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.
I suppose any good governor would have sat back and watch them bomb and destroy the buildings till the budget ran dry.
On April 18, an attempt is made to burn down another a Bank of America building; four students are wounded by police buckshot. Kevin Moran, a UCSB student who had attempted to disuade the crowd from using violence, is shot and killed by a Santa Barbara police officer.
On June 4th, students angered by the indictment of 17 (4 UCSB students and 13 local youths) in the February 25th riots, attempt to burn down the rebuilt Isla Vista branch Bank of America. Street battles with police continue over the next several days. 667 people had been arrested. [NYT, 6/8/70]
On the same day a bomb blast damages an armory in Santa Barbara, California, and a bomb is discovered and disarmed on the Berkeley campus; 14 October 1970: The Harvard Center for International Affairs is bombed [NYT, 10/14/70]
January-June, 1970: In January, UC Santa Barbara anthropology professor Bill Allen, an outspoken critic of the war, is denied tenure. On February 25, after a speech by Chicago 8 lawyer William Kunstler, a UC Santa Barbara student is arrested. (The arresting officer purportedly mistakes a bottle of wine for a molotov cocktail). Bystanders begin throwing rocks. They march on a local (Isla Vista) branch of the Bank of America and burn it down. Demonstrators battle with police for seven hours. The National Guard are called in by Governor Ronald Reagan. [LAT, 2/26/70; NYT, 2/27/70]
Location: By the sea, by the sea, by the beautiful sea
68,333 posts, read 54,437,898 times
Reputation: 40736
Quote:
Originally Posted by BigJon3475
I suppose any good governor would have sat back and watch them bomb and destroy the buildings till the budget ran dry.
Suppose?
I know any good governor would not advocate the destruction of property be made a capital offense.
I know any good governor would not advocate punishment before trial.
The again, when people are so willing to accept "Well, I don't remember" as defense for treason it's hardly surprising calling for 'a bloodbath' is so readily overlooked.
The strength and wisdom of ronald reagan can be summoned up in this speech.
These phrases show the difference between Reagan and other presidents and a leader who put America first, our freedoms first and the role of government to be small. Thou reagan admited he couldnt make it smaller alone he wanted the chance to change america to make americans understand the ideas of liberty.
Below are the words of Ronald Reagan that still apply today. What is a real crime is this speech was in 1964 and it seems not much has changed.
[LEFT][SIZE=2]But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn't something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend $17 million a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We have raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations in the world. We have $15 billion in gold in our treasury--we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are $27.3 billion, and we have just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value. [/SIZE]
This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
[SIZE=2]You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.[/SIZE]
A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.
[SIZE=2]Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we are denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we are always "against" things, never "for" anything. Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so. We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we have accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]But we are against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those who depend on them for livelihood. They have called it insurance to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified that it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is $298 billion in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble! [/SIZE]
I think we are for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we are against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among the nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world's population.
I think we are for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we are against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We are helping 107.
[SIZE=2]As a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn't the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration. Back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his party was taking the part of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his party, and he never returned to the day he died, because to this day, the leadership of that party has been taking that party, that honorable party, down the road in the image of the labor socialist party of England. Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? Such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, inalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment. [/SIZE][/LEFT]
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,089,373 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by LibertyandJusticeforAll
The strength and wisdom of ronald reagan can be summoned up in this speech.
These phrases show the difference between Reagan and other presidents and a leader who put America first, our freedoms first and the role of government to be small. Thou reagan admited he couldnt make it smaller alone he wanted the chance to change america to make americans understand the ideas of liberty.
Below are the words of Ronald Reagan that still apply today. What is a real crime is this speech was in 1964 and it seems not much has changed.
[LEFT][SIZE=2]But I have an uncomfortable feeling that this prosperity isn't something on which we can base our hopes for the future. No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector's share, and yet our government continues to spend $17 million a day more than the government takes in. We haven't balanced our budget 28 out of the last 34 years. We have raised our debt limit three times in the last twelve months, and now our national debt is one and a half times bigger than all the combined debts of all the nations in the world. We have $15 billion in gold in our treasury--we don't own an ounce. Foreign dollar claims are $27.3 billion, and we have just had announced that the dollar of 1939 will now purchase 45 cents in its total value. [/SIZE]
This is the issue of this election. Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capital can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.
[SIZE=2]You and I are told increasingly that we have to choose between a left or right, but I would like to suggest that there is no such thing as a left or right. There is only an up or down--up to a man's age-old dream, the ultimate in individual freedom consistent with law and order--or down to the ant heap totalitarianism, and regardless of their sincerity, their humanitarian motives, those who would trade our freedom for security have embarked on this downward course.[/SIZE]
A government can't control the economy without controlling people. And they know when a government sets out to do that, it must use force and coercion to achieve its purpose. They also knew, those Founding Fathers, that outside of its legitimate functions, government does nothing as well or as economically as the private sector of the economy.
