Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Raised taxes several times, illegal alien amnesty, ran outta Lebanon , aka "cut and run"...if he had to run in a republican primary based on his own record, he'd lose badly.
Raised taxes several times, illegal alien amnesty, ran outta Lebanon , aka "cut and run"...if he had to run in a republican primary based on his own record, he'd lose badly.
Amnesty alone would sink him.
Why?
Both parties are for Amnesty. Both parties are for open borders.
Don't tell me they're not. Don't.
Reagan won his 2nd nomination after leaving Lebanon. Should we have stayed and fought? You sound like Bush.
Reagan did end some deductions and raise fuel taxes to fund highways, but implying that he was some kind of tax fan is to distort the facts.
So, all things considered, your analysis is incorrect.
Both parties are for Amnesty. Both parties are for open borders.
Don't tell me they're not. Don't.
Reagan won his 2nd nomination after leaving Lebanon. Should we have stayed and fought? You sound like Bush.
Reagan did end some deductions and raise fuel taxes to fund highways, but implying that he was some kind of tax fan is to distort the facts.
So, all things considered, your analysis is incorrect.
Consider the source. Clearly the poster is civically challenged since only Congress, and not Presidents, can increase taxes, grant amnesty to illegal aliens, or authorize an attack against Lebanon.
From 1981 to 1987 the US Senate was controlled by Republicans, and the US House (where all tax increases must originate) was controlled by Democrats. During Reagan's last two years, from 1987 to 1989, both houses were controlled by the Democrats.
Reagan was also promised that Congress would secure the borders, IF he granted them amnesty. The dishonorable Democrats, naturally, reneged on the deal.
It should also be noted that between 1983 and 1985 Congress lowered the income tax, across the board, by 25% (10% in 1983, 10% in 1984, and 5% in 1985). That ended the decade long recession (1974 to 1984) and resulted in a booming economy from 1985 through 1989.
"In May 1943, President Franklin Roosevelt met with British Prime Minister Winston Churchill at the White House. It was 17 months after Pearl Harbor and a little more than a year before D-Day. The two Allied leaders reviewed the war effort to date and exchanged thoughts on their plans for the postwar era. At one point in the discussion, FDR offered what he called "the best way to settle the Jewish question."
Vice President Henry Wallace, who noted the conversation in his diary, said Roosevelt spoke approvingly of a plan (recommended by geographer and Johns Hopkins University President Isaiah Bowman) "to spread the Jews thin all over the world." The diary entry adds: "The president said he had tried this out in [Meriwether] County, Georgia [where Roosevelt lived in the 1920s] and at Hyde Park on the basis of adding four or five Jewish families at each place. He claimed that the local population would have no objection if there were no more than that."
"In 1923, as a member of the Harvard board of directors, Roosevelt decided there were too many Jewish students at the college and helped institute a quota to limit the number admitted. In 1938, he privately suggested that Jews in Poland were dominating the economy and were therefore to blame for provoking anti-Semitism there. In 1941, he remarked at a Cabinet meeting that there were too many Jews among federal employees in Oregon. In 1943, he told government officials in Allied-liberated North Africa that the number of local Jews in various professions "should be definitely limited" so as to "eliminate the specific and understandable complaints which the Germans bore towards the Jews in Germany."
"There is evidence of other troubling private remarks by FDR too, including dismissing pleas for Jewish refugees as "Jewish wailing" and "sob stuff"; expressing (to a senator ) his pride that "there is no Jewish blood in our veins"; and characterizing a tax maneuver by a Jewish newspaper publisher as "a dirty Jewish trick." But the most common theme in Roosevelt's private statements about Jews has to do with his perception that they were "overcrowding" many professions and exercising undue influence."
"This attitude dovetails with what is known about FDR's views regarding immigrants in general and Asian immigrants in particular. In one 1920 interview, he complained about immigrants "crowding" into the cities and said "the remedy for this should be the distribution of aliens in various parts of the country." In a series of articles for the Macon (Ga.) Daily Telegraph and for Asia magazine in the 1920s, he warned against granting citizenship to "non-assimilable immigrants" and opposed Japanese immigration on the grounds that "mingling Asiatic blood with European or American blood produces, in nine cases out of ten, the most unfortunate results." He recommended that future immigration should be limited to those who had "blood of the right sort."
"FDR's decision to imprison thousands of Japanese Americans in internment camps during World War II was consistent with his perception of Asians as having innate racial characteristics that made them untrustworthy. Likewise, he apparently viewed with disdain what he seemed to regard as the innate characteristics of Jews. Admitting significant numbers of Jewish or Asian immigrants did not fit comfortably in FDR's vision of America.
