If Ronald Reagan would be alive nowadays he would be a democrat ?!?

  • Thread starter Bert Blitzkrieg
  • Start date
B

Bert Blitzkrieg

Guest
According to several analysts the Republican party has moved considerably to th eright and got more conservative. Due to, among others, the tea-party and FOX Network.
They went so far as to state that Ronald Reagan and Richard Nixon were politically far more moderate then the Republican Party is nowadays and that they probably would have been shunned by the republicans as to left/moderate.

Since I look at these things from the other side of the Atlantic I'm curious if you American guys can acknowledge this. Or not.
 
Yes, the Republican party has morphed from it's former self. So much so that Saint Reagan could not win the nomination today. The northeastern states used to be a bastion of moderate Republicans, no more in this day of T-baggers and American Taliban running the party. Senator Olympia Snow, a Republican moderate from Maine, recently announced her resignation from the Senate because she disliked the hyper partisan nature of today's politics. Because of this problem, there is concern amongst Republicans that they are being marginalized in their relevancy to the American electorate. Barring a return to their moderate path, we may well be seeing the party turned from a national power into a regional power in the American south.
 
No, he wouldn't. In my view, which is from the region of the American south, so please take it as has been previously insinuated..... (I really like you FAC so please don't get mad. We really need to met sometime. It would be fun conversation!!!)

Here are examples of why I say that. Quotes from Reagan himself:
Man is not free unless government is limited.
Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty.
No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!
Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.
Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.

The current political situation in the US is based on a majority of the population that believes in this quote (in my opinion):
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
That quote is from Karl Marx.

My country is currently in the throws of a battle of the classes. It is bad to be wealthy (I am Not) but I have a family member who is. He's my brother. I grew up with him. I remember how we grew up. No one gave us Jack Shi@. My brother busted his ass, paid for his own education, moved to Silicon Valley, had some ideas and hit it big time. His ideas have probably created thousands of high paying jobs. Now the government thinks he should pay his "Fair share". He does. He has probably paid more taxes that all the money I have made in my life. So what is fair? Is it fair that he worked hard? Is it fair that he's smarter than most? Is it fair that he took the risk of moving to Silicon Valley with nothing and making it?

It is interesting to see what is happening in France. http://www.dailysquib.co.uk/business/3321-wealthy-french-to-leave-sinking-ship-france.html
Will this be America in 2016 or sooner?

Look, the Democrats won. Congrats. Let's try it their way. Let's see if we can do socialism better than everyone else that failed at it did. Lets see if we can convince everyone that their human desire to achieve is a lost cause. Let's tax the hell out of the rich and make those bastards pay "Their fair share". Lets see if we can make
"From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs." work. Because no one else has. I challenge anyone to give me an example of that quote that is working.

It took Jimmy Carter to give us Ronald Reagan. Who will we get after Obama?

Ultimately I don't think that the Republican party has moved drastically to the right. I believe that the American public has moved to the left.
 
Ronald Reagan had folks negotiating with Iran before he was elected, while the hostages were still being held. Thereby weakening Carter's attempts to get them released and helping Reagan's election plans. The hostages weren't released on inauguration day because Iran was afraid of the US (and Reagan, though it was oft presented as the reason why they finally did return them), it was simply the deal he worked out with the Ayatollah (it made good political theater).

He made deals with Iran and sent aid to the Contras, when it was against the law. He then allowed for the cover-up that followed. His point man on Iran/Contra, Oliver North, went before Congress, wearing 'my' uniform, raised his right hand and swore to tell the truth, then lied his arse off in order to protect Saint Reagan.


So while I think some of Reagan's quotes are actually very good, it does not remove the taint of treason from his record.

And I would hardly get mad at you for presenting your opinion DT, I love a good debate. You are by no means the only person I have crossed verbal swords with in my life and my ego is sufficiently formed to recognize that I am not always correct. I close with my usual disclaimer...With my opinion and a couple of bucks, you can get a cup of coffee somewhere.
 
Facman said:
So while I think some of Reagan's quotes are actually very good, it does not remove the taint of treason from his record.
.
Click to expand...
I think there's some conspiracy theory going there.

I won't even go into Carters failures and his treasonous activities that continue to this day. I still remember his sweater campaign to solve the energy crisis of his presidency. There's a reason that both Clinton and Obama haven't reached out for his support during their campaigns.

But I digress. This was about Reagan. We'll be looking for another Reagan in 2016. I hope Marco Rubio doesn't have any nasty skeleton's in his closet. Or maybe Herman Cain would make a run for it again. I really couldn't care less for who he smacked on the ass in a cab 20 years ago. Cain would have made a great president. Or Condoleezza Rice would be a good one. A ticket like Rubio/Rice would be unstoppable in 2016.

And yes, a friendly debate is always fun!!!
 
