View Full Version : U.S. Issues Reagan loved libertarianism. Today's "GOP" does not...
You've seen the Reagan quotes. Here are a few FIXED NOISE "favorite sons" saying something that Reagan would have, well, not given a jelly bean for...
Mike Huck-a-THUMP
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/05/huckabee-libertarianism-not-an-american-message-lp-responds/
"In a recent interview with Huffington Post contributor Will Mari, former GOP presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee called libertarianism “not an American message,” stating libertarianism was a “soulless type of economic conservatism” and a threat to Republicanism."
Yes, the GOP did just terribly under Reagan, Bush 41 and Gingrich pushing that "soulless type of economic conservatism.
Huck-a-THUMP embraced W's "compassionate conservatism" which is actually neither. It is Bible Thumping used to do away with freedom and "compassion" in the form of pork and other spending. Mike Huck-a-THUMP was a BIG BIG SPENDER in Arkansas...
Lindsey Graham, another TWNBTS with a sub 30 IQ...
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/lindsey_graham_insults_libertarians_gets_heckled_at_south_carolina_gop_conv/
Essentially, Graham argues that his porking out is what keeps him in office, a "Republican" in office, who votes for every pork out he gets a slice of...
Jeb Bush...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/03/gop-listens-in-drive-to-thrive/
"Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Saturday that it's time for the Republican Party to give up its "nostalgia" for the heyday of the Reagan era and look forward, even if it means stealing the winning strategy deployed by Democrats in the 2008 election."
Curious what that "winning strategy" was? Was it to support even more spending than Obama???
patteeu
10-02-2009, 12:32 PM
Here are some other quotes that Reagan wouldn't have agreed with:
"It sounds like voodoo economics." - George H.W. Bush (http://www.movietome.com/people/155252/george-herbert-walker-bush/trivia.html) referring to economic theories advanced by Ronald Reagan.
"You all know that I believe in a woman’s right to choose and I strongly support affirmative action." - Colin Powell (http://www.issues2000.org/Colin_Powell.htm) (you have to click on the "full quote on abortion" link)
Here are some other quotes that Reagan wouldn't have agreed with:
"It sounds like voodoo economics." - George H.W. Bush (http://www.movietome.com/people/155252/george-herbert-walker-bush/trivia.html) referring to economic theories advanced by Ronald Reagan.
"You all know that I believe in a woman’s right to choose and I strongly support affirmative action." - Colin Powell (http://www.issues2000.org/Colin_Powell.htm) (you have to click on the "full quote on abortion" link)
George HW Bush was not an economist. He was, however, a rational guy who saw the light as it shined. He was not a Reaganomics guy in 1980. He was when it mattered most, when he held the veto pen.
Colin Powell has a pretty narrow definition of "affirmative action." One of the tactics of the Left was to attack black opponents of affirmative action like Clarence Thomas with the "you are a hypocrite because you benefited from AA." Powell's argument is actually stronger and allows him to blunt criticism while narrowing the scope of what he means by AA. Powell is against "quotas," for example. What does that really mean?
Powell is fiscally conservative and understands why fiscal conservatism is good for the US, all of it.
Powell is fully qualified as a military CinC and has a huge amount of understanding of global geopolitics.
Powell is for conservative, non-interventionalist foreign policy based on US national interest only.
Powell is a high character guy who served his country and had the intelligence to comprehend fiscal conservatism, which means his brain is about 5000 years more evolved than your brain...
patteeu
10-02-2009, 12:55 PM
George HW Bush was not an economist. He was, however, a rational guy who saw the light as it shined. He was not a Reaganomics guy in 1980. He was when it mattered most, when he held the veto pen.
Colin Powell has a pretty narrow definition of "affirmative action." One of the tactics of the Left was to attack black opponents of affirmative action like Clarence Thomas with the "you are a hypocrite because you benefited from AA." Powell's argument is actually stronger and allows him to blunt criticism while narrowing the scope of what he means by AA. Powell is against "quotas," for example. What does that really mean?
Powell is fiscally conservative and understands why fiscal conservatism is good for the US, all of it.
