Ike's GOP

The United States was formed by wealthy idealists who didn't want to pay their taxes.

The left is hardly liberal. Leftists try to impose their standard on everyone else every bit as much as anyone on the right does. I see VERY few on the left that can even define "liberal," much less be one.

You are incorrect about the GOP. The GOP has moved left. THAT is what's wrong with the GOP. Neocons and RINOs have moved left while leaving true conservatives out on the right. They were always there. They just stand out more since they've been left out on a limb. Claiming anyone moved right is merely subterfuge and rhetoric trying to convince others the left isn't moving left.

I was raised in a Democrat family by Democrats who were considered liberals. Now, people like you call us rightwingers. It isn't OUR values that have changed. They're still the same. People like you just pulled the rug out from under our feet on your leftward trip.

wambulance_logo.jpg
 
That's fine, but JFK liberalism, if that's what you want to call it, differs from the classical liberalism of the founders of the United States.

Kevin...first of all, liberalism is not the cookie cutter conformity of conservatism. Our founding fathers were individuals, but they shared a common desire for the SAME things JFK so eloquently forwarded:
For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

Sounds a lot like words Thomas Jefferson used in the Declaration of Independence.

The liberalism and beliefs of our founding fathers differed among them. Thomas Jefferson and Alexander Hamilton had vastly different visions of how their new republic should proceed...

I don't think you can apply rigid ideology to such enlightened men as Thomas Jefferson, whose own beliefs constantly evolved up until his death...


I think this is the most extraordinary collection of talent, of human knowledge, that has ever been gathered at the White House - with the possible exception of when Thomas Jefferson dined alone.
President John F. Kennedy (Speaking at a White House dinner for Nobel Prize winners, 1962)
 
Neither real liberalism or conservatism can be described by a laundry list of beliefs or policies.

Liberalism and Conservatism are not idealogical enemies.

They are really complimentary political philosophies.

Sadly we have been goaded by venal propagandists and a lifetime of lies and half truths into thinking that we are either liberal or conservative and therefore the OTHER side is the quientessence of evil.

We read childish examples of that thinking on this board every damned day.

We ALL drink koolaide because that's the only thing on the MSM menu.

History, for those of you willing to look into it deeply and without bias, keeps showing us what a load of bullshit we're being fed.

But that bullshit is DESIGNED to appeal to our prejudices, or conceits, our greed and our fears.

You think madison avernue is only selling us SOAP?!

They're selling us a very complex set of anti-humanist values which when put into place actually hurt us and our nation.

And it isn't JUST the commercials, that are doing this, either.

The programs themselves are selling us fantasies that are completely unworkable and in some cases truly TOXIC.

Those "reality shows" for example?

What is the basic presmise of most of them?

That betraying people are the WINNERS and decent people are all LOSERS.

This message of the I got mine.. get yours philosophy doesn't get much more overt than that, does it?

There's a hippie bumperstick which warns us to

KILL YOUR TV.

That box is the instrument of our collective brainwashing, ya' know.​
 
Last edited:
When defining Liberalism and Conservatism, people really should learn to specify whether they are referring to the American variety or European.

Both Liberalism and Conservatism stemmed from the doctrine: Liberalism.

Yes, confuses things a bit but it's the truth.

On the topic of the Republicans and the Democrats, they are simply mirrors of each other. People stopped caring about civic responsibility long ago and tossed American values, and logical thinking to the wind. Neither one of those parties is going to change that. Both the parties stand for nothing more than big-government, pro-corporation, politically correct hogwash.

"Change" is nothing more than a cry for help and the Obama sheep even know that deep down inside. Shy of a revolution, the problems of the United States aren't going to be solved by either one of those parties any longer. Time to move on, people.
 
When defining Liberalism and Conservatism, people really should learn to specify whether they are referring to the American variety or European.

Both Liberalism and Conservatism stemmed from the doctrine: Liberalism.

Yes, confuses things a bit but it's the truth.

