Quote from: Shooterman on October 01, 2010, 05:32:20 AM
The problem, Dear Lady, is Mr Lincoln was certainly not a conservative, so any conservative roots acquired by PUBS, have had another source.

It's my thinking pattern.  I always equate Lincoln with the Republican Party.   The Republican Party is now a conservative party (or so I've been told  :D  ), therefore conservative roots have to be with Lincoln.  As you know, I don't think in terms of conservative or liberal (I also don't say progressive because the dems hate the word "liberal").  I think in terms of Rep and Dem.  Therefore the roots of conservatism rest with Lincoln.  They sure as heck don't rest with FDR, whom I consider the Father of the Nonsense That Is Now Becoming the Dem Party.

To know me is to love, ................ or to know me is to be confused by me.   ???

I always equate the Republican party with Reagan and Goldwater. I guess it's just a matter of perspective. What happened 140 years ago is interesting from a historical perspective, but I don't see it's relevance to the current political debate.

Quote from: crepe05 on October 01, 2010, 09:25:21 AM
It's my thinking pattern.  I always equate Lincoln with the Republican Party.   The Republican Party is now a conservative party (or so I've been told  :D  ), therefore conservative roots have to be with Lincoln.  As you know, I don't think in terms of conservative or liberal (I also don't say progressive because the dems hate the word "liberal").  I think in terms of Rep and Dem.  Therefore the roots of conservatism rest with Lincoln.  They sure as heck don't rest with FDR, whom I consider the Father of the Nonsense That Is Now Becoming the Dem Party.

To know me is to love, ................ or to know me is to be confused by me.   ???

Yet, the DIMS, though no longer, were the party of Jefferson.

There wasn't a conservative bone ( conservative by our standards ) in Lincoln's body. He was actually sent a letter of congratulations on his second election, by Karl Marx, who was more a kindred spirit.

Quote from: Dan on October 01, 2010, 09:29:49 AM
I always equate the Republican party with Reagan and Goldwater. I guess it's just a matter of perspective. What happened 140 years ago is interesting from a historical perspective, but I don't see it's relevance to the current political debate.

It actually ( that which occurred 150 to 160 years ago, was the basis for the large government and strangulation of States Rights we are seeing to day. You might want to throw in the Personal Income Tax, as well. I think it is very relevant.

Quote from: Berggeist on September 30, 2010, 09:39:02 PM
The Republican Party was at its inception and remains to this day the party of bankers, stock jobbers, paper aristocracy, and corporatists.  It is nothing more and nothing less.  It has and has never had any principles.  At its inception, it created alliances on the one hand with Southern hating abolitionists and on the other with African hating Free Soilers.  With than alliance, it was able to become the leading faction in control of the U.S. government by being elected as a regional and not a national party.  It launched a war of aggression against the Confederacy and systematically looted and plunder the South, not only during the war but also during Reconstruction and in the years afterward, right up, in fact to WWI.

The federal army became, in essence, the private army of the party, which, when through with the South, went on to exploit the Plains Indians with actions, in some cases, bordering on genocide, to facilitate the railroads, one of the most powerful set of corporatists among the elites controlling the party.

With only temporary interruptions from conservative Democratic administrations like those of Grover Cleveland, the Republicans pushed their aggressive agenda onto the international scene with the 1898 war with Spain, a war which made up a Caribbean  and a Pacific power, and with their expansion to Hawaii and to Central America.

After WWI, there seemed to be with Harding and Coolidge, a benign period of the Republican Party.  However, with the election of Hoover, actually a wartime-socialist Wilsonian, that changed.

The Republicans seemed in the years just before WWII and just after, particularly in the person of men like Taft, to show a different face.  Ike, of course, could have just as easily been a post-WWII Democrat as Republican.

Goldwater showed Taft-like qualities, but more populist in nature.  The Republican establishment abandoned him to run and win a Deep South campaign while losing the national election.

Along came Nixon with his Southern strategy to which the Republicans have been chained ever since.  Without the South, they could not have won a single election.  It is interesting, that even as the GOP, ever as disingenuous as before and ever as unprincipled, is still courting votes in the stupid South, their leadership is apologizing for the Southern strategy.  This should surprise no one.  The GOP is courting some new constituency and does not mind being allied, as was so at its inception with two or more very divergent constituencies.

The Democratic Party hates and loathes the South or what is left of it; and, I would suggest, the feeling is mutual; however, it would be nice if we Southerns could gain the insight necessary to abandon the disingenuous and unprincipled Republican Party.  What is left of us should go into our twilight a free people, at least free of the factions of Democrats and Republicans, and not be chained to slip into hell with the very party which initiated our destruction.

Nice cut and paste job.  So where is the link for this RUBBISH?

Revisionist history is always interesting to read, like any work of pure FICTION.

Quote from: AmericanFlyer on October 01, 2010, 12:50:13 PM
Nice cut and paste job.  So where is the link for this RUBBISH?

Revisionist history is always interesting to read, like any work of pure FICTION.

Those who know of me on fora know that I do not do "cut and paste" jobs.  I sometimes place quotes with links from materials which support what I have articulated in my own idiom; however, I do not do cut and paste in the sense in which you seem to be referring.

If that which is posited as "history" is in fact a "court" history, built on half truths, lies and plausibility theories which fit a public relations or propaganda agenda, then such a "history" needs to be challenged and revised with truth and fact, even if that truth and fact which casts redeeming light on the half truths and lies is gleaned from the rubbish.  Archeologists will tell you that much is learned from the rubbish of the past.

