy commits us not only to carrying on the good work, but also to expand and amplify error that can damage the very culture of freedom and justice that the man sought to defend.

Welfare reform of the Reagan era, no matter how well-intentioned, was such an error. It is one that I cannot reconcile with conservative or any genuine American values. Under Reagan, the reach of the welfare program expanded beyond its means-tested boundaries to include families without regard to economic status and was transformed from a helping hand to a corrupt, over-controlling police organization that exercises unchecked power that far exceeds that of the IRS.

Under the weight of the huge expanded program and its billions in additional annual funding, the system of checks and balances has collapsed and basic human rights have been eliminated. Millions of ordinary people have been labeled social criminals and a significant number of them have been jailed for not living up to arbitrary standards and for not reaching sometimes unobtainable goals. In at least one case, a man was beaten to death by guards while imprisoned, not because he posed a mortal threat, but because of what the program's propaganda machine had labeled him – a "deadbeat dad." Brian Armstrong of Milford, New Hampshire lost his job. He was jailed without trial in January 2000 for missing a hearing. One week later he was dead.

It may be difficult to see how I can make peace with a man whose policies had such an effect. I do not have good reason to believe that Ronald Reagan foresaw the eventual violent and destructive results that would eventually be achieved due to his overwhelming support for this program in its early days.

It is possible to genuinely appreciate a man who failed so miserably in a particular effort. The moment of forgiveness for me came through a comment from a man who studied and wrote about Ronald Reagan's life. He said, Ronald Reagan "represented the best of American values. He believed that problems can be solved." Ronald Reagan saw the misery of the problem of poverty and took large, courageous steps in an attempt to solve it. It was an experiment that failed, both in the alleviation of poverty and in maintaining the careful balance between public and private interests, freedom and the exercise of government power.

The err is human and we can allow Ronald Reagan this mistake. It can be said that a man who never fails at anything is a man who does not try. If Ronald Reagan had not had the courage to take bold steps in an attempt to solve problems, the Berlin Wall might still be standing today. The United States might be a much weaker country. We might not at all be in an era of a new world order in which democracy is expanding rapidly and nations once at war are uniting in peaceful coexistence.

The challenge for politicians today, both those who admired Ronald Reagan as well as those who merely seek to capitalize on his personal success, is not simply to continue to expand his policies without objective review. It is to continue in the spirit of his life. Problems can be solved. But first, the courage must be shown to admit that a problem exists even when it is part of the legacy of an admirable man. Once the myth of infallibility has been put to rest, we can begin eulogizing a true man who made heroic efforts and accomplished great things.


Roger F. Gay
Roger F. Gay is a professional analyst, international correspondent and regular contributor to MensNewsDaily.com, as well as a contributing editor for Fathering Magazine.


The average American hears "welfare reform" and think it has nothing to do with them. Like it only concerns people receiving welfare. That could not be further from the truth as "welfare reform" affects every living American.

Reagan made a pact with the National Organization of Women to gain their support to get elected in 1980. As pay back to them he used their language verbatim in policies adverse to non-custodial parents (typically fathers) and coined the phrase "dead beat dads". Effectively his policies - welfare reform automatically made all non-custodial parents criminals regardless that most support their children and pay child support.

Too many lifes were destroyed as a result and people that are divorced with children live in constant fear because of "welfare reform". Those that are not aware of the reality typically think welfare reform has to do with receiving welfare. The fact is besides making master - slave relationship of divorced couples with children, by 1996 Newt Gingrich's "Contract With America" expanded if further to track all Americans with the national new hires database.

Anyone that is divorced and does not have children living with them typically is aware of the term "ability to earn". Combine that with "Welfare Reform" and you create a scenario where parents live in fear of violence and imprisonment at the hands of government should they not continuously earn what the government thinks they should earn based on their past work history.

Jack Bauer
08-23-2010, 06:04 PM
How about get the question right. Reagan was not the government, he did not just rule and do whatever he wanted. He had to contend with a Democratic congress and other Social conservatives.

What happened under Reagan's watch is not all Reagan. Had he been given free reign a lot of things would have changed for the better. He was not your 100% libertarian but he is the only POTUS in my lifetime who held any kind of libertarian values at all.

This. 1776 %

What baffles me is that social conservatives and their neocon enablers who supposedly revere Reagan indulge in such ridiculous demagoguery of libertarians that you would be shocked to believe that Reagan was the one who said that the very heart and soul of conservatism is libertarianism.

kahless
08-23-2010, 06:13 PM
How about get the question right. Reagan was not the government, he did not just rule and do whatever he wanted. He had to contend with a Democratic congress and other Social conservatives.

What happened under Reagan's watch is not all Reagan. Had he been given free reign a lot of things would have changed for the better. He was not your 100% libertarian but he is the only POTUS in my lifetime who held any kind of libertarian values at all.

Was he really even close to being Libertarian or just a complete and utter fraud. The 1964 speech he made was likely an act made by actor.

akforme
08-23-2010, 06:14 PM
How about get the question right. Reagan was not the government, he did not just rule and do whatever he wanted. He had to contend with a Democratic congress and other Social conservatives.

What happened under Reagan's watch is not all Reagan. Had he been given free reign a lot of things would have changed for the better. He was not your 100% libertarian but he is the only POTUS in my lifetime who held any kind of libertarian values at all.

