Reagan's Daughter Disgusted with Republican Candidates (suspect, states, united, presidency)
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.
She is a liberal twit. What do you think she is going to have to say about the Republican candidates. She was a total embarrassment to the Reagans most of the time as well as her goofy brother. This is supposed to be significant news?
Patti Davis is known for her liberal political views. She spoke against her father's agenda and if you are denying that she was a liberal who clashed with her mother and father, you are wrong.
She was a liberal 30 years ago. As I said in my first post, people change. I don't know what Patti is now, as she hasn't said what she is as far as I know. I would think that after she became close to her father again, her views changed over time.
Hold the past against her if you want, but don't use the distant past as a guide. Patti isn't in politics now. And she isn't the only person who has clashed with parents when young.
Show me I'm wrong about her now, and I'll be glad to accept your view. But if you are going to hold a person's past against them, you better not be interested in Rick Perry- he was a Democrat for a long time, as was Ronald Reagan.
Doesn't violate the position of individual liberty concerning that. Individual liberty is a concept that you are free to live and do as you choose as long as it does not infringe on the liberty of another. This is the concept, and the situation you described does not invalidate individual liberty, rather it affirms it. The pond was causing damage to another persons property, infringing on their liberty. The power to control such was well within the pond owners powers, yet they made a choice that allowed such infringement. They violated the individual liberty of another and by doing such, required action to which forced them to respect it. Individual liberty is not anarchy, it is a concept of respect for each individual to be secure in their own choices and the responsibilities of such.
But the pond owner's individual liberty is also infringed upon by the city codes. He doesn't want to do anything to his pond on his property. He does not have to respect anyone else's individual liberty, that is his choice KWIM. By you saying that he has to be forced to respect the other property owner is saying that you agree that his individual liberty can and should be infringed upon.
I thought of another last night. My husband likes to drink beer on weekends. Here in GA it is now against the law to purchase alcohol on Sundays. So he cannot go to the grocery store or the corner store and get a six pack to watch football. He gets very upset about this. He would rather not have to plan to buy beer on Saturday for Sunday since he doesn't drink beer on Saturday.
I can take this scenario further. I wanted to make some Marsala chicken once for Sunday dinner and went to the store, I forgot about the above mentioned law and could not get any Marsala wine for which to make my recipe. I was thoroughly pissed off. I felt my individual liberty was infringed upon.
Here is another that surrounds the same topic. It is against the law to have an open container of alcohol at public parks. Our taxes pay to upkeep public parks but if we want to sit and have a picnic at our local park, which is within walking distance and have a wine cooler, we cannot or we will get a ticket of $400. We are prevented from utilizing public facilities that we support through tax dollars in this way.
Another, regarding alcohol, I was driving my friend home. She had some sort of alcoholic beverage that she had just purchased. She had never had this sort of beverage before and wanted to taste it so she opened it. She was the passenger (I do not drink alcohol, I use it for cooking though as I stated above) and she took a drink. About .25 miles down the road, the police set up a road block to check people's license/insurance status (another infringement IMO on my individual liberty since there is no just cause to stop me while I am going some where). Even though my friend was not drinking at the time that we stopped and even though I had valid license/insurance, we were given an open container ticket for the beverage she had tasted. It was $300.
She is a liberal twit. What do you think she is going to have to say about the Republican candidates. She was a total embarrassment to the Reagans most of the time as well as her goofy brother. This is supposed to be significant news?
Well said, dixiegirl. While both Patti (who refused to use her father's name, "Reagan", choosing instead to be known as "Patti Davis") and Ron, Jr. appear to have made peace in their later years with the man who was their father, neither of them can ever be called "conservative", even by their father's standards. They are both still very liberal in their own political leanings and always have been.
While I think it's good that they have tempered their own leftist 60's political leanings and now speak out in defense of their father, it is foolish to think that either one of them are anything except liberals.
Michael Reagan is the true "Reagan conservative" in the family, although neither Patti nor Ron, Jr. have much to do with him. It would appear that Michael is too conservative for them.
But the pond owner's individual liberty is also infringed upon by the city codes. He doesn't want to do anything to his pond on his property. He does not have to respect anyone else's individual liberty, that is his choice KWIM. By you saying that he has to be forced to respect the other property owner is saying that you agree that his individual liberty can and should be infringed upon.
Yes he does have to respect other individuals liberty or he forfeits his own concerning the consequences, otherwise it is not a system of individual liberty, but one of anarchy where might makes right, who has the bigger stick, etc...
Individual liberty is the freedom to live without infringement of your choices, but it is implied that if we employee a system of individual liberty that none can infringe upon another, otherwise as I said it isn't individual liberty, but anarchy which as I mentioned in a previous post is incompatible with individual liberty as it does not respect liberty, merely might.