Other U.S. presidents have made their share of unfriendly remarks about Jews. A diary kept by Harry Truman included statements such as "The Jews, I find, are very, very selfish." Richard Nixon's denunciations of Jews as "very aggressive and obnoxious" were belatedly revealed in tapes of Oval Office conversations."
"But the revelation of Franklin Roosevelt's sentiments will probably shock many people. After all, he led America in the war against Hitler. Moreover, Roosevelt's public persona is anchored in his image as a liberal humanitarian, his claim to care about "the forgotten man," the downtrodden, the mistreated. But none of that can change the record of his response to the Holocaust."
TR also did not, as in common knowledge, believe that 'The only good Indian was a dead Indian'. Only 9 out of 10 Indians!
Raised taxes several times, illegal alien amnesty, ran outta Lebanon , aka "cut and run"...if he had to run in a republican primary based on his own record, he'd lose badly.
Amnesty alone would sink him.
Ever heard of the saying "hindsight is 20/20"?
You talk about amnesty as if it were decided in a vacuum. In reality that deal/compromise was done with the belief it would be the end to the problem. Had everything gone as it was suppose to, we would not have the same problems today. The trouble is that laws on the books were not enforced, nor was the border made secure. Hence the reason few in the (R) party want to cut a deal that might be doomed to failure like the previous deal. That combined with few trusting that Obama would abide by the potions of the law he did not agree with(plenty of precedent thus far), immigration is DOA unless it secures the border alone, then other aspects can be worked out.
Two other quick things. First, Reagan raising taxes brought criticism on him from his own party, but as he pointed out, you must compromise to run the government. Clinton knew this as did other POTUS's who were leaders and got things accomplished.
Obama on the other hand does not possess this skill, either due to an inability, arrogance(i.e. my way or nothing), or is such a partisan ideology that he would feel like a sellout.
Second, most presidents who would be judged on what they actually did vs. what they campaigned on to get elected would not be elected. That is just the nature of the beast for presidents of either party.
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,330 posts, read 54,419,437 times
Reputation: 40736
[quote=nononsenseguy;36574804][quote=dv1033;36538117]Sure it was, or it wouldn't be so vague.
Quote:
There is nothing vague at all about the Constitution. Just because you think it is, doesn't make it so. It is very clear, and the Framers took great pains to make it so.
Spoken like a true "Progressive." Did you arrive at that conclusion on your own, or are you just parroting some liberal professor?
The 16th, 17th, and 18th Amendments which have been very damaging to this nation and created many of the problems in it today.
Stealing the Gold of the American people under the Gold Confiscation Act.
Using the FCC to shut down political speech critical of him.
Using the National Recovery Act to punish industry that did not kiss his ring.
Using the crime spree of Prohibition to call for infringement on the 2nd Amendment. A problem they caused.
Putting Americans who were German, Italian, and Japanese for no reason without due process of law.
Wow.......And you people are proud of such failures and violations of the Constitution? More proof leftist are not Americans..
BLAH BLAH BLAH.
It's no coincidence that America was strongest in the 20th century. I wouldn't be naive enough to put this all on progressivism, as the are quite a few conservatives that were responsible for America's "greatness" along with other factors. There is no doubt, without the progressive movement, that America would be more of a banana republic than what we see today.
The problem with you and your ilk is that y'all lack context. All you can do is just list of things that seem bad, without offering any context to why these things were done.
That is because they are not even remotely "progressive" today. Just like when they call themselves "liberal" they are actually the exact opposite of liberal. Democrats love adopting labels that are precisely the opposite of what they truly are. They think they are actually fooling people into believing they are "liberal" or "progressive."
True liberals are people like John Locke and Thomas Jefferson. The communists in the Democratic Party started calling themselves "liberals" during the mid-1950s when the US House On Un-American Activities Committee started actively pursuing communists.
By the 1990s these communists, a.k.a. "liberals", Democrats, knew nobody believed they were even remotely liberal by the despotic policies they employed. So once again these communists try to hide themselves by claiming they are somehow "progressive" and not actually regressively fascist in a yet another vain attempt to fool people.
The actual Progressive Party were all former Republicans from 1912 to 1924, not a Democrat among them. Wilson was never supported by the Progressive Party.
More nonsense. I know it's hard to comprehend, but political parties change and views change.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