Let's see if we can do socialism better than everyone else that failed at it did.
Click to expand...
Wow DasTiger , you must think Canada, Holland, Sweden, Denmark, France, etc are all communist countries by your understanding of definitions?
 
2054172 said:
Wow DasTiger , you must think Canada, Holland, Sweden, Denmark, France, etc are all communist countries by your understanding of definitions?
Click to expand...
Wow numberz, your attempt to over generalize my thoughts or statements won't work. So a "wow" is not necessary in this situation.

I simply quoted a common belief in a type of economic theory. And that economic theory, when implemented in it's very basic sense (I.e. to make everything "Fair") does not take into account the basic human nature to provide for ones self or to self preserve. I didn't state any definitions so I think you have taken my statements and are putting words into my mouth that I didn't say.

Do I think that the countries you mention are communist? No. Why would I think that? Maybe there is something I don't understand (Being from the Southern United States that's always possible...) but as far as I know the Government's of those countries don't own the means of production. They just tax the shi# out of their citizens.

So "wow" back to you.
 
Nort said:
Now that's provocative ...
Click to expand...
Yes. That would be definition #1 of provocative. Especially the last word.....
pro·voc·a·tive [pruh-vok-uh-tiv] Show IPA
adjective
1. tending or serving to provoke; inciting, stimulating, irritating, or vexing.
 
Look, the Democrats won. Congrats. Let's try it their way. Let's see if we can do socialism better than everyone else that failed at it did. Lets see if we can convince everyone that their human desire to achieve is a lost cause. Let's tax the hell out of the rich and make those bastards pay "Their fair share".
Click to expand...
Now it would seem that by your above statement you imply that the Democrats and their polices are socialistic in nature. May be I have been in the snow to long to understand the progression of politics. I believe it usually follows this vein... Capitalism-Socialism-Communism- Barter System-National Socialism -Capitalism-etc-etc. May not be exact as noted here but I believe in theory that is the flow. You want to stop the natural flow of politics.

From what I see the Democrats would be classified small 'c' Conservative in this country. Also my understanding there has not been a successful type of communism but many successes of socialism in many democratic countries. Some as I listed before, and as you may know we have never had a socialistic government in Canada,l though the socially concerned numbered enough to have Liberal's and Conservatives vote for socially motivated policies like universal health care and employment insurance, and the Canada Pension Plan to name a few.

They just tax the shi# out of their citizens.
Click to expand...
The taxes are necessary for the good of the community as a whole. If we all contribute a little according to our means, we can all live in relative harmony with each other. The problem always comes for those spending the monies collected poorly, or not for what they were gathered for. Or there is always the greed factor of people not willing to partake in the social community. One does find it more so with those who have more money to begin with, the rich as you put it. I prefer to live in a country that wants good roads, universal health care, etc. and a type of equality of the masses. Not a country that less then 10% of the people control the money, the government, and all other aspects of society, and the rest live in abject poverty.( i.e Guatemala )
 
2054172 said:
Now it would seem that by your above statement you imply that the Democrats and their polices are socialistic in nature. May be I have been in the snow to long to understand the progression of politics. I believe it usually follows this vein... Capitalism-Socialism-Communism- Barter System-National Socialism -Capitalism-etc-etc. May not be exact as noted here but I believe in theory that is the flow. You want to stop the natural flow of politics.
Click to expand...

I really have no idea how you think I want to stop the flow of politics. That's a reach at best. And I can't think of any country has gone the flow as you describe it. Maybe from Barter to something else with a revolution thrown in there. But not the flow you speak of. But I digress. You're correct. That is what I am insinuating. And I believe that those forms of government in their purest forms, don't work as well as others such as a regulated capitalist society. The more socialist a country is the farther down the GDP list they go. Look it up. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(nominal)
Where's Vietnam, North Korea, etc? China figured how to save socialism/communism by making their people think that they were capitalists. There are tons of articles about it. But that's a whole different cat to skin. And as I said, I understand the "Quality of life" rankings. But my dog thought she had a GREAT quality of life. And when you take a capitalist country and try to turn it more socialist you're going to have huge issues. As stated earlier, and maybe you can explain, what's happening in France?

2054172 said:
From what I see the Democrats would be classified small 'c' Conservative in this country.
Click to expand...

I guess your speaking of Canada. I love Canadians. You guys created hockey, I think, so you guys rule.

2054172 said:
Also my understanding there has not been a successful type of communism but many successes of socialism in many democratic countries. Some as I listed before, and as you may know we have never had a socialistic government in Canada,l though the socially concerned numbered enough to have Liberal's and Conservatives vote for socially motivated policies like universal health care and employment insurance, and the Canada Pension Plan to name a few.
Click to expand...

We've got all of that now and had most of it for a long time. And were now working on your taxes.....