Powell is fully qualified as a military CinC and has a huge amount of understanding of global geopolitics.
Powell is for conservative, non-interventionalist foreign policy based on US national interest only.
Powell is a high character guy who served his country and had the intelligence to comprehend fiscal conservatism, which means his brain is about 5000 years more evolved than your brain...
It's up to you if you want to have moderate Republicans as your political idols. I prefer true conservatives like Ronald Reagan and Dick Cheney. Ron Paul's great too, but I can't abide his naive and idealistic foreign policy positions.
BucEyedPea
10-02-2009, 03:19 PM
It's up to you if you want to have moderate Republicans as your political idols. I prefer true conservatives like Ronald Reagan and Dick Cheney. Ron Paul's great too, but I can't abide his naive and idealistic foreign policy positions.
Dick Cheney is not a conservative. He's a Hamiltonian mercantilist who has made his money off govt.
petegz28
10-02-2009, 03:29 PM
George HW Bush was not an economist. He was, however, a rational guy who saw the light as it shined. He was not a Reaganomics guy in 1980. He was when it mattered most, when he held the veto pen.
Colin Powell has a pretty narrow definition of "affirmative action." One of the tactics of the Left was to attack black opponents of affirmative action like Clarence Thomas with the "you are a hypocrite because you benefited from AA." Powell's argument is actually stronger and allows him to blunt criticism while narrowing the scope of what he means by AA. Powell is against "quotas," for example. What does that really mean?
Powell is fiscally conservative and understands why fiscal conservatism is good for the US, all of it.
Powell is fully qualified as a military CinC and has a huge amount of understanding of global geopolitics.
Powell is for conservative, non-interventionalist foreign policy based on US national interest only.
Powell is a high character guy who served his country and had the intelligence to comprehend fiscal conservatism, which means his brain is about 5000 years more evolved than your brain...
George H. W. Bush was a secret society figurehead.
patteeu
10-02-2009, 04:04 PM
Dick Cheney is not a conservative. He's a Hamiltonian mercantilist who has made his money off govt.
I just want you to know how happy for you I am that TFG showed up on this site. You're no longer the most ridiculous ChiefsPlanet member when it comes to political labels.
You've seen the Reagan quotes. Here are a few FIXED NOISE "favorite sons" saying something that Reagan would have, well, not given a jelly bean for...
Mike Huck-a-THUMP
http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2008/05/huckabee-libertarianism-not-an-american-message-lp-responds/
"In a recent interview with Huffington Post contributor Will Mari, former GOP presidential hopeful Mike Huckabee called libertarianism “not an American message,” stating libertarianism was a “soulless type of economic conservatism” and a threat to Republicanism."
Yes, the GOP did just terribly under Reagan, Bush 41 and Gingrich pushing that "soulless type of economic conservatism.
Huck-a-THUMP embraced W's "compassionate conservatism" which is actually neither. It is Bible Thumping used to do away with freedom and "compassion" in the form of pork and other spending. Mike Huck-a-THUMP was a BIG BIG SPENDER in Arkansas...
Lindsey Graham, another TWNBTS with a sub 30 IQ...
http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/lindsey_graham_insults_libertarians_gets_heckled_at_south_carolina_gop_conv/
Essentially, Graham argues that his porking out is what keeps him in office, a "Republican" in office, who votes for every pork out he gets a slice of...
Jeb Bush...
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2009/may/03/gop-listens-in-drive-to-thrive/
"Former Florida Gov. Jeb Bush said Saturday that it's time for the Republican Party to give up its "nostalgia" for the heyday of the Reagan era and look forward, even if it means stealing the winning strategy deployed by Democrats in the 2008 election."
Curious what that "winning strategy" was? Was it to support even more spending than Obama???I'd prefer it if you didn't associate yourself with us. You give us a bad name.
|Zach|
10-02-2009, 04:07 PM
I just want you to know how happy for you I am that TFG showed up on this site. You're no longer the most ridiculous ChiefsPlanet member when it comes to political labels.