Problem is, he signed all that spending. He only had 9 veto's overturned. If all the spending was from those 9 overturned veto's then I'd believe that.

robert68
08-23-2010, 07:12 PM
How about get the question right. Reagan was not the government, he did not just rule and do whatever he wanted. He had to contend with a Democratic congress and other Social conservatives.

What happened under Reagan's watch is not all Reagan. Had he been given free reign a lot of things would have changed for the better. He was not your 100% libertarian but he is the only POTUS in my lifetime who held any kind of libertarian values at all.

When he was President he signed the biggest and second biggest tax increases in history. He raised the heck out of taxes as Governor of California too. The Senate BTW was under Republican control the first 6 years of his administration.

Fredom101
08-23-2010, 07:12 PM
RP, as well as most paleoconservatives and libertarians, praise Ronald Reagan for the good ideas that he espoused.

RP does NOT praise Reagan as president. RP has said himself that while Reagan sounded like a libertarian, he went on to expand government.

klamath
08-23-2010, 07:20 PM
Putting winning over principle is losing in reality. I know you enjoy the cult of democracy (I get the feeling you see it more as a sport than dealing with ideas-which is sad, but all too common), but without principle, it's nothing but a bunch of self-flagellation and hot air.

What good is "winning" if one has to sell his soul to do it?

As to " I don't have much use for a party that cannot win an election so they are safe in never having anyone compare they words with actions."-that summs up every political party, FFS! Every party spins their fuck-ups as "victories. Are you really this new to politics?


sounds like an anarchist libertarian:rolleyes:

Agorism
08-23-2010, 07:24 PM
Talk about how Reagan increased the size of government like all the other presidents.

jmdrake
08-23-2010, 07:25 PM
Whenever one of my Conservative friends talks to me about Reagan, I always tell them to study about Goldwater.

Goldwater>>>>>>Reagan


I am waiting for the time when the term "Reagan Conservative" is replaced by "Goldwater Conservative" or "Jefferson Conservative".


It could happen...

Ron Paul conservative?

Zippyjuan
08-23-2010, 07:30 PM
Reagan was more of a pragmatist. He was willing to make compromsises to try to get things he wanted done. On the domestic front, sure he cut taxes but when he saw the impact it was having on the deficit, he also signed off on tax increases. On the foreign front, he criticized the Soviet Union almost every chance he got but he also was personally friends with Gorbachev. He talked peace but oversaw the largest peacetime buildup of US forces in history. Then he offered to Gorbachev that he was willing to get rid of the entire US nuclear forces if the USSR would do the same. He covered both sides of so many issues that people can find lots of things he did that they like. But if they look closely they can also find things they disagree with too. But he was a nice man and smiled a lot and people liked that. Even in difficult times and situtations he still smiled. Some conservatives have been trying to declare him a saint ever since. Though they will never measure up, many also like to compare themselves to him. Liberals were scared to death that he would start a nuclear war.

klamath
08-23-2010, 07:31 PM
RP does NOT praise Reagan as president. RP has said himself that while Reagan sounded like a libertarian, he went on to expand government.

RP did real will getting an audit the fed through a congress with a majority of cosponsers.:rolleyes: He couldn't even get it up for one stinking vote by the whole congress. If this is how a RP presidency goes he will be the worse F**** failure this country has ever seen. With RP's record of getting anything done he will get nothing through congress and a socialist congress WILL run the government. Wow government increased under Paul's presidency.

YumYum
08-23-2010, 07:37 PM
RP did real will getting an audit the fed through a congress with a majority of cosponsers.:rolleyes: He couldn't even get it up for one stinking vote by the whole congress. If this is how a RP presidency goes he will be the worse F**** failure this country has ever seen. With RP's record of getting anything done he will get nothing through congress and a socialist congress WILL run the government. Wow government increased under Paul's presidency.

Yes, but millions of Americans will be educated and informed if Ron Paul is president. At least they will understand why the shit is collapsing.

klamath
08-23-2010, 07:46 PM
Yes, but millions of Americans will be educated and informed if Ron Paul is president. At least they will understand why the shit is collapsing.
If he is a failure at getting anything done and the government expands because he has no ability to lead he will have only educated the people of what an utter failure his ideas were because as Reagan is being judged by what happened under his watch so will RON PAUL.

Au-H2O
08-23-2010, 07:47 PM
RP did real will getting an audit the fed through a congress with a majority of cosponsers.:rolleyes: He couldn't even get it up for one stinking vote by the whole congress. If this is how a RP presidency goes he will be the worse F**** failure this country has ever seen. With RP's record of getting anything done he will get nothing through congress and a socialist congress WILL run the government. Wow government increased under Paul's presidency.

Vetoing everything that comes to his desk would still be a gigantic improvement, though.

klamath
08-23-2010, 07:49 PM
Vetoing everything that comes to his desk would still be a gigantic improvement, though.

Impeachment= failure

erowe1
08-23-2010, 08:00 PM
I don't think that trying to convince people Reagan was terrible is a good strategy. I think it's better to admit some good things about Reagan, to use them to our advantage, and when pointing out bad policies he supported to contrast those with other points in his career when he espoused the opposite of them.

1) Reagan's speeches were generally great. He communicated messages that should resonate well with Ron Paul supporters and did it better than any other politician I know of. We should be able to get some pretty good mileage out of his speeches by sending youtubes of them to Republicans we're trying to bring over to our side. In fact it wouldn't be a bad idea for us to compile a catalog of great Reagan speeches to use on our friends when they try to marginalize us, so we can say, "But I'm just giving you classic Reagan conservatism here."