2054172 said:
The taxes are necessary for the good of the community as a whole. If we all contribute a little according to our means, we can all live in relative harmony with each other. The problem always comes for those spending the monies collected poorly, or not for what they were gathered for. Or there is always the greed factor of people not willing to partake in the social community. One does find it more so with those who have more money to begin with, the rich as you put it. I prefer to live in a country that wants good roads, universal health care, etc. and a type of equality of the masses. Not a country that less then 10% of the people control the money, the government, and all other aspects of society, and the rest live in abject poverty.( i.e Guatemala )
Click to expand...
Thanks for the education. I had know idea what taxes were for. But I've been to Canada (GREAT country) and am wondering when you guys are getting the good roads? Those winters are hell on asphalt.

And as this thread started with a discussion of Reagan, I'll go back to him.
The best minds are not in government. If any were, business would hire them away.
Ronald Reagan
2054172 said:
I prefer to live in a country that wants good roads, universal health care, etc. and a type of equality of the masses. Not a country that less then 10% of the people control the money, the government, and all other aspects of society, and the rest live in abject poverty.( i.e Guatemala )
Click to expand...
Cool. You stay in your country and I'll stay in mine. But is it OK if I visit sometimes? You guys have some of the best trout fishing in the world!
 
Glad I could help you, next time I will not use so many big words.
 
 
DasTiger said:
Quotes from Reagan himself:
Man is not free unless government is limited.
Government's view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
Concentrated power has always been the enemy of liberty.
No government ever voluntarily reduces itself in size. Government programs, once launched, never disappear. Actually, a government bureau is the nearest thing to eternal life we'll ever see on this earth!
Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.
Government is like a baby. An alimentary canal with a big appetite at one end and no sense of responsibility at the other.
Government does not solve problems; it subsidizes them.
Click to expand...

There are similar quotes like these from president Woodrow Wilson. So, they're not "typical" republican. But I don't think (from what I read and heard about the elections) this is was a very important issue in the e;lections. Unless you thing Obamacare falls in this catagory.

DasTiger said:
The current political situation in the US is based on a majority of the population that believes in this quote (in my opinion):
From each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.
That quote is from Karl Marx.

My country is currently in the throws of a battle of the classes. It is bad to be wealthy (I am Not) but I have a family member who is. He's my brother. I grew up with him. I remember how we grew up. No one gave us Jack Shi@. My brother busted his ass, paid for his own education, moved to Silicon Valley, had some ideas and hit it big time. His ideas have probably created thousands of high paying jobs. Now the government thinks he should pay his "Fair share". He does. He has probably paid more taxes that all the money I have made in my life. So what is fair? Is it fair that he worked hard? Is it fair that he's smarter than most? Is it fair that he took the risk of moving to Silicon Valley with nothing and making it?
Click to expand...

Not everything Marx said was bad.;) As a statement I agree with Marx, but like you remarked it is difficult to make it work good. People should be challenged!

Your brother did very well for himself. And he workerd hard for it. So of course he should be awarded for it. But how big should this reward be? Don't forget there are thousands and thousands of people in the US who have worked their chops of too and never got as far as your brother, because they are less talented, or at the wrong place at the right/wrong time or just plain unlucky.

As I understand a lot of really wealthy Americans (like Bill Gates and Warren Buffet) don't mind to pay more taxes then they do now. But still the Republicans barred a tax raise in Congress.
 
All I can say is that hope there is a Yeshua, because if there is, few of the wealthy will make it to heaven.

Mark 10-25..."It is easier for a Camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter the Kingdom of God"

As for the Republicans refusing to raise taxes, they have signed an oath, presented by Grover Norquist, that precludes their raising any taxes. This oath apparently supersedes their oath to serve their country.
 
Facman said:
As for the Republicans refusing to raise taxes, they have signed an oath, presented by Grover Norquist, that precludes their raising any taxes. This oath apparently supersedes their oath to serve their country.
Click to expand...

Is this true? Can't imagine it is. It would make the Republicans in Congress a farce. Disgusting.
 
Is this true? Can't imagine it is.
Click to expand...

"Political activist Grover Norquist authored an oath, the so-called "Taxpayer Protection Pledge," that 279 Senators and Congressman have signed. The oath states the signatories will never vote to raise taxes on anyone under any circumstances." link to CBS News... http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-18560_162-57327816/the-pledge-grover-norquists-hold-on-the-gop/

"Historian Bruce Bartlett, former domestic policy adviser to President Ronald Reagan, has called Starve the Beast "the most pernicious fiscal doctrine in history", and blames it for the increase in US government debt since the 1980s."link to article in Forbes May 7th 2010... http://www.forbes.com/2010/05/06/tax-cuts-republicans-starve-the-beast-columnists-bruce-bartlett.html

You need not take my word for it, see for yourself, and come to your own conclusions as to it's being true or false.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom