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.
So, who wants to come out and say something stupid like "Reagan was a democrat, Reagan was a liberal, Reagan would be thrown out of the Republican party today" blah, blah, blah....
Having the government in any way attempt to prevent people from exercising their own reproductive rights is completely antithetical to conservative principles.
I never said he was a "true leader." Libertarians don't believe in having a "leader." If you knew anything about libertarianism, you'd understand that.
I realize Jefferson wasn't a great President (only 2 qualify for that--Cleveland and Tyler); I just throw him in with the others because his ideals are part of the basis for modern-day libertarianism.
But my point stands that Reagan was a Keynesian statist who was in no way, shape, or form a fiscal conservative.
No, what you fail to understand is the U.S. isn't a dictatorship. It has three branches which you should have learned in 5th grade civics class. One of those three branches is congress. What does congress control? The purse strings. So a president can propose all he wants but if congress cuts him off or throws in tons of pork there's not much he can do but veto the bill. So, that forces compromise...
Quote:
Special to the New York Times
Published: March 11, 1981
WASHINGTON, March 10— The Reagan Administration today identified more than 200 proposed budget reductions affecting almost every department and agency in the Government.
Most of these reductions are relatively small and are in addition to the 83 major policy and program changes that were proposed Feb. 18 and described in detail in a chart published Feb. 20 in The New York Times.
In some cases, the new changes amount to deeper cuts in programs already identified Feb. 18 as subject to reduction. In other cases, the changes announced today would be in programs that were not affected by the Feb. 18 announcement.
Having the government in any way attempt to prevent people from exercising their own reproductive rights is completely antithetical to conservative principles.
You might not be aware but that letter from Reagan about abortion was in the National Review. I don't need to tell you who created that org. do I?
Quote:
August 27, 2004, 2:29 p.m.
Gruesome and Constitutional
On Roe and partial-birth abortion.
Shannen Coffin was with the Civil Division of the U.S. Department of Justice. He coordinated the government's defense of the partial-birth-abortion ban in Nebraska and New York. In his view, the Supreme Court has edged us into a severe quandary by the continuing affirmations of Roe as something in the nature of a constitutional charter. When Congress (345 members voted in favor of the partial-birth-abortion ban) responds so massively against what the same judge who invalidated the law termed a "gruesome” and “uncivilized" practice, one looks for some prospect for relief from judicial absolutism. Mr. Coffin believes that the forthcoming election is critical, inasmuch as President Bush is the most prominent sponsor of the partial-birth proscription and indirectly, the sponsor of the movement that seeks to mitigate excesses. He hardly expects that a Republican victory would bring on a modification in judicial absolutism, but he does believe that political action is needed to persuade the Supreme Court to modify its interpretation of Roe, and appease the general sentiment opposed to partial-birth abortions. These are not frequently resorted to — at maximum figure of 130,000 per year — and in the testimony of eminent physicians, never needed for the health of the mother reasonably defined.
A political event is needed to affirm that a democratic society is free to react against uncivilized practices, athwart abstractions of the judiciary.
No, what you fail to understand is the U.S. isn't a dictatorship. It has three branches which you should have learned in 5th grade civics class. One of those three branches is congress. What does congress control? The purse strings. So a president can propose all he wants but if congress cuts him off or throws in tons of pork there's not much he can do but veto the bill. So, that forces compromise...
If your not going to disprove me then stop responding to my post.
You didn't prove anything. What you did was post links from an abandoned OMB director who was taken out to "the shed" by Reagan. An anti-war democrat who admires Rand Paul and admonished Obama.
Quote:
So is it fair to say that Moynihan helped make you a conservative?
He helped me get from a Marxist view of the world to, let's say, a democratic capitalist view of the world. I'm still a democrat, and I'm still a capitalist. But I'm as anti-war as I ever was.
Stockholm wasn't part of the 11 people who wrote and were in the know to NSDD 75 so Stockholm, in all his anti-warness, simply didn't understand the depth to which Reagan was willing to go to win the Cold War.
You could have principles and veto anything and everything that increases spending.
Unfortunately, Reagan had little to no principles and capitulated to the Keynesians.
BS. Reagan's primary goals were to revive America's passion and spirit, fix the American economy and win the Cold War. He got the economy going which invigorated the American people and then began the process to win the Cold War. Notice the date on NSDD 75.
You might not be aware but that letter from Reagan about abortion was in the National Review. I don't need to tell you who created that org. do I?
Buckley may have been actually conservative on many issues, but with regards to abortion, what I said about governmental intrusion into the private lives of people (for example, legislating reproductive rights) is as UN-conservative as you can get.
This is part of the reason, along with fiscal policy and many other things, we can know that the GOP abandoned conservativism decades ago.
If you're truly for limited government you wouldn't admire Reagan.
And you wouldn't bash Ron Paul and his supporters.
p.s. Any government above state level is illegitimate. I'd even go so far as to say county level is the highest legitimate government.
Well that's pretty freaking radical. What, you think National Defense is going to come from the states alone? We would have lost the Revolutionary War and the country had we taken your position.
I'm all for State's Rights and I completely understand the theory behind laboratories of innovation. But the Federal Government does have a legitimate purpose even if that's been woefully distorted over the past century.
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.