2) Reagan was not nearly as brash when it came to committing American military to dangerous occupations and operations as the neoconservatives are. He also, for most of his presidency, did not adhere to their agenda of promoting democracies abroad, and instead held to the Kirkpatrick doctrine, which was still interventionist, but more America-first, less expensive, and less bloody. See here for something good for your neocon friends who idolize Reagan: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/07/think_again_ronald_reagan

3) Reagan is the only president since Johnson (and probably before) who oversaw an actual decrease in domestic federal spending during his tenure, and he did this with a Democrat Congress who fought him all the way. He also oversaw a smaller increase (though still an increase) of entitlement spending than any president since Johnson (and probably before). And the annualized growth rate during his presidency of the total budget, even including his bloated military/Cold War spending was 2.6%, less than half that of G. W. Bush, and not much higher than the lowest growth rates, which were seen by G. H. W. Bush and Clinton. http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf

4) Yes, Reagan went whole hog on spending on the Cold War. And yes he was badly mistaken to do that. But if we're honest about it, spending on a cold war is not nearly as bad as spending on hot wars, which Reagan did less than most other presidents, Republican or Democrat (see #2 above).

So when it comes to appealing to Reagan as an example, we should be able to find some common ground with people, or even challenge their assumptions on the above (and probably some other things some of you can mention). We might even be able to agree that he's the most conservative president we've had since Coolidge (which is at least reasonable, even if debatable).

Then, after building that bridge, there might be a good opportunity to say, "But it really is a shame that our situation is so bad that the Republican party can't do any better than Reagan for setting it's high water mark?" and point out how the deficits skyrocketed under him and how poisonous that legacy has become for the party with Cheney saying early in G.W.'s ultra-left-wing presidency that "Reagan proved deficits don't matter."

That segue brings up a good opportunity to address the question, "Can we really do better than Reagan?" by saying, "Sure we can. Take a look at Ron Paul. He's the only Republican who has been consistent in sticking to the libertarian conservative principles that Reagan championed in those great speeches but just couldn't stick to consistently enough in his actions as president."

Meatwasp
08-23-2010, 08:08 PM
I thank Ronald Reagan and James Watt for so many things. James Watt got screamed out of office because he wanted to open homesteading in Alaska. He was part of the Sage Brush Rebellion. Ron appointed him for secretary of state. That counts a lot as far as I am concerned.

Zippyjuan
08-23-2010, 08:44 PM
James Watt was nomintated for Secretary of the Interrior- not Secretary of State. He served two years. He was a controversial figure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._Watt

Watt resisted accepting donations of private land to be used for conservation purposes.[6] He suggested that all 80 million acres (320,000 kmē) of undeveloped land in the United States be opened for drilling and mining in the year 2000.[6] The area leased to coal mining companies quintupled during his term as Secretary of the Interior.[6] Watt proudly boasted that he leased "a billion acres" (4 million kmē) of U.S. coastal waters, even though only a small portion of that area would ever be drilled.[6] Watt once stated, "We will mine more, drill more, cut more timber."[7]

Watt periodically mentioned his Christian faith when discussing his approach to environmental management. Speaking before Congress, he once said, "I do not know how many future generations we can count on before the Lord returns, whatever it is we have to manage with a skill to leave the resources needed for future generations."[8]



From 1980 through 1982, The Beach Boys and The Grass Roots performed Independence Day concerts on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., attracting large crowds.[12][13] However, in April 1983, Watt, while serving as Secretary of the Interior, banned Independence Day concerts on the Mall by such groups. Watt said that "rock bands" that had performed on the Mall on Independence Day in 1981 and 1982 had encouraged drug use and alcoholism and had attracted "the wrong element", who would mug people and families attending any similar events in the future.[13] Watt then announced that Las Vegas crooner Wayne Newton, a friend and supporter of President Reagan and a contributor to Republican Party political campaigns, would perform at the Mall's 1983 Independence Day celebration.[13][14] During the ensuing uproar, Rob Grill, lead singer of The Grass Roots, stated that he felt "highly insulted" by Watt's remarks, which he called "nothing but un-American".[13] The Beach Boys stated that the Soviet Union, which had invited them to perform in Leningrad in 1978, "obviously .... did not feel that the group attracted the wrong element".[13] Vice President George H. W. Bush said of The Beach Boys, "They're my friends and I like their music".[13] Watt apologized to The Beach Boys after learning that President Reagan and First Lady Nancy Reagan were fans of the group.[15] Nancy Reagan apologized for Watt.[16] White House staff presented Watt with a plaster foot with a hole in it, symbolizing his having shot himself in the foot with his decision.[17] When Newton entered an Independence Day stage on the Mall on July 4, 1983, members of the audience booed him.[15][18]

In an interview with the Satellite Program Network, Watt said that "If you want an example of the failure of socialism, don't go to Russia, come to America and go to the Indian reservations."[19]

A public controversy erupted after a speech to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce by Watt in September 1983, when he mocked affirmative action by saying about a coal-leasing panel: "I have a black, a woman, two Jews and a cripple. And we have talent."[20] Within weeks of making this statement, Watt submitted his resignation letter.[20][21] The next year, The Beach Boys gave an Independence Day concert on the National Mall to an audience of 750,000 people.[22][23]

robert68
08-23-2010, 08:44 PM
4) Yes, Reagan went whole hog on spending on the Cold War. And yes he was badly mistaken to do that. But if we're honest about it, spending on a cold war is not nearly as bad as spending on hot wars, which Reagan did less than most other presidents, Republican or Democrat (see #2 above).