In the above case, the pond owner was infringing on your friend. Their actions (or lack of responsibility to their property) resulted in infringement on another. Individual liberty has responsibility of consequence of infringement on another. One who does not respect the liberty of another has no claim to liberty for themselves under such violations. The pond owners liberty was not violated, merely his actions of violating another were protected against.
Freedom comes with responsibility, some people thrive in a system of individual liberty, others constantly conflict with others due to their lack of respect for the liberty of another as well as lack of responsibility for the consequences of their own freedom of choice and so continuously suffer from such. The consequences however are not infringements on their liberty, but the reaction of their lack of respect for it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
I thought of another last night. My husband likes to drink beer on weekends. Here in GA it is now against the law to purchase alcohol on Sundays. So he cannot go to the grocery store or the corner store and get a six pack to watch football. He gets very upset about this. He would rather not have to plan to buy beer on Saturday for Sunday since he doesn't drink beer on Saturday.
Agreed, this is a good example of a imposing law implemented by the far right political spectrum. It is a violation of individual liberty, it has no grounds for such a demand as its claims, like the seat belt law are speculative, loose, and weak in their attempt to claim harm or infringement of another. You can find many of these laws, but their existence is not evidence that individual liberty does not exist, it is an example of those who would disregard the individual liberty of others, and the lethargic nature of those who allow such infringements to happen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
I can take this scenario further. I wanted to make some Marsala chicken once for Sunday dinner and went to the store, I forgot about the above mentioned law and could not get any Marsala wine for which to make my recipe. I was thoroughly pissed off. I felt my individual liberty was infringed upon.
It was, completely and without argument. The problem here is that the system has decayed, people have become lethargic in their responsibility to protect individual liberty. We are no longer "we the people" as individuals who see the importance of protecting from infringements on liberties (for every liberty infringed on another is our own liberties infringed upon).
While we are free to ignore such infringements, there are consequences to such lethargy in our system and the result is loss of individual liberties when we do not take the responsibility to act to protect them. This is a good example of individual liberty within the system, but at the same time its nature of freedom has consequences of inaction. Your individual liberty was infringed, but you did not act to rebel against it, nor did others act to assist you in defending against that infringement and due to each individuals choice to accept such, the consequences are this result. That is, our individual liberty allows us to accept violations upon us as well as to defend against them.
No system is perfect, but I personally believe (as well as the founders) that this system was best suited in a society of moral and virtuous people in support of freedom. They however warned that in order for such a system to continue to stay free, the majority of society needed to stay moral and virtuous in order to protect from such self interested actions of infringement. It is along the same lines of the old saying "I may despise what you say, but I will fight to the death to insure you can say it". This was the responsibility of a society built on individual liberty. We are free to protect it or we are free to ignore such and pay the consequences.
While I may go on about various infringements of individual liberty, the fact is, if the people begin to disrespect individual liberty, much like the pond owner, they eventually lose their own liberties. Such is the case of the person who constantly seeks to see the liberties of others infringed and eventually finds they no longer have any themselves. We however still have individual liberty, it is not something people can remove from us (inalienable), it is an issue of our willingness to defend against, hence the saying "liberty or death!"
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
Here is another that surrounds the same topic. It is against the law to have an open container of alcohol at public parks. Our taxes pay to upkeep public parks but if we want to sit and have a picnic at our local park, which is within walking distance and have a wine cooler, we cannot or we will get a ticket of $400. We are prevented from utilizing public facilities that we support through tax dollars in this way.
Again, an infringement on your individual liberty. This is another one of those laws that condemn everyone for the actions of a few. Laws like these exist because people did not fight them as they should have. There is no grounds to claim someone having a drink at the park will endanger another, it is a slippery slope argument that attempts to claim that allowing such would increase acts of infringement on others and so they are justified in removing the liberties of all. This law does not protect society or is even required for society to function. This law punishes those who respect individual liberty of another by the claim that they will likely infringe as some may have done.
Like I said though, this does not support the claim that individual liberty does not exist. It exists certainly and if those who defended their liberty at any cost, these laws would be shown to be as such and never be implemented. The problem is, self interested majorities and positions of power (city councils in this case as the representatives violated their oath of office) disregard liberty all the time and the fault here is on all for allowing such infringements and resisting and ultimately bringing the consequences to those who would infringe. People were free to give up their liberty, and the result of the law is that they did so. Individual liberty at work.
Quote:
Originally Posted by residinghere2007
Another, regarding alcohol, I was driving my friend home. She had some sort of alcoholic beverage that she had just purchased. She had never had this sort of beverage before and wanted to taste it so she opened it. She was the passenger (I do not drink alcohol, I use it for cooking though as I stated above) and she took a drink. About .25 miles down the road, the police set up a road block to check people's license/insurance status (another infringement IMO on my individual liberty since there is no just cause to stop me while I am going some where). Even though my friend was not drinking at the time that we stopped and even though I had valid license/insurance, we were given an open container ticket for the beverage she had tasted. It was $300.
Like I said, I could go on and on.