On the topic of the Republicans and the Democrats, they are simply mirrors of each other. People stopped caring about civic responsibility long ago and tossed American values, and logical thinking to the wind. Neither one of those parties is going to change that. Both the parties stand for nothing more than big-government, pro-corporation, politically correct hogwash.

"Change" is nothing more than a cry for help and the Obama sheep even know that deep down inside. Shy of a revolution, the problems of the United States aren't going to be solved by either one of those parties any longer. Time to move on, people.

Well, sometimes you have to make value judgments... IMO, ALL of the Republicans are in the tank for the corporatocracy we've become, and the Democrats are about 50/50...

Obama is on the right course...

SO, you have to start somewhere, and it doesn't happen magically or overnight and it will never be perfect, maybe just BETTER...so, 'there is no time to lose; plant it this afternoon!'


The great French Marshall Lyautey once asked his gardener to plant a tree. The gardener objected that the tree was slow growing and would not reach maturity for 100 years. The Marshall replied, 'In that case, there is no time to lose; plant it this afternoon!'
President John F. Kennedy
 
Here is the liberalism I subscribe to...

240john_kennedy,0.jpg


A Liberal Definition by John F. Kennedy:
Excerpts from his Acceptance Speech
Liberal Party Nomination

September 14, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

I want to take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen.

This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.

Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city not only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.


A Liberal Definition by JFK

As this is supposed to be about "Ike's GOP" your post is :offtopic:

However, just a note in response. JFK may have been able to fool the people of 1960 that did not have the benefit of an additional 50 years of knowledge of what the "record" of his party was like, but we have the full benefit of exploring what and where the "Liberal" will do when they have the opportunity.

JFK may have been able to say that they did not put upon the cities, but we now know that when left to their devices, the liberal will mandate specific actions be done by state and local governments acting as a puppet proxy for the federal government to act in ways that the Constitution forbids it to act alone. To accomplish this the federal government run by the liberal extorts the action by tying federal dollars to the action. (ie no federal highway dollars unless the state implements a drinking age of 21).

I could go through his speech and rip apart each statement in similar fashion, but you have a flavor. It was ALL LIES, told to a bamboozled public ripe to be further bamboozled by the Great Society and now, 45 years later we are left with a 35 Trillion dollar unfunded liability to pay for it, a war on poverty that impoverished America but did not end poverty and the broken wreckage of liberal lies filling the landscape that the liberal tells us, "Just a little more.....we just haven't done enough....we've not spent enough money to solve these problems."

Thanks, but the doctor is a fraud. The liberal doctor has the wrong prescription. It leads to the dependency of the drug addict with roughly the same results in quality of life.
 
Here is the liberalism I subscribe to...

240john_kennedy,0.jpg


A Liberal Definition by John F. Kennedy:
Excerpts from his Acceptance Speech
Liberal Party Nomination

September 14, 1960

What do our opponents mean when they apply to us the label "Liberal?" If by "Liberal" they mean, as they want people to believe, someone who is soft in his policies abroad, who is against local government, and who is unconcerned with the taxpayer's dollar, then the record of this party and its members demonstrate that we are not that kind of "Liberal." But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."

I want to take the opportunity to set forth my views on the proper relationship between the state and the citizen.

This is my political credo:

I believe in human dignity as the source of national purpose, in human liberty as the source of national action, in the human heart as the source of national compassion, and in the human mind as the source of our invention and our ideas. It is, I believe, the faith in our fellow citizens as individuals and as people that lies at the heart of the liberal faith. For liberalism is not so much a party creed or set of fixed platform promises as it is an attitude of mind and heart, a faith in man's ability through the experiences of his reason and judgment to increase for himself and his fellow men the amount of justice and freedom and brotherhood which all human life deserves.