Much of that "Cold War" spending and policy laid the foundations for the hot wars that came later, and still are with us. And some of it, made for hot wars during his administration in Central America and Israel's invasion into Lebanon, part of which lasted 18 years.

Sola_Fide
08-23-2010, 08:45 PM
Ron Paul conservative?



Sounds a little weird, huh?

RedStripe
08-23-2010, 08:49 PM
Reagan sucked. He was a terrible, pro-corporatist, nationalistic jackass. He was responsible for the deaths of many innocent people around the world. His policies were aimed at cracking down on the power of the working class in favor of finance capitalists. He ramped up the drug war, sucked up to the military-industrial complex, and help merge corporatist policies with evangelical, bible-thumping religious superstition and backwardness. Fuck Reagan. Shitty, shitty president all around.

RedStripe
08-23-2010, 08:51 PM
I don't think that trying to convince people Reagan was terrible is a good strategy. I think it's better to admit some good things about Reagan, to use them to our advantage, and when pointing out bad policies he supported to contrast those with other points in his career when he espoused the opposite of them.

1) Reagan's speeches were generally great. He communicated messages that should resonate well with Ron Paul supporters and did it better than any other politician I know of. We should be able to get some pretty good mileage out of his speeches by sending youtubes of them to Republicans we're trying to bring over to our side. In fact it wouldn't be a bad idea for us to compile a catalog of great Reagan speeches to use on our friends when they try to marginalize us, so we can say, "But I'm just giving you classic Reagan conservatism here."

2) Reagan was not nearly as brash when it came to committing American military to dangerous occupations and operations as the neoconservatives are. He also, for most of his presidency, did not adhere to their agenda of promoting democracies abroad, and instead held to the Kirkpatrick doctrine, which was still interventionist, but more America-first, less expensive, and less bloody. See here for something good for your neocon friends who idolize Reagan: http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2010/06/07/think_again_ronald_reagan

Wait, were you talking about Reagan or Obama? Sorry, I get all of these political celebrities mixed up when people start kissing their asses.

RJB
08-23-2010, 08:58 PM
A lot of good intellectual points. Here's something for the low-brows like me...

He talked the talk but walked the walk of a $3 tranny crack whore.

Seriously, I think the assassination attempt made him realize he couldn't mess with the globalist. After that attempt it was really the begining of G H Bush's first term. Reagan was obsolete the rest of his presidency.

Anti Federalist
08-23-2010, 11:25 PM
Reagan might have done well, and I believe he had the best of intentions upon arrival in DC.

His assassination attempt changed all that.

I'm convinced TPTB stood over him and said, "you better play ball, next time we won't miss".

Meatwasp
08-24-2010, 12:23 AM
James Watt was nomintated for Secretary of the Interior- not Secretary of State. He served two years. He was a controversial figure. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_G._Watt

The only thing you are right on is Secretary of Interior. I meant that really.
Check up on his sage brush Rebellion. He made it easier to patent mining claims which we did and as far as I am concerned that is the best thing he did and I love him for it. Squawk all you want but the MSM was very vicious of him. We never believed any of it. My husband wrote to him all the time.
The eco freaks were just starting strong then and the Nature conservancy was wanting all land for the government.
That deal on the cripple,jews ect was way over blown and the political correct people were just beginning so they used that to the hilt.
I was here and were you?

Meatwasp
08-24-2010, 12:33 AM
Reagan might have done well, and I believe he had the best of intentions upon arrival in DC.

His assassination attempt changed all that.

I'm convinced TPTB stood over him and said, "you better play ball, next time we won't miss".
Anti you are right. The tempted assassination was carried out by a Bush supporter.
Hinkly

Meatwasp
08-24-2010, 12:36 AM
Reagan sucked. He was a terrible, pro-corporatist, nationalistic jackass. He was responsible for the deaths of many innocent people around the world. His policies were aimed at cracking down on the power of the working class in favor of finance capitalists. He ramped up the drug war, sucked up to the military-industrial complex, and help merge corporatist policies with evangelical, bible-thumping religious superstition and backwardness. Fuck Reagan. Shitty, shitty president all around.
Of course you would say this as Reagan fought the communists in the movie gills.

robert68
08-24-2010, 04:31 AM
..

00_Pete
08-24-2010, 04:40 AM
Reagan sucked. He was a terrible, pro-corporatist, nationalistic jackass. He was responsible for the deaths of many innocent people around the world. His policies were aimed at cracking down on the power of the working class in favor of finance capitalists. He ramped up the drug war, sucked up to the military-industrial complex, and help merge corporatist policies with evangelical, bible-thumping religious superstition and backwardness. Fuck Reagan. Shitty, shitty president all around.

Just like those punk-rock bands and leftwing intellectualoids told you to think right mr Independent Thinker? Are you "Independent Thinkers" capable of having ONE single original and independent thought? Cause you all sound like cassete players to me...

Corporations are bad but monopoly-corporation (Government) is good...that makes sense...

Nationalism is bad but Internationalism and UN (hyper-centralization of power) is good...that makes sense...

Religious "superstition" is bad but materialism and worship of "Hammers and Sickles" is good...that makes sense...

And that merging of corporate power and religion is a blast! The 2 bogey mans of the "Independent Thinkers"...so what do they do? Come up with an half-retarded theory about the 2 bogey mans merging (evil attracts evil) so you can have the UBER Bogey-man...you "Independent Thinkers" are hilarious :)


Anti you are right. The tempted assassination was carried out by a Bush supporter.
Hinkly

Hinckley family is very close to the Bush family (Illuminatus/Skull and Bones) abd Hinckley family are very close to other Illuminatus/Skull and Bones families.

RedStripe
08-24-2010, 06:50 AM
Just like those punk-rock bands and leftwing intellectualoids told you to think right mr Independent Thinker? Are you "Independent Thinkers" capable of having ONE single original and independent thought? Cause you all sound like cassete players to me...

Corporations are bad but monopoly-corporation (Government) is good...that makes sense...

When did I say government was good? Haha, you just assume that because I don't agree with your stupid beliefs about tradition or corporations I must support the government! Haha, look how shallow and uncreative your thinking is.



Nationalism is bad but Internationalism and UN (hyper-centralization of power) is good...that makes sense...

Never said that either! Haha, look at you!



Religious "superstition" is bad but materialism and worship of "Hammers and Sickles" is good...that makes sense...

Once again, you're just making up complete bullshit. I don't believe in "worshiping hammers and sickles" haha you're nuts man.

But I guess a simpleton has to keep the world very simple. Black and white. If you don't support this, you must support that. lol, once again, I pity you (and your children, especially).

00_Pete
08-24-2010, 07:31 AM
When did I say government was good? Haha, you just assume that because I don't agree with your stupid beliefs about tradition or corporations I must support the government! Haha, look how shallow and uncreative your thinking is.



Never said that either! Haha, look at you!



Once again, you're just making up complete bullshit. I don't believe in "worshiping hammers and sickles" haha you're nuts man.

But I guess a simpleton has to keep the world very simple. Black and white. If you don't support this, you must support that. lol, once again, I pity you (and your children, especially).

There isnt "anarcho-socialism/commienism/whatever" that is a stupid oxymoron. Anarchism, by using simple logic, is total-capitalism. So when you claim to be "anarcho-socialism" you are a COMMIE its simple. I get the impression that, deep inside, most of you "anarcho-socialists" know this is the truth but you put the "anarcho" label there for Public Relations purposes, so you dont have to say out loud that your entire ideological outlook is using the government steel-toe boot to get the individual in line.

And your COMMIENISM combined with your Internationalism means that not only you love big brother government on a national level (bad) but you also love big brother government on a Planetary level (bad 100x).

Stop trying to deceive yourself and others and put a Hammer and Sickle in your avatar.

kahless
08-24-2010, 07:59 AM
3) Reagan is the only president since Johnson (and probably before) who oversaw an actual decrease in domestic federal spending during his tenure, and he did this with a Democrat Congress who fought him all the way. He also oversaw a smaller increase (though still an increase) of entitlement spending than any president since Johnson (and probably before). And the annualized growth rate during his presidency of the total budget, even including his bloated military/Cold War spending was 2.6%, less than half that of G. W. Bush, and not much higher than the lowest growth rates, which were seen by G. H. W. Bush and Clinton. http://www.cato.org/pubs/tbb/tbb-0510-26.pdf


^This is pure propaganda and is patently false.

It was just another Keynesian economics administration that leaves the mess for future generations. The US went from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation. Reagan himself described the new debt as the "greatest disappointment" of his presidency.

Reagan was a brilliant actor and he used his acting skills to fool Libertarians and Conservatives to believe he was that. The man started the far reaching welfare reform monolith, reached across the isle with leftists to increase the budget deficit and deficit spending to an all time record.

This is no different than ignorant Republicans today believing John McCain is a Conservative. I can only imagine how the Neocons will rewrite history and idol worship him 20-30 years from now.

MelissaWV
08-24-2010, 08:03 AM
Handle Reagan gently. He's probably started to decompose quite a bit by now.

Austrian Econ Disciple
08-24-2010, 08:07 AM
Ah, yes the Ronald Reagan who said he was going to abolish the Department of Education, but instead actually GREW it. Reagan was no friend to "limited" Government. Why so-called limited Government individuals hold him up baffles me. I suppose Pravda has done its job.

Sola_Fide
08-24-2010, 08:14 AM
There isnt "anarcho-socialism/commienism/whatever" that is a stupid oxymoron. Anarchism, by using simple logic, is total-capitalism. So when you claim to be "anarcho-socialism" you are a COMMIE its simple. I get the impression that, deep inside, most of you "anarcho-socialists" know this is the truth but you put the "anarcho" label there for Public Relations purposes, so you dont have to say out loud that your entire ideological outlook is using the government steel-toe boot to get the individual in line.

And your COMMIENISM combined with your Internationalism means that not only you love big brother government on a national level (bad) but you also love big brother government on a Planetary level (bad 100x).

Stop trying to deceive yourself and others and put a Hammer and Sickle in your avatar.




Ouch!

Meatwasp
08-24-2010, 08:45 AM
I meant to say guild instead of gill. I was half asleep.

erowe1
08-24-2010, 08:47 AM
^This is pure propaganda and is patently false.


I probably haven't researched it as much as you. In what way was that false?

I know that government accounting is always screwy. So where it shows a decrease I wouldn't doubt that there was actually an increase. But whatever tricks they used would apply to every president in the comparison, right? So, even if it's not a reliable table in absolute terms, at least it is in relative terms. Reagan either oversaw the only actual decrease in domestic spending or else the smallest increase in it of all the presidents in that table, as well as overall less increase in entitlements than any of them, and a total increase in federal spending that rivals G. H. W. Bush and Clinton as one of the smallest. Is any of that not true?

klamath
08-24-2010, 09:16 AM
All this thread has accomplished is to make me really go back and look at Ron Paul. He is starting to look like quite the failure to me. Judging by his ability to pick staff and judging by the people that support him that would most like end up in his staff I am not sure I care to waste time supporting him anymore. When half the people supporting him are prochoice, southern sympathizer racists, violent revolutionaries, anarchy-communists, repressed child molesters and violent kneejerk antiamericans I shutter to think what a RP administration would look like. When RP's ability to get anything done is to end up strengthening the FED when he has majority support for an audit, God help us what an administration of his would do. A Paul administration would make Reagan's look like an anarchy administration. RP talks the talk but can't walk the walk.

erowe1
08-24-2010, 09:19 AM
All this thread has accomplished is to make me really go back and look at Ron Paul. He is starting to look like quite the failure to me. Judging by his ability to pick staff and judging by the people that support him that would most like end up in his staff I am not sure I care to waste time supporting him anymore. When half the people supporting him are prochoice, southern sympathizer racists, violent revolutionaries, anarchy-communists, repressed child molesters and violent kneejerk antiamericans I shutter to think what a RP administration would look like. When RP's ability to get anything done is to end up strengthening the FED when he has majority support for an audit, God help us what an administration of his would do. A Paul administration would make Reagan's look like an anarchy administration. RP talks the talk but can't walk the walk.

And you came to that conclusion based on this thread? Odd.

kahless
08-24-2010, 10:00 AM
And you came to that conclusion based on this thread? Odd.

I guess he could not handle the truth about his hero and a fit of rage decided to spew that crap. The throught of Reagan made me just as pissed off but for different reasons. I just cannot stand the idol worship of that fraud. I go back and look at that monumental 1964 Republican National Convention speech and it is sad to believe it was all just an act by an actor.

klamath
08-24-2010, 10:04 AM
I guess he could not handle the truth about his hero and a fit of rage decided to spew that crap. The throught of Reagan made me just as pissed off but for different reasons. I just cannot stand the idol worship of that fraud. I go back and look at that monumental 1964 Republican National Convention speech and it is sad to believe it was all just an act by an actor.

Did people suddenly forget that there were reasons Ron Paul ran against that statist in 1988.

So wise on history:rolleyes:Reagan wasn't running in '88.

kahless
08-24-2010, 10:12 AM
So wise on history:rolleyes:Reagan wasn't running in '88.

LOL. I forgot about George. For me it did not seem like much of a difference back then which is probably why I remembered it incorrectly. I probably remembered it that way since I do remember Ron was bashing Reagan during that campaign to bash Bush as an extension of Reagan. I ended up supporting Perot in 1992 against Bush.

Still, how did you come to this conclusion? That is a pretty harsh statement to make against the forum members here, no?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2856601&postcount=55

erowe1
08-24-2010, 10:23 AM
So wise on history:rolleyes:Reagan wasn't running in '88.

RP didn't literally run against him as an opponent. But he definitely did frame his campaign as being anti-Reagan. I don't really view it as 100% anti-Reagan, though. It was more a sense of disappointment about Reagan failing to deliver on the principles he ran on that had drawn RP to support him. I think it's that same aspect of Reagan that we should emphasize, rather than poking other Republicans in the eye and calling them idiots for liking the guy.

klamath
08-24-2010, 10:54 AM
LOL. I forgot about George. For me it did not seem like much of a difference back then which is probably why I remembered it incorrectly. I probably remembered it that way since I do remember Ron was bashing Reagan during that campaign to bash Bush as an extension of Reagan. I ended up supporting Perot in 1992 against Bush.

Still, how did you come to this conclusion? That is a pretty harsh statement to make against the forum members here, no?
http://www.ronpaulforums.com/showpost.php?p=2856601&postcount=55
I have been here from near the begining, and have seen every one of those type people on here supporting RP in large numbers.

RedStripe
08-24-2010, 10:54 AM
There isnt "anarcho-socialism/commienism/whatever" that is a stupid oxymoron. Anarchism, by using simple logic, is total-capitalism.

So when you claim to be "anarcho-socialism" you are a COMMIE its simple. I get the impression that, deep inside, most of you "anarcho-socialists" know this is the truth but you put the "anarcho" label there for Public Relations purposes, so you dont have to say out loud that your entire ideological outlook is using the government steel-toe boot to get the individual in line.

And your COMMIENISM combined with your Internationalism means that not only you love big brother government on a national level (bad) but you also love big brother government on a Planetary level (bad 100x).

Stop trying to deceive yourself and others and put a Hammer and Sickle in your avatar.

Sorry man, but you're just completely uneducated on the subject of political philosophy. Or maybe you do know something I don't - I've never heard of this "COMMIENISM" you speak of. Did you take a course on that at your community college? Actually, you should probably stick to your rants about the benefits of being an abusive father, and why we shouldn't dismiss "time-tested" traditions like blood-letting and female genital mutilation. You provide a lot more laughs when you go full-blown crazy than when you pretend to understand anything more nuanced than GOOD GUYS vs. COMMIENISMISTS.

Any serious student of political philosophy realizes that there are many strains of anarchism. But you have to actually read real books rather than the latest ILLUMINATI-WATCHERS newsletter from Idaho to realize that.

Why don't you live up to your bullshit posting and cite a single thing I've written on this forum in which I advocate "Internationalism" and "Planetary Government". It's pretty obvious you just threw that in there because that's just part of the pea-brained paradigm you ascribe to, where there are two sides, one good, one evil, etc.

Anti Federalist
08-24-2010, 11:00 AM
All this thread has accomplished is to make me really go back and look at Ron Paul. He is starting to look like quite the failure to me. Judging by his ability to pick staff and judging by the people that support him that would most like end up in his staff I am not sure I care to waste time supporting him anymore. When half the people supporting him are prochoice, southern sympathizer racists, violent revolutionaries, anarchy-communists, repressed child molesters and violent kneejerk antiamericans I shutter to think what a RP administration would look like. When RP's ability to get anything done is to end up strengthening the FED when he has majority support for an audit, God help us what an administration of his would do. A Paul administration would make Reagan's look like an anarchy administration. RP talks the talk but can't walk the walk.

Wow, quite a rant, I think you've managed to indict just about everybody here, who has said something along those lines at least once or twice before.

You left in fit of pique once before and deleted everything you wrote.

Why you keep coming back to hang with us gutter folks in the cess pit?

erowe1
08-24-2010, 11:01 AM
Why you keep coming back to hang with us gutter folks in the cess pit?

Maybe he didn't get enough people begging him not to leave last time, so he wants to try again. This time with feeling.

klamath
08-24-2010, 11:27 AM
RP didn't literally run against him as an opponent. But he definitely did frame his campaign as being anti-Reagan. I don't really view it as 100% anti-Reagan, though. It was more a sense of disappointment about Reagan failing to deliver on the principles he ran on that had drawn RP to support him. I think it's that same aspect of Reagan that we should emphasize, rather than poking other Republicans in the eye and calling them idiots for liking the guy.

I have no beef with you Erowe, as you have always been more level headed.
This thread has really been the last straw. I like RP was part of the Reagan revolution from 1976 and shared his disappointment on how little Reagan was able to carry through. Electing Reagan and then seeing how little support there really was for reducing the size of the government with the American people, was a real educational era for a young ideological person like I was.
Reagan is judged by what he accomplished, not by what he tried. Now let us take Ron Paul's record and match it against what he has accomplished.
What bill has RP ever introduced and gotten passed?
Audit the FED. All the stars aligned for that audit. The FED got more powerful. Very very bad record for something that should have been a slam dunk.
Now take a look at RP's 2008 run. $30,000,000 and "He's catching on I'm telling ya":rolleyes: He couldn't even hold onto all of the few delegates he won. Some of them voted for frigging McCain. People claim RP ran a great educational campaign. Really? More than half of the people I know supporting him don't even hold his same views. They are pushing their OWN agenda not RP's. RP should not be throwing two many stones at Reagan because his accomplishment record for reducing the size of the government is far worse than Reagans. So far RP's only accomplishment in congress is getting earmarks to his district. Now how is that for reducing the size of government?

klamath
08-24-2010, 11:35 AM
Maybe he didn't get enough people begging him not to leave last time, so he wants to try again. This time with feeling.

Do you think I give a shit whether people beg me to stay. The only reason I bothered to come back around is because it bothered me that so many people were destorting what RP really represented. I am not even leaving this time. Since the people following RP don't care whether he gets elected why should I.

Danke
08-24-2010, 11:40 AM
This thread has really been the last straw.

YouTube - Play him off, keyboard cat (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lmybEBLD6Ik)

YumYum
08-24-2010, 11:46 AM
it bothered me that so many people were destorting what RP really represented.

What does Ron Paul represent?

Monarchist
08-24-2010, 11:55 AM
All this thread has accomplished is to make me really go back and look at Ron Paul. He is starting to look like quite the failure to me. Judging by his ability to pick staff and judging by the people that support him that would most like end up in his staff I am not sure I care to waste time supporting him anymore. When half the people supporting him are prochoice, southern sympathizer racists, violent revolutionaries, anarchy-communists, repressed child molesters and violent kneejerk antiamericans I shutter to think what a RP administration would look like. When RP's ability to get anything done is to end up strengthening the FED when he has majority support for an audit, God help us what an administration of his would do. A Paul administration would make Reagan's look like an anarchy administration. RP talks the talk but can't walk the walk.

Autocratic monarchists, too!

Ekrub
08-24-2010, 12:23 PM
I haven't read any posts other than the original post...

But I generally handle Reagan in the way that I've seen RP handle him... Praise him for "realizing the irrationality of middle eastern politics, staring down the Russians during the cold war, campaigning for Goldwater, and saying the heart of conservatism is libertarianism. I don't think that Reagan was great, but we can certainly use his words and ideas to get out the liberty message.

Not that all of you will care, but this weekend I became a proud father :) Sooooooooo awesome!

Anti Federalist
08-24-2010, 12:49 PM
At the end of it all, Reagan accomplished growing the size and scope of the federal government, in leaps and bounds, to levels never before seen.

He, through inattention, or through deliberate malfeasance, allowed a gun and drug running operation to work out of the White House for three years under his tenure.

If that's success, I'd prefer to "fail" for thirty years with Ron Paul, thanks.