LMAOLMAO
patteeu
10-02-2009, 04:32 PM
Here's another quote that you wouldn't have heard from Ronald Reagan:
I have some concerns about the direction that the [Republican] party has taken in recent years. It has moved more to the right than I would like to see it, but that's a choice the party makes. - Colin Powell, endorsing the most liberal POTUS candidate in the history of our country.
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/T_NMZv6Vfh8&hl=en&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/T_NMZv6Vfh8&hl=en&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
I accept that the media has defined
"conservative"
as
"a Bible Thumping bigot too stupid to understand the difference between a Sunni and a Shia and hence supported the most liberal act of US foreign policy in US history=Iraq while our terror remained not a priority"
The media has always called supporters of Iraq "conservative." They call Joe Lieberman a "moderate." Lieberman is completely left wing and wants to use the US military to wipe out Israel's enemies. Just check his ACU rating - 16 - with votes for the War on Exclusively Anti-Israel Terror and altering the US Constitution counting as "conservative." Absolutely nothing about Joe Lieberman is anything but far left - nothing.
Powell speaks to the media in the media's language. That the GOP "moved to the right" under W is absolutely laughable. Under W, the GOP moved from fiscal conservatism to fiscal liberalism and then some, from the party of openness and sunshine to the party of Cheney's secrecy and lying, from a party proud of its libertarians to a party that went out of its way to purge its libertarians, from a party eager to out pork seeking lobbyists to a party controlled by pork seeking lobbyists, from a party of patriotism to a party of treason, selling out our troops, and making our terror "not a priority."
If under W the GOP "moved to the right" then "the right" doesn't seem very "conservative" to me.
Anyone who calls Dick Cheney a "conservative" is someone who is dedicated to destroying the GOP of Reagan, Bush 41, and Gingrich. Dick Cheney is a leech, a socialist, a liar, a big government elitist who thinks he has no accountability at all. He is the complete antithesis of the Contract with America.
patteeu
10-02-2009, 05:04 PM
I see. You've got your own secret vocabulary and everyone else is wrong. When Powell says "too far to the right" what he's really saying is "too far to the left". Got it. ROFL
I see. You've got your own secret vocabulary and everyone else is wrong. When Powell says "too far to the right" what he's really saying is "too far to the left". Got it. ROFL
Instead of always just parroting, why don't you tell us precisely what W did to make the GOP "too far to the right?"
Start the Jeopardy! music...
Was it
A) socializing senior drugs by lying about the cost
B) trying to change the US Constitution to appease Joe Lieberman
C) spending more than any Prez since LBJ
D) re-writing our traditional standards for troop deployment from actual acts of war to lies and suspicions
E) selling out our troops to a foreign lobby to raise cash and get favorable media coverage from the likes of "too far to the right" NYT reporter Judy Miller
Tell us. Don't just parrot "they moved to the right." Show us WHERE, specifically...
Pioli Zombie
10-02-2009, 05:52 PM
Hey TFG you wanna catch some of the Woody Allen Film Festival later?
Posted via Mobile Device
Taco John
10-02-2009, 06:57 PM
Dick Cheney is not a conservative. He's a Hamiltonian mercantilist who has made his money off govt.
I don't know why you insist on doing that. Nobody here knows what a Hamiltonian is, let alone a mercantilist. You might be right, but you're wasting your breath when you say it because less than 5% of the board have any idea what the terms even mean.
Pioli Zombie
10-02-2009, 09:33 PM
TFG mother was Jewish.
Posted via Mobile Device
I don't know why you insist on doing that. Nobody here knows what a Hamiltonian is, let alone a mercantilist. You might be right, but you're wasting your breath when you say it because less than 5% of the board have any idea what the terms even mean.
Less than 5% of this board has an IQ over 30, but posting truth is never wrong.
I have asked what W did to "move the GOP to the right."
So far, aside from parroting an interview with Powell, where the Iraq Treason was clearly accepted by Powell and the interviewer as "to the right," I have seen not one example at all. Indeed, I will once again list the "lefties" who opposed Iraq in real time because their IQ was over 30...