I believe also in the United States of America, in the promise that it contains and has contained throughout our history of producing a society so abundant and creative and so free and responsible that it cannot only fulfill the aspirations of its citizens, but serve equally well as a beacon for all mankind. I do not believe in a superstate. I see no magic in tax dollars which are sent to Washington and then returned. I abhor the waste and incompetence of large-scale federal bureaucracies in this administration as well as in others. I do not favor state compulsion when voluntary individual effort can do the job and do it well. But I believe in a government which acts, which exercises its full powers and full responsibilities. Government is an art and a precious obligation; and when it has a job to do, I believe it should do it. And this requires not only great ends but that we propose concrete means of achieving them.

Our responsibility is not discharged by announcement of virtuous ends. Our responsibility is to achieve these objectives with social invention, with political skill, and executive vigor. I believe for these reasons that liberalism is our best and only hope in the world today. For the liberal society is a free society, and it is at the same time and for that reason a strong society. Its strength is drawn from the will of free people committed to great ends and peacefully striving to meet them. Only liberalism, in short, can repair our national power, restore our national purpose, and liberate our national energies. And the only basic issue in the 1960 campaign is whether our government will fall in a conservative rut and die there, or whether we will move ahead in the liberal spirit of daring, of breaking new ground, of doing in our generation what Woodrow Wilson and Franklin Roosevelt and Harry Truman and Adlai Stevenson did in their time of influence and responsibility.

Our liberalism has its roots in our diverse origins. Most of us are descended from that segment of the American population which was once called an immigrant minority. Today, along with our children and grandchildren, we do not feel minor. We feel proud of our origins and we are not second to any group in our sense of national purpose. For many years New York represented the new frontier to all those who came from the ends of the earth to find new opportunity and new freedom, generations of men and women who fled from the despotism of the czars, the horrors of the Nazis, the tyranny of hunger, who came here to the new frontier in the State of New York. These men and women, a living cross section of American history, indeed, a cross section of the entire world's history of pain and hope, made of this city not only a new world of opportunity, but a new world of the spirit as well.


A Liberal Definition by JFK

As this is supposed to be about "Ike's GOP" your post is :offtopic:

However, just a note in response. JFK may have been able to fool the people of 1960 that did not have the benefit of an additional 50 years of knowledge of what the "record" of his party was like, but we have the full benefit of exploring what and where the "Liberal" will do when they have the opportunity.

JFK may have been able to say that they did not put upon the cities, but we now know that when left to their devices, the liberal will mandate specific actions be done by state and local governments acting as a puppet proxy for the federal government to act in ways that the Constitution forbids it to act alone. To accomplish this the federal government run by the liberal extorts the action by tying federal dollars to the action. (ie no federal highway dollars unless the state implements a drinking age of 21).

I could go through his speech and rip apart each statement in similar fashion, but you have a flavor. It was ALL LIES, told to a bamboozled public ripe to be further bamboozled by the Great Society and now, 45 years later we are left with a 35 Trillion dollar unfunded liability to pay for it, a war on poverty that impoverished America but did not end poverty and the broken wreckage of liberal lies filling the landscape that the liberal tells us, "Just a little more.....we just haven't done enough....we've not spent enough money to solve these problems."

Thanks, but the doctor is a fraud. The liberal doctor has the wrong prescription. It leads to the dependency of the drug addict with roughly the same results in quality of life.

The War on poverty, you mean the one Reagan and the Republicans derailed through deregulation, growing criticism of the welfare state, and an ideological shift to reducing federal aid to impoverished people in the 1980s?


Poverty_59_to_05.png
 
You're blaming Reagan for your party's failure?

I take that you are then saying in 1980, Carter's last year in office, you were in fact winning, by demonstrable measure, the war on poverty. Is that in fact what you are claiming?
 
You're blaming Reagan for your party's failure?

I take that you are then saying in 1980, Carter's last year in office, you were in fact winning, by demonstrable measure, the war on poverty. Is that in fact what you are claiming?

Figures don't lie, but liars figure...

Hey pea brain, how Nixon's War on Drugs coming along? HOW MANY people in Federal Prison for marijuana, which was classified as a more dangerous drug than methamphetamine?

HOW MANY people DIED because of Gestapo police raids?