[SIZE=2]Yet anytime you and I question the schemes of the do-gooders, we are denounced as being against their humanitarian goals. They say we are always "against" things, never "for" anything. Well, the trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn't so. We are for a provision that destitution should not follow unemployment by reason of old age, and to that end we have accepted Social Security as a step toward meeting the problem.[/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]But we are against those entrusted with this program when they practice deception regarding its fiscal shortcomings, when they charge that any criticism of the program means that we want to end payments to those who depend on them for livelihood. They have called it insurance to us in a hundred million pieces of literature. But then they appeared before the Supreme Court and they testified that it was a welfare program. They only use the term "insurance" to sell it to the people. And they said Social Security dues are a tax for the general use of the government, and the government has used that tax. There is no fund, because Robert Byers, the actuarial head, appeared before a congressional committee and admitted that Social Security as of this moment is $298 billion in the hole. But he said there should be no cause for worry because as long as they have the power to tax, they could always take away from the people whatever they needed to bail them out of trouble! [/SIZE]
I think we are for an international organization, where the nations of the world can seek peace. But I think we are against subordinating American interests to an organization that has become so structurally unsound that today you can muster a two-thirds vote on the floor of the General Assembly among the nations that represent less than 10 percent of the world's population.
I think we are for aiding our allies by sharing of our material blessings with those nations which share in our fundamental beliefs, but we are against doling out money government to government, creating bureaucracy, if not socialism, all over the world. We set out to help 19 countries. We are helping 107.
[SIZE=2]As a former Democrat, I can tell you Norman Thomas isn't the only man who has drawn this parallel to socialism with the present administration. Back in 1936, Mr. Democrat himself, Al Smith, the great American, came before the American people and charged that the leadership of his party was taking the part of Jefferson, Jackson, and Cleveland down the road under the banners of Marx, Lenin, and Stalin. And he walked away from his party, and he never returned to the day he died, because to this day, the leadership of that party has been taking that party, that honorable party, down the road in the image of the labor socialist party of England. Now it doesn't require expropriation or confiscation of private property or business to impose socialism on a people. What does it mean whether you hold the deed or the title to your business or property if the government holds the power of life and death over that business or property? Such machinery already exists. The government can find some charge to bring against any concern it chooses to prosecute. Every businessman has his own tale of harassment. [/SIZE]
[SIZE=2][/SIZE]
[SIZE=2]Somewhere a perversion has taken place. Our natural, inalienable rights are now considered to be a dispensation of government, and freedom has never been so fragile, so close to slipping from our grasp as it is at this moment. [/SIZE][/LEFT]
Reagen was amazing. What is even more amazing is that the Democrats can't even say anything bad about him! Or at least, nothing bad without sounding stupid.
Did you know that Reagan started his political career opposing public housing? He went on to oppose the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Good ol' Gipper, a true American who believes in American values!
For more:
“For instance, either candidate can hit back hard at Reagan's bid for the black vote by recalling his 1976 claim in a Fort Lauderdale, Fla., speech that working people at a supermarket checkout counter were "outraged" when they saw a "strapping young buck" buy T-bone steaks with food stamps.”
...
“As a young congressman, Lott was among those who urged Reagan to deliver his first major campaign speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered in one of the 1960s' ugliest cases of racist violence. It was a ringing declaration of his support for "states' rights" — a code word for resistance to black advances clearly understood by white Southern voters.
Then there was Reagan's attempt, once he reached the White House in 1981, to reverse a long-standing policy of denying tax-exempt status to private schools that practice racial discrimination and grant an exemption to Bob Jones University.
Lott's conservative critics, quite rightly, made a big fuss about his filing of a brief arguing that BJU should get the exemption despite its racist ban on interracial dating. But true to their pattern of white-washing Reagan's record on race, not one of Lott's conservative critics said a mumblin' word about the Gipper's deep personal involvement. They don't care to recall that when Lott suggested that Reagan's regime take BJU's side in a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, Reagan responded, "We ought to do it." Two years later the U.S. Supreme Court in a resounding 8-to-1 decision ruled that Reagan was dead wrong and reinstated the IRS's power to deny BJU's exemption. “
Location: Democratic Peoples Republic of Redneckistan
11,078 posts, read 15,089,373 times
Reputation: 3937
Quote:
Originally Posted by Manigault
Did you know that Reagan started his political career opposing public housing? He went on to oppose the Civil Rights Act and the Voting Rights Act. Good ol' Gipper, a true American who believes in American values!
For more:
“For instance, either candidate can hit back hard at Reagan's bid for the black vote by recalling his 1976 claim in a Fort Lauderdale, Fla., speech that working people at a supermarket checkout counter were "outraged" when they saw a "strapping young buck" buy T-bone steaks with food stamps.”
...
“As a young congressman, Lott was among those who urged Reagan to deliver his first major campaign speech in Philadelphia, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were murdered in one of the 1960s' ugliest cases of racist violence. It was a ringing declaration of his support for "states' rights" — a code word for resistance to black advances clearly understood by white Southern voters.
Then there was Reagan's attempt, once he reached the White House in 1981, to reverse a long-standing policy of denying tax-exempt status to private schools that practice racial discrimination and grant an exemption to Bob Jones University.
Lott's conservative critics, quite rightly, made a big fuss about his filing of a brief arguing that BJU should get the exemption despite its racist ban on interracial dating. But true to their pattern of white-washing Reagan's record on race, not one of Lott's conservative critics said a mumblin' word about the Gipper's deep personal involvement. They don't care to recall that when Lott suggested that Reagan's regime take BJU's side in a lawsuit against the Internal Revenue Service, Reagan responded, "We ought to do it." Two years later the U.S. Supreme Court in a resounding 8-to-1 decision ruled that Reagan was dead wrong and reinstated the IRS's power to deny BJU's exemption. “
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.