Pat Buchanan
the late Bob Novak
Sen Chuck Hagel
Bob Barr
George HW Bush
H Norman Schwarzkopf
Brent Scowcroft
and now some "to the right" types who did support the Iraq Treason...
Dianne Feinstein
Joe Lieberman
Chuck Schumer
Ed Koch
Katie Couric
Hillary
John Kerry (opposed Desert Storm, supported Iraq Treason = 0-2 getting it right)
Indeed, switching the definition of "conservative" and "to the right" from fiscal issues to IQ/Bible Thumping was always the goal of the Left. The Left would much rather run against an invalid Bible Thumper with no understanding of geopolitics and finance relative to someone smart like Bush 41 or Reagan...
Pioli Zombie
10-03-2009, 05:57 AM
Try the chopped liver. Its to die for. And the portions!
Posted via Mobile Device
patteeu
10-03-2009, 06:38 AM
Instead of always just parroting, why don't you tell us precisely what W did to make the GOP "too far to the right?"
Start the Jeopardy! music...
Was it
A) socializing senior drugs by lying about the cost
B) trying to change the US Constitution to appease Joe Lieberman
C) spending more than any Prez since LBJ
D) re-writing our traditional standards for troop deployment from actual acts of war to lies and suspicions
E) selling out our troops to a foreign lobby to raise cash and get favorable media coverage from the likes of "too far to the right" NYT reporter Judy Miller
Tell us. Don't just parrot "they moved to the right." Show us WHERE, specifically...
That's my point, moron. Ask the guy who said it; your "conservative" buddy, Colin Powell.
Saul Good
10-03-2009, 07:18 AM
Try the chopped liver. Its to die for. And the portions!
Posted via Mobile Device
Pioli, you're the best. You want so badly to say something witty and clever. Bless your heart.
That's my point, moron. Ask the guy who said it; your "conservative" buddy, Colin Powell.
The only "point" you have ever made here is that you have precisely no intelligence at all beyond the parrot species. When asked to specify, all you ever do is parrot and toss cards.
Pioli Zombie
10-03-2009, 09:14 AM
Pioli, you're the best. You want so badly to say something witty and clever. Bless your heart.
I just hope to be as clever and witty as you someday.
Posted via Mobile Device
Pioli Zombie
10-03-2009, 09:15 AM
The only "point" you have ever made here is that you have precisely no intelligence at all beyond the parrot species. When asked to specify, all you ever do is parrot and toss cards.
Did you get a lot of presents at your Bar Mitzvah?
Posted via Mobile Device
That's my point, moron. Ask the guy who said it; your "conservative" buddy, Colin Powell.
You cannot even name ONE SINGLE THING that W did that was "to the right."
NOT ONE...
Did you get a lot of presents at your Bar Mitzvah?
Posted via Mobile Device
Are you still proud that you fell for the intentional lies used to get 4000 killed, 30000 maimed, and flushed a trillion US taxdollars down the shitter over nothing in our national interest in Iraq.
Oh, I forgot, you and the rest of the Zionist Traitors knew the lies were lies, and you cheered them all...
stevieray
10-03-2009, 10:32 AM
Are you still proud that you fell for the intentional lies used to get 4000 killed, 30000 maimed, and flushed a trillion US taxdollars down the shitter over nothing in our national interest in Iraq.
over nothing? if it was over nothing Saddam would've stood his ground and fought it, letting the whole world be a witness, instead hiding in a hole like the lowlife scumbag criminal that he was...
over nothing? if it was over nothing Saddam would've stood his ground and fought it, letting the whole world be a witness, instead hiding in a hole like the lowlife scumbag criminal that he was...
Fought with what?
Saddam had no air force, no missiles, less than 1/3rd of his pre Desert Storm armour... and precisely no WMD.
This is as sick as it gets. Iraq was "justified" because Saddam hid in a hole...
Tell that to the parents of a US military Iraq casualty...
stevieray
10-03-2009, 10:40 AM
Fought with what?