Drug War Victims

The right wing pea brain "NANNY State" @ $35,000 per inmate per YEAR!

britannica_prison.jpg
 
You're blaming Reagan for your party's failure?

I take that you are then saying in 1980, Carter's last year in office, you were in fact winning, by demonstrable measure, the war on poverty. Is that in fact what you are claiming?

Figures don't lie, but liars figure...

Hey pea brain, how Nixon's War on Drugs coming along? HOW MANY people in Federal Prison for marijuana, which was classified as a more dangerous drug than methamphetamine?

HOW MANY people DIED because of Gestapo police raids?

Drug War Victims

The right wing pea brain "NANNY State" @ $35,000 per inmate per YEAR!

britannica_prison.jpg

you need to work on your deflection skillz.

this one was as transparent as obama's admin is supposed to be.

:rofl:


i
 
Typical liberal response. You can't defend your point so you change the subject and attack.



I'm in favor of legalization of all drugs, so you aren't going to score any points with me on that topic anyway.
 
You're blaming Reagan for your party's failure?

I take that you are then saying in 1980, Carter's last year in office, you were in fact winning, by demonstrable measure, the war on poverty. Is that in fact what you are claiming?

Reagan...you mean The Great American Socialist...Reagan?

Socialism has been much in the news for some months. Recently, some GOP stalwarts charged President Obama with preaching the heresy. John Boehner, the House minority leader, characterized Obama's stimulus package as, "one big down payment on a new American socialist experiment."

"Socialism" is a pejorative term in American politics and needs to be carefully examined. It usually refers to increased government control over the economy, or policies that promote the redistribution of wealth. There is no doubt that President Obama's economic measures, passed and proposed, will raise tax rates on the richest Americans to pay for increased government funding of health care, green energy and education. So the new president is indeed a redistributionist, but so was Ronald Reagan, except that Obama's plans will transfer wealth from the rich to the poor, whereas Reagan's bills transferred wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent. In fact, Obama's measures are puny, whereas Reagan's were massive. If the Democrat is a "small" socialist, Reagan was the Great American Socialist.

Cont.


"Washington couldn't tell a lie, Nixon couldn't tell the truth, and Reagan couldn't tell the difference."
Mort Sahl
 
You're blaming Reagan for your party's failure?

I take that you are then saying in 1980, Carter's last year in office, you were in fact winning, by demonstrable measure, the war on poverty. Is that in fact what you are claiming?

Reagan...you mean The Great American Socialist...Reagan?

Socialism has been much in the news for some months. Recently, some GOP stalwarts charged President Obama with preaching the heresy. John Boehner, the House minority leader, characterized Obama's stimulus package as, "one big down payment on a new American socialist experiment."

"Socialism" is a pejorative term in American politics and needs to be carefully examined. It usually refers to increased government control over the economy, or policies that promote the redistribution of wealth. There is no doubt that President Obama's economic measures, passed and proposed, will raise tax rates on the richest Americans to pay for increased government funding of health care, green energy and education. So the new president is indeed a redistributionist, but so was Ronald Reagan, except that Obama's plans will transfer wealth from the rich to the poor, whereas Reagan's bills transferred wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent. In fact, Obama's measures are puny, whereas Reagan's were massive. If the Democrat is a "small" socialist, Reagan was the Great American Socialist.

Cont.


"Washington couldn't tell a lie, Nixon couldn't tell the truth, and Reagan couldn't tell the difference."
Mort Sahl

why don't you just answer the question?
was the great society a success through 1980?

or are you going to conjure up warren harding in your next deflection?
 
You're blaming Reagan for your party's failure?

I take that you are then saying in 1980, Carter's last year in office, you were in fact winning, by demonstrable measure, the war on poverty. Is that in fact what you are claiming?

Reagan...you mean The Great American Socialist...Reagan?

Socialism has been much in the news for some months. Recently, some GOP stalwarts charged President Obama with preaching the heresy. John Boehner, the House minority leader, characterized Obama's stimulus package as, "one big down payment on a new American socialist experiment."