Again, open container laws are another infringement. Obviously, your friend was not endangering anyone and no legitimate case could be made that a sip of this drink would provide such danger (if she sipped from an alcohol drink from somewhere and then drove home, she would have not been at any limit to that would show her to be a dangerous driver) , so this is the case of another law that infringes in the same manner as the law in the park. It condemns those responsible and respectful of liberty in order to limit the effort and possible actions of those who do not.
It is a blanket law and again, a law that is not justified, but a law that individuals chose to accept rather than defend against. The infringement is on all, but such being allowed was a process of self interest (those who wished to impose infringements of such) and lethargy (those who refused to fight against such infringement laws). All made the individual choice to allow such to happen and all accepted the law. There can be no infringement if there is an acceptance of the action.
Notice that when an officer pulls you over and gives you a ticket, signing for the ticket is not an admission of guilt. This concept exists to allow us to fight unjust laws, infringements, etc...
It is very possible (and likely if enough chose to stand up in defense) that your friend could have taken this to court with the result of such being the open container law being struck down as unconstitutional and the infringement removed reducing such poor laws and violations of individual liberty. This is a choice we have and a responsibility we share if we wish individual liberty to be respected. If we do not, well... we have ever encroaching violations and our liberties are slowly eroded and removed.
They certainly exist, it is just that years of lethargy on the part of the people has led them to ignore such infringements and often encourage them through their self interest. SS, medicare, medicaid, income tax, and numerous laws at the federal and local levels all infringe on liberties, but we have allowed them to happen because many of us disregard individual liberty to promote self interest and by doing so, they have been slowly removed.
So again, individual liberty exists to this day, it is simply the willingness of the individual who chooses to work in concert with others to protect against attacks on them. Those who do not, well... they accept their infringement and so are not infringed as they agreed to relinquish their liberty and join those who would infringe on others. As long as a single person exists to resist, fight, and defend against infringement on individual liberty, then it exists. When none no longer exist, you have no infringements as all have agreed to such, yet this only exists as long as people "choose" to agree upon such.
Anyway, I understand your point, and not to try and cut this off, but I noticed we have severely derailed from the thread. Maybe this would be a good topic for a thread of itself. /shrug
She was a liberal 30 years ago. As I said in my first post, people change. I don't know what Patti is now, as she hasn't said what she is as far as I know. I would think that after she became close to her father again, her views changed over time.
Hold the past against her if you want, but don't use the distant past as a guide. Patti isn't in politics now. And she isn't the only person who has clashed with parents when young.
Show me I'm wrong about her now, and I'll be glad to accept your view. But if you are going to hold a person's past against them, you better not be interested in Rick Perry- he was a Democrat for a long time, as was Ronald Reagan.
she did mellow some about the time her dad got sick, but I doubt she ever changed from her liberal views. Of course people change, Reagan was a Democrat, yes, Perry as well and Hillary was a Goldwater supporter, but I doubt Patti has made that much of a switch. If she had, this would never have come up.
Not wanting to go to private boarding school: screwing up every chance he got, not wanting to live in Sac but again didn't want the private school life either. That is for starters. He decided after a very short time in college he would become a ballet dancer, but apparently he wasn't very good. He has tried the talk show sceen, being a commentator for dog shows, etc. Never has he been a mild success at any of his attempts. He totally disagreed with his parents every chance he got. Would you like me to tell you more?
Have I had a perfect life? Of course not, no one has, but was I a screw up or embarrassment to my family? Never as far as I know, nor have my kids been an embarrassment to their father and me. But my life has nothing to do witht he subject with Patti or Ron Jr.
Nita
I wasn't aware that it children must always agree with their parents...that as adults they are not allowed to have opinions that differ from their parents.
Well said, dixiegirl. While both Patti (who refused to use her father's name, "Reagan", choosing instead to be known as "Patti Davis") and Ron, Jr. appear to have made peace in their later years with the man who was their father, neither of them can ever be called "conservative", even by their father's standards. They are both still very liberal in their own political leanings and always have been.
While I think it's good that they have tempered their own leftist 60's political leanings and now speak out in defense of their father, it is foolish to think that either one of them are anything except liberals.
Michael Reagan is the true "Reagan conservative" in the family, although neither Patti nor Ron, Jr. have much to do with him. It would appear that Michael is too conservative for them.
In other words liberals are automatically bad people...conservatives are automatically good people.
I wasn't aware that it children must always agree with their parents...that as adults they are not allowed to have opinions that differ from their parents.
Can you believe the ignorance on this thread? When Liz Cheney opens her yap, you'd swear gems were spilling out according to the right wingers. As I said in another post on this thread, I'm sure if she says that the current crop of candidates, save one, would not have resonated with her father's views, she know knows of what she speaks. I'm not Reagan's daughter and I am no fan of his, but it is blatantly obvious that Reagan was not cut from the same cloth as these whackos. I cannot believe the chutzpah of these people to think that Reagan's daughter did not know her dad!
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.