Tell that to the parents of a US military Iraq casualty...
the truth, penchief.
tell them what? there is nothing to tell them..we are a volunteer service, where people volunteer to lay down their life for their Country and the Constitution... please stop pimping their courage, conviction and fortitude for your own personal vendetta of racism and politcs.
SHTSPRAYER
10-03-2009, 10:43 AM
Pioli, you're the best. You want so badly to say something witty and clever. Bless your heart.
LMAO
patteeu
10-03-2009, 11:10 AM
You cannot even name ONE SINGLE THING that W did that was "to the right."
NOT ONE...
Don't be ridiculous. Like I said before, I don't think W was much of a conservative (except in the area of social conservatism). Nonetheless, he was more conservative than his father. He was also more conservative than Colin Powell. Having said that, his tax cuts on capital were conservative and his Supreme Court appointments were conservative.
But again, you miss the point. I wasn't the one who said the GOP had not only moved to the right during the Bush years, but had moved *too far* to the right. That was your boy, Colin Powell. How do you square Powell's take on the GOP during W's presidency with your belief that Powell was more conservative than W?
"his tax cuts on capital were conservative and his Supreme Court appointments were conservative."
That's really one policy (tax cuts) and speculative appointments (SC judges can "mutate" over time). But the true "Reaganomic" supply-side philosophy behind cutting taxes also includes cutting spending too, and W never even considered doing that. So, on taxes and spending, the net result was not conservative at all. It was, rather, almost suicidal as economic policy... inevitably ending up with the collapse of the housing bubble and a trillion dollar annual deficit.
So, yeah, W pursued tax cuts, big increases in spending, and huge trillion dollar deficits, as well as maiming the value of the US dollar...
Conservative?
Laughable. Just pathetic, and arguably treasonous - just the W economic policies, that is...
W - for tax cuts
Powell - for tax cuts, spending cuts, non-interventionalist foreign policy based on US national interest only, against socializing senior drugs, against changing the US Constitution to appease AIPAC, against firing US attorneys to cover up crimes by supporters.
Yeah, and even W mouthed some support for Affirmative Action
http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/George_W__Bush_Civil_Rights.htm#Affirmative_Action
"If they (AA programs without quotas) don't work, to achieve an objective which is diversification, race ought to be a factor. I agree with that assessment. I think it's very important for all institutions to strive for diversity, and I believe there are ways to do so."
So Powell and W have both mouthed basically the same "I'm for AA, against quotas" argument.
Nice try.
Whacking a Bible, intruding on people's private lives, outlawing rights, those are not "conservative." They are SOCIALIST, as in BIBLE THUMPING SOCIALIST...
I would even argue that on the topic of "appointments" that W scores very poorly there overall.
Democrat/Leftist appoinments
1. Mike Mukasy - US AG
2. Henry Paulson - Treasury
3. Ben Bernanke - Fed
4. George Tenet - CIA
5. Christy Todd Whitman - EPA (immediately confused Global non-Warming with the Ozone hole upon confirmation)
6. keeping Gore crony and Global non-Warming fraudster James Hansen as head of NASA
On the score of "appoinments," W doesn't look very "conservative" at all...
So, in total, precisely what was "conservative" about W?
JUST TAX CUTS ACCOMPANIED BY THE BIGGEST SPENDING INCREASES SINCE LBJ
patteeu
10-03-2009, 12:40 PM
"his tax cuts on capital were conservative and his Supreme Court appointments were conservative."
That's really one policy (tax cuts) and speculative appointments (SC judges can "mutate" over time). But the true "Reaganomic" supply-side philosophy behind cutting taxes also includes cutting spending too, and W never even considered doing that. So, on taxes and spending, the net result was not conservative at all. It was, rather, almost suicidal as economic policy... inevitably ending up with the collapse of the housing bubble and a trillion dollar annual deficit.
So, yeah, W pursued tax cuts, big increases in spending, and huge trillion dollar deficits, as well as maiming the value of the US dollar...
Conservative?
Laughable. Just pathetic, and arguably treasonous - just the W economic policies, that is...