"Socialism" is a pejorative term in American politics and needs to be carefully examined. It usually refers to increased government control over the economy, or policies that promote the redistribution of wealth. There is no doubt that President Obama's economic measures, passed and proposed, will raise tax rates on the richest Americans to pay for increased government funding of health care, green energy and education. So the new president is indeed a redistributionist, but so was Ronald Reagan, except that Obama's plans will transfer wealth from the rich to the poor, whereas Reagan's bills transferred wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent. In fact, Obama's measures are puny, whereas Reagan's were massive. If the Democrat is a "small" socialist, Reagan was the Great American Socialist.

Cont.


"Washington couldn't tell a lie, Nixon couldn't tell the truth, and Reagan couldn't tell the difference."
Mort Sahl

If you believe it when somebody tells you that Ronald Reagan or his policies were socialist in character, then I would suggest you need to go take a few political science courses so that you won't be so confused in the future.
 
You're blaming Reagan for your party's failure?

I take that you are then saying in 1980, Carter's last year in office, you were in fact winning, by demonstrable measure, the war on poverty. Is that in fact what you are claiming?

Reagan...you mean The Great American Socialist...Reagan?

Socialism has been much in the news for some months. Recently, some GOP stalwarts charged President Obama with preaching the heresy. John Boehner, the House minority leader, characterized Obama's stimulus package as, "one big down payment on a new American socialist experiment."

"Socialism" is a pejorative term in American politics and needs to be carefully examined. It usually refers to increased government control over the economy, or policies that promote the redistribution of wealth. There is no doubt that President Obama's economic measures, passed and proposed, will raise tax rates on the richest Americans to pay for increased government funding of health care, green energy and education. So the new president is indeed a redistributionist, but so was Ronald Reagan, except that Obama's plans will transfer wealth from the rich to the poor, whereas Reagan's bills transferred wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent. In fact, Obama's measures are puny, whereas Reagan's were massive. If the Democrat is a "small" socialist, Reagan was the Great American Socialist.

Cont.


"Washington couldn't tell a lie, Nixon couldn't tell the truth, and Reagan couldn't tell the difference."
Mort Sahl

If you believe it when somebody tells you that Ronald Reagan or his policies were socialist in character, then I would suggest you need to go take a few political science courses so that you won't be so confused in the future.

No, I think you need to replace your pea brain with a real one...did Ronald Reagan redistribute wealth?
 
You're blaming Reagan for your party's failure?

I take that you are then saying in 1980, Carter's last year in office, you were in fact winning, by demonstrable measure, the war on poverty. Is that in fact what you are claiming?

Reagan...you mean The Great American Socialist...Reagan?

Socialism has been much in the news for some months. Recently, some GOP stalwarts charged President Obama with preaching the heresy. John Boehner, the House minority leader, characterized Obama's stimulus package as, "one big down payment on a new American socialist experiment."

"Socialism" is a pejorative term in American politics and needs to be carefully examined. It usually refers to increased government control over the economy, or policies that promote the redistribution of wealth. There is no doubt that President Obama's economic measures, passed and proposed, will raise tax rates on the richest Americans to pay for increased government funding of health care, green energy and education. So the new president is indeed a redistributionist, but so was Ronald Reagan, except that Obama's plans will transfer wealth from the rich to the poor, whereas Reagan's bills transferred wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent. In fact, Obama's measures are puny, whereas Reagan's were massive. If the Democrat is a "small" socialist, Reagan was the Great American Socialist.

Cont.


"Washington couldn't tell a lie, Nixon couldn't tell the truth, and Reagan couldn't tell the difference."
Mort Sahl

why don't you just answer the question?
was the great society a success through 1980?

or are you going to conjure up warren harding in your next deflection?

Can you read a chart?
 
Reagan...you mean The Great American Socialist...Reagan?