I have no beef with you Erowe, as you have always been more level headed.
This thread has really been the last straw. I like RP was part of the Reagan revolution from 1976 and shared his disappointment on how little Reagan was able to carry through. Electing Reagan and then seeing how little support there really was for reducing the size of the government with the American people, was a real educational era for a young ideological person like I was.
Reagan is judged by what he accomplished, not by what he tried. Now let us take Ron Paul's record and match it against what he has accomplished.
What bill has RP ever introduced and gotten passed?
Audit the FED. All the stars aligned for that audit. The FED got more powerful. Very very bad record for something that should have been a slam dunk.
Now take a look at RP's 2008 run. $30,000,000 and "He's catching on I'm telling ya":rolleyes: He couldn't even hold onto all of the few delegates he won. Some of them voted for frigging McCain. People claim RP ran a great educational campaign. Really? More than half of the people I know supporting him don't even hold his same views. They are pushing their OWN agenda not RP's. RP should not be throwing two many stones at Reagan because his accomplishment record for reducing the size of the government is far worse than Reagans. So far RP's only accomplishment in congress is getting earmarks to his district. Now how is that for reducing the size of government?

ETA - And what did you think, that this was going to be easy? That the entrenched powers would just throw up their hands and walk away when faced with the mighty wrath of citizen money bombs and letter writing campaigns and marches?

I've said all along that this was going to require a fight, an idea with which you disagreed with, vehemently.

So, what to do at this point, go home?

pcosmar
08-24-2010, 01:17 PM
At the end of it all, Reagan accomplished growing the size and scope of the federal government, in leaps and bounds, to levels never before seen.

He, through inattention, or through deliberate malfeasance, allowed a gun and drug running operation to work out of the White House for three years under his tenure.

If that's success, I'd prefer to "fail" for thirty years with Ron Paul, thanks.

That is true. And I believe that Ron Paul was disappointed also. I believe that was the reason he left the GOP and ran on the Libertarian ticket.

But I also remember that the GOP FORCED Bush Sr. on Reagan against his wishes.
I remember that Reagan was suffering from Alzheimer and do not believe that he had any control over what was done during his administration.
I remember his words and message. (from before he was shot)

And I consider it a Bush Administration.
:(

kahless
08-24-2010, 01:18 PM
I have been here from near the begining, and have seen every one of those type people on here supporting RP in large numbers.

Taking a step back for a bit and thinking back to the time I first started posting here until now you are probably right. I think I just got used to ignoring it and browsing past it. When it gets to be too much of it I do stop reading the forums for while and then come back.

I come back since if they post these views then they are not supporting or represent the views of RP. This is why it is better that people that reflect his views stick around.

Anti Federalist
08-24-2010, 01:35 PM
That is true. And I believe that Ron Paul was disappointed also. I believe that was the reason he left the GOP and ran on the Libertarian ticket.

But I also remember that the GOP FORCED Bush Sr. on Reagan against his wishes.
I remember that Reagan was suffering from Alzheimer and do not believe that he had any control over what was done during his administration.
I remember his words and message. (from before he was shot)

And I consider it a Bush Administration.
:(

First it was Ford, but when he started insisting on a "copresidency" and appointing Kissinger and Greenspan, Reagan balked and they forced Bush on him, who was just as bad.

It was, in many ways, a Bush administration, just like you said, certainly the whole Iran/Contra mess was his fevered CIA tainted idea.

robert68
08-25-2010, 12:15 PM
Audit the FED. All the stars aligned for that audit. The FED got more powerful. Very very bad record for something that should have been a slam dunk.



How did the attempt to audit the FED, make it "more powerful"?

Fozz
08-25-2010, 01:33 PM
I have no beef with you Erowe, as you have always been more level headed.
This thread has really been the last straw. I like RP was part of the Reagan revolution from 1976 and shared his disappointment on how little Reagan was able to carry through. Electing Reagan and then seeing how little support there really was for reducing the size of the government with the American people, was a real educational era for a young ideological person like I was.
Reagan is judged by what he accomplished, not by what he tried. Now let us take Ron Paul's record and match it against what he has accomplished.
What bill has RP ever introduced and gotten passed?
Audit the FED. All the stars aligned for that audit. The FED got more powerful. Very very bad record for something that should have been a slam dunk.
Now take a look at RP's 2008 run. $30,000,000 and "He's catching on I'm telling ya":rolleyes: He couldn't even hold onto all of the few delegates he won. Some of them voted for frigging McCain. People claim RP ran a great educational campaign. Really? More than half of the people I know supporting him don't even hold his same views. They are pushing their OWN agenda not RP's. RP should not be throwing two many stones at Reagan because his accomplishment record for reducing the size of the government is far worse than Reagans. So far RP's only accomplishment in congress is getting earmarks to his district. Now how is that for reducing the size of government?

Ron Paul is the congressman of a small district in Texas. Reagan was the President of the United States. You are being ridiculously unrealistic.

klamath
08-25-2010, 02:00 PM
Ron Paul is the congressman of a small district in Texas. Reagan was the President of the United States. You are being ridiculously unrealistic.
Reagan is being judged by what he accomplished versus what he tried, same with Paul. It is judging leadership ability. I know for a fact that Reagan tried to cut the deficit, it increased instead and that is what he is judged on. Paul had over half of congress cosponsering audit the fed. He was in the leadership position there but he could not pull it off. If he cannot get one little bill through congress when he has them behind him how will is he going to do as president trying to get real serious cuts to peoples favorite programs? If Paul would act as he does as a congressmen as president and veto every bill that came before him he would be without question impeached If all money is cut off from social programs and government services because paul vetoed the budget repeatedly it would not be long before congress impeached him as incompetent and insane with a huge majority of the American people backing the impeachment.