W - for tax cuts
Powell - for tax cuts, spending cuts, non-interventionalist foreign policy based on US national interest only, against socializing senior drugs, against changing the US Constitution to appease AIPAC, against firing US attorneys to cover up crimes by supporters.
Yeah, and even W mouthed some support for Affirmative Action
http://www.ontheissues.org/2004/George_W__Bush_Civil_Rights.htm#Affirmative_Action
"If they (AA programs without quotas) don't work, to achieve an objective which is diversification, race ought to be a factor. I agree with that assessment. I think it's very important for all institutions to strive for diversity, and I believe there are ways to do so."
So Powell and W have both mouthed basically the same "I'm for AA, against quotas" argument.
Nice try.
Whacking a Bible, intruding on people's private lives, outlawing rights, those are not "conservative." They are SOCIALIST, as in BIBLE THUMPING SOCIALIST...
You asked for one and I gave you two.
Reagan didn't cut spending either.
Link me to evidence that Powell opposed "socializing senior drugs".
Whatever Bush had to say about affirmative action, it has nothing to do with the Bush versus Powell comparison. For one thing, he was certainly not as much of a supporter of AA as Powell and, more importantly, the reason I brought up Powell's support for AA in the first place was to distinguish him from Reagan, not Bush. Try to keep up.
Pioli Zombie
10-03-2009, 12:47 PM
I love TFG's totally insane calls of treason. Yeah, W was a traitor. You know TFG, you are mashuguna, even for a Jew.
Posted via Mobile Device
You asked for one and I gave you two.
Reagan didn't cut spending either.
Link me to evidence that Powell opposed "socializing senior drugs".
Whatever Bush had to say about affirmative action, it has nothing to do with the Bush versus Powell comparison. For one thing, he was certainly not as much of a supporter of AA as Powell and, more importantly, the reason I brought up Powell's support for AA in the first place was to distinguish him from Reagan, not Bush. Try to keep up.
Reagan cut spending in his first two years with a GOP Senate. Then, for his final six years, Reagan had a Dem House and Senate. W had no such excuse. Reagan proposed budget cutting measures the Congress said were "dead on arrival." W never even proposed any spending cuts. You have one pathetic "trial" voucher program in the municipality most eager to sabotage it and claim it "failed" so we never get to try it again. That's it. NADA.
W was a BIBLE THUMPING SOCIALIST who porked out and sold out our troops to get re-elected while making our terror "not a priority." He was the worst US President in US history by a mile on the scores of financial management of the US government, the US economy, and patriotism. He is the only US President to actively commit treason while in office. And that is why you loved him...
patteeu
10-05-2009, 09:09 AM
Reagan cut spending in his first two years with a GOP Senate. Then, for his final six years, Reagan had a Dem House and Senate. W had no such excuse. Reagan proposed budget cutting measures the Congress said were "dead on arrival." W never even proposed any spending cuts. You have one pathetic "trial" voucher program in the municipality most eager to sabotage it and claim it "failed" so we never get to try it again. That's it. NADA.
Reagan had a Republican Senate for his first 6 years, not just 2, and he didn't cut spending in any of those years. Where do you get your "facts"?
Reagan had a Republican Senate for his first 6 years, not just 2, and he didn't cut spending in any of those years. Where do you get your "facts"?
Too easy to catch your treasonous birdbrain lying again...
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3043
"Now, it is true that a sizable portion of this discretionary spending goes toward national defense. Bush will have overseen a 21 percent increase for national defense -- pretty much equal to Reagan. However, the major difference between the two men is discretionary spending not related to national defense. Whereas Reagan was able to reduce non-defense discretionary outlays by 14 percent, Bush will have overseen a rise of 18 percent -- a whopping 32 percent difference between the two men."
patteeu
10-05-2009, 09:46 AM
Too easy to catch your treasonous birdbrain lying again...
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=3043
"Now, it is true that a sizable portion of this discretionary spending goes toward national defense. Bush will have overseen a 21 percent increase for national defense -- pretty much equal to Reagan. However, the major difference between the two men is discretionary spending not related to national defense. Whereas Reagan was able to reduce non-defense discretionary outlays by 14 percent, Bush will have overseen a rise of 18 percent -- a whopping 32 percent difference between the two men."