Socialism has been much in the news for some months. Recently, some GOP stalwarts charged President Obama with preaching the heresy. John Boehner, the House minority leader, characterized Obama's stimulus package as, "one big down payment on a new American socialist experiment."

"Socialism" is a pejorative term in American politics and needs to be carefully examined. It usually refers to increased government control over the economy, or policies that promote the redistribution of wealth. There is no doubt that President Obama's economic measures, passed and proposed, will raise tax rates on the richest Americans to pay for increased government funding of health care, green energy and education. So the new president is indeed a redistributionist, but so was Ronald Reagan, except that Obama's plans will transfer wealth from the rich to the poor, whereas Reagan's bills transferred wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent. In fact, Obama's measures are puny, whereas Reagan's were massive. If the Democrat is a "small" socialist, Reagan was the Great American Socialist.

Cont.


"Washington couldn't tell a lie, Nixon couldn't tell the truth, and Reagan couldn't tell the difference."
Mort Sahl

why don't you just answer the question?
was the great society a success through 1980?

or are you going to conjure up warren harding in your next deflection?

Can you read a chart?

better than you can answer a question, apparently.
why don't you just answer the question?
was the great society successful up until 1980? yes or no.

i'll help you and do my own deflection.

Edward_Doheney_Testifying.jpg


warren harding was a disgrace, etc, etc
Teapot Dome scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 
Reagan...you mean The Great American Socialist...Reagan?

Socialism has been much in the news for some months. Recently, some GOP stalwarts charged President Obama with preaching the heresy. John Boehner, the House minority leader, characterized Obama's stimulus package as, "one big down payment on a new American socialist experiment."

"Socialism" is a pejorative term in American politics and needs to be carefully examined. It usually refers to increased government control over the economy, or policies that promote the redistribution of wealth. There is no doubt that President Obama's economic measures, passed and proposed, will raise tax rates on the richest Americans to pay for increased government funding of health care, green energy and education. So the new president is indeed a redistributionist, but so was Ronald Reagan, except that Obama's plans will transfer wealth from the rich to the poor, whereas Reagan's bills transferred wealth from the poor and the middle class to the opulent. In fact, Obama's measures are puny, whereas Reagan's were massive. If the Democrat is a "small" socialist, Reagan was the Great American Socialist.

Cont.


"Washington couldn't tell a lie, Nixon couldn't tell the truth, and Reagan couldn't tell the difference."
Mort Sahl

If you believe it when somebody tells you that Ronald Reagan or his policies were socialist in character, then I would suggest you need to go take a few political science courses so that you won't be so confused in the future.

No, I think you need to replace your pea brain with a real one...did Ronald Reagan redistribute wealth?

Now you are just being annoying. Answer the fucking question!

Was the war on poverty working in 1980, Carter's last year in office. Stop obfuscating and deflecting, and answer the question. It was your assertion, now back it up, or STFU.
 
why don't you just answer the question?
was the great society a success through 1980?

or are you going to conjure up warren harding in your next deflection?

Can you read a chart?

better than you can answer a question, apparently.
why don't you just answer the question?
was the great society successful up until 1980? yes or no.

i'll help you and do my own deflection.

Edward_Doheney_Testifying.jpg


warren harding was a disgrace, etc, etc
Teapot Dome scandal - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Well del, the Great Society was LBJ's...Johnson introduced it in 1964 and he resigned in 1968, but the chart during the years OF the Great Society show a marked decline in poverty in America and a marked increase during the Reagan years...

The legacy of the War on Poverty remains in the continued existence of such federal programs as Head Start and Job Corps.
 
if you believe it when somebody tells you that ronald reagan or his policies were socialist in character, then i would suggest you need to go take a few political science courses so that you won't be so confused in the future.

no, i think you need to replace your pea brain with a real one...did ronald reagan redistribute wealth?

now you are just being annoying. Answer the fucking question!

Was the war on poverty working in 1980, carter's last year in office. Stop obfuscating and deflecting, and answer the question. It was your assertion, now back it up, or stfu.

fuck you
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top