If anyone was lying, it was you. More likely, you're just not very good at communicating. If you meant "non-defense discretionary outlays" which is a mere subset of overall "spending", you should have said so. You didn't. Work on that.
Total spending increased during every year of the Reagan administration. I don't blame Reagan for this. He had to deal with a democrat House that would have spent even more if it had been up to them. I also haven't ever defended GWBush's excessive spending. He didn't have the same excuses for increased spending that Reagan did. The beauty of the W administration, and what made him Reaganesque, was his neocon foreign policy. That's why I liked him.
"The beauty of the W administration, and what made him Reaganesque, was his neocon foreign policy."
Reagan was not a neocon. Neocons are liberal big spending socialistic elitist Zionists who think the US exists to serve Israel. Under W, the US did exist to serve Israel. That is why the GOP is in the shitter, because it strayed from Reaganism in every aspect except tax cuts. Reagan pulled us out of Lebanon and Obama's settlement policy is the same as Reagan. Reagan did not lease the US military to Israel to raise cash and favorable media coverage. The AIPAC lobby, the NYT, CBS News, and other Zionist entities HATED Reagan, and funded his opposition to the hilt. Heck, Reagan was even for TORT REFORM, another issue where W and the Bible Thumping Socialist Congress failed to get anywhere despite total control to do so, because their Zionist masters didn't want it.
Neoconservatism is, in its essence, the complete sellout of everything Ronald Reagan stood for. And that is why the GOP is out of power, while after Reagan, his VP won in a landslide in 1988 with Zionists and neocons cheering for Dukakis and later Bill Clinton.
If Gore's running mate Joe Lieberman is a "neo-con," you ought to check before you embarrass yourself even further on this debate issue...
patteeu
10-05-2009, 10:27 AM
"The beauty of the W administration, and what made him Reaganesque, was his neocon foreign policy."
Reagan was not a neocon. Neocons are liberal big spending socialistic elitist Zionists who think the US exists to serve Israel. Under W, the US did exist to serve Israel. That is why the GOP is in the shitter, because it strayed from Reaganism in every aspect except tax cuts. Reagan pulled us out of Lebanon and Obama's settlement policy is the same as Reagan. Reagan did not lease the US military to Israel to raise cash and favorable media coverage. The AIPAC lobby, the NYT, CBS News, and other Zionist entities HATED Reagan, and funded his opposition to the hilt. Heck, Reagan was even for TORT REFORM, another issue where W and the Bible Thumping Socialist Congress failed to get anywhere despite total control to do so, because their Zionist masters didn't want it.
Neoconservatism is, in its essence, the complete sellout of everything Ronald Reagan stood for. And that is why the GOP is out of power, while after Reagan, his VP won in a landslide in 1988 with Zionists and neocons cheering for Dukakis and later Bill Clinton.
If Gore's running mate Joe Lieberman is a "neo-con," you ought to check before you embarrass yourself even further on this debate issue...
You're a lunatic. Reagan's foreign policy attracted the neoconservatives of his day because it matched theirs. Reagan and the neocons were fiercely anti-communist and favored a strong America. Many of the neocons of the Bush era got their start in government under Reagan. Their foreign policy has nothing to do with serving Israel and everything to do with a strong national defense for the US.
BucEyedPea
10-05-2009, 10:35 AM
My goodness, look at this thread, patteeu's in debate and sparring heaven finding his perfect sparring partner ideologically.
BucEyedPea
10-05-2009, 10:36 AM
Mike Huck-a-THUMP
ROFL Good one!
"the neocons were fiercely anti-communist and favored a strong America."
Under the "neocons," America weakened dramatically, and communism flourished around the globe, especially in South America.
So, if you claim the "neocons" are for a strong America, either the "neocons" are complete incompetent, or treasonous servants of Israel, or both...
BucEyedPea
10-05-2009, 10:50 AM
"the neocons were fiercely anti-communist and favored a strong America."
O.M.G. They're not fiercely anti-communist....just not against their kind—Trotskyism.
Third Way Social Democracies that they must implement world wide at the point of a gun.
If Joe Lieberman is "anti-communist neocon," imagine what a real "pro-communist neocon" must be like...
patteeu
10-05-2009, 12:03 PM
You two make a cute couple.
You two make a cute couple.
Last time I checked, Joe Lieberman had a career ACU rating of 16, with votes for the extremely liberal War on Exclusively Anti-Israel Terror and related treasons like Gitmo, torture, and re-writing the US Constitution all counting as "conservative."
Take out votes for using the US to push for Israel's genocidal objectives and Joe Lieberman's voting record is almost identical to the late Teddy K's...
which makes him NEOCON, and someone who not only never agreed with Ronald Wilson Reagan, but also hated him passionately for the Lebanon pullout...
patteeu
10-05-2009, 01:12 PM
Last time I checked, Joe Lieberman had a career ACU rating of 16, with votes for the extremely liberal War on Exclusively Anti-Israel Terror and related treasons like Gitmo, torture, and re-writing the US Constitution all counting as "conservative."
Take out votes for using the US to push for Israel's genocidal objectives and Joe Lieberman's voting record is almost identical to the late Teddy K's...
which makes him NEOCON, and someone who not only never agreed with Ronald Wilson Reagan, but also hated him passionately for the Lebanon pullout...
What is this obsession you have with Joe Lieberman? He embraces a neocon foreign policy just as Reagan did, but that doesn't mean that all neocons believe all of the same things that Joe Lieberman believes anymore than it means that they all believe everything Reagan believed (although most would agree with Reagan more often than Lieberman, which accounts for why most neocons affiliate themselves with Republicans rather than democrats).
Joe Lieberman didn't hate Reagan passionately. You make things up like a bad storyteller.
What is this obsession you have with Joe Lieberman? He embraces a neocon foreign policy just as Reagan did, but that doesn't mean that all neocons believe all of the same things that Joe Lieberman believes anymore than it means that they all believe everything Reagan believed (although most would agree with Reagan more often than Lieberman, which accounts for why most neocons affiliate themselves with Republicans rather than democrats).
Joe Lieberman didn't hate Reagan passionately. You make things up like a bad storyteller.
And what is "neocon foreign policy?
A: making our terror NOT A PRIORITY, lying to start wars with no US national interest for the purpose of raising cash and getting favorable media coverage, letting Putin take Georgia with no rebut, deploying our forces in Afghan (way too few of them) and then flipping off our ally there (to appease Master Israel), breaking our laws and treaties to force an intentionally false "confession" to justify the war started by lies.
Joe Lieberman is 100% left wing and 100% Israeli, 0% American.
Zionists did hate Ronald Reagan. Passionately. It is absolutely laughable for anyone to claim that political whore Joe Lieberman would have supported Reagan's pull out from Lebanon. There is nothing in the universe Joe Lieberman is more in favor of than using the US military to wipe out Israel's enemies and bill the US taxpayer for it.
SHTSPRAYER
10-05-2009, 01:38 PM
And what is "neocon foreign policy?
A: making our terror NOT A PRIORITY, lying to start wars with no US national interest for the purpose of raising cash and getting favorable media coverage, letting Putin take Georgia with no rebut, deploying our forces in Afghan (way too few of them) and then flipping off our ally there (to appease Master Israel), breaking our laws and treaties to force an intentionally false "confession" to justify the war started by lies.
Joe Lieberman is 100% left wing and 100% Israeli, 0% American.
Zionists did hate Ronald Reagan. Passionately. It is absolutely laughable for anyone to claim that political whore Joe Lieberman would have supported Reagan's pull out from Lebanon. There is nothing in the universe Joe Lieberman is more in favor of than using the US military to wipe out Israel's enemies and bill the US taxpayer for it.
tfg, who told you about this board? I'm just curious.
VAChief
10-05-2009, 03:41 PM
If I follow this correctly...Reagan is astrology...neoconservatives are numerology.
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.