Prove to me, if you can, that the Republican Party is not at its core a cadre of bankers, stock jobbers, speculators, corporatists and paper aristocracy.  Prove to me that this core did not make alliance with rabid anti-Southern abolitionists and anti-African Free Soilers and that they did not launch a war of aggression in which a region of the country which had dared not vote for them was systematically looted and plundered for four years of war, twelve years of "Reconstruction" and numerous ensuing years.

Prove to me, if you can, that it was not the Republican Party, which using the federal army, that did not systematically press the Plains Indians out of their lives, livelihoods and lives to give gross gain to the railroads and to the other "interests" who lay behind them.

Prove to me, if you can, that the Republican Party was not in power at the time of the Spanish American War and did not thereby gain an international empire in the Caribbean and the Pacific, adding in addition Central American and Hawaii with force of arms.

Prove to me that the Republican Party did not marginalize Taft within the party and did not abandon Goldwater to be a "Southern" candidate.

Prove to me that Nixon did not embark on a Southern Strategy which gained for the party the vote and support of us stupid Southerners and that now the leadership of that party is not trying to distance itself from that policy even as the GOP attempts to sucker the South into voting for it one more time.

Prove to me that the Democratic Party did not bifurcate itself from the South which had long given it a home.

Prove to me with all of that why I as a Southerner should give either party the time of day, especially not the party which destroyed my region with fire and sword.

Quote from: Berggeist on October 01, 2010, 01:25:10 PM

Those who know of me on fora know that I do not do "cut and paste" jobs.  I sometimes place quotes with links from materials which support what I have articulated in my own idiom; however, I do not do cut and paste in the sense in which you seem to be referring.

If that which is posited as "history" is in fact a "court" history, built on half truths, lies and plausibility theories which fit a public relations or propaganda agenda, then such a "history" needs to be challenged and revised with truth and fact, even if that truth and fact which casts redeeming light on the half truths and lies is gleaned from the rubbish.  Archeologists will tell you that much is learned from the rubbish of the past.

Prove to me, if you can, that the Republican Party is not at its core a cadre of bankers, stock jobbers, speculators, corporatists and paper aristocracy.  Prove to me that this core did not make alliance with rabid anti-Southern abolitionists and anti-African Free Soilers and that they did not launch a war of aggression in which a region of the country which had dared not vote for them was systematically looted and plundered for four years of war, twelve years of "Reconstruction" and numerous ensuing years.

Prove to me, if you can, that it was not the Republican Party, which using the federal army, that did not systematically press the Plains Indians out of their lives, livelihoods and lives to give gross gain to the railroads and to the other "interests" who lay behind them.

Prove to me, if you can, that the Republican Party was not in power at the time of the Spanish American War and did not thereby gain an international empire in the Caribbean and the Pacific, adding in addition Central American and Hawaii with force of arms.

Prove to me that the Republican Party did not marginalize Taft within the party and did not abandon Goldwater to be a "Southern" candidate.

Prove to me that Nixon did not embark on a Southern Strategy which gained for the party the vote and support of us stupid Southerners and that now the leadership of that party is not trying to distance itself from that policy even as the GOP attempts to sucker the South into voting for it one more time.

Prove to me that the Democratic Party did not bifurcate itself from the South which had long given it a home.

Prove to me with all of that why I as a Southerner should give either party the time of day, especially not the party which destroyed my region with fire and sword.

Well and truly said, Bergg.

I am reminded of what a judge said of R Carter Pittman in 1962. To wit, and I'm taking a little license here;

Honorable Carter Pittman Berggeist is one of the learned men of the legal profession our fora. If you do not like him, remember he is an opponent worthy of your best steel. His philosophy like that of George Mason is "Rule by consent of the governed." ( I truly believe this should be the mantra of all of us that consider ourselves conservative )

T. Whitfield Davidson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
DALLAS, TEXAS
May 15, 1962

I would never presume Judge Davidson would have known Bergg, or painted him with such glowing tribute, but I do believe Bergg, for those disagreeing with him, to be worthy of your best steel.

My two cents.

Quote from: Solar on September 30, 2010, 09:58:18 AM
author=Shooterman link=topic=90.msg1382#msg1382 date=1285861215]

I'm not talking about the extreme faction of the Dim party, but the magority were somewhat pragmatists, much like the majority of the RINO in the Pub party, they are too willing to cave on principal to get what they want.

Does any politician get what they want if they cave on principle?

Quote from: AmericanFlyer on September 30, 2010, 10:19:07 AM
..............  Reagan was forced to do some "un-Republican" things that he didn't want to do, in order to get what HE wanted, because he was dealing with a Democrat-controlled Congress. 

Since Reagan, the ideals, core principles, and core beliefs of the Republican Party have been blurred and compromised by a bunch of spineless political opportunists.

What's the difference between Reagan doing "un-Republican" things and the "bunch of spineless political opportunists"?

Wouldn't Reagan's doing un-Republican things put him into the "spineless political opportunist" fold?

It seems to me that you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth.  Am I wrong?

Quote from: crepe05 on October 01, 2010, 02:15:40 PM
Does any politician get what they want if they cave on principle?

The trick is never give up on your principals, I know I never have and never will.

Quote from: crepe05 on October 01, 2010, 02:22:39 PM
What's the difference between Reagan doing "un-Republican" things and the "bunch of spineless political opportunists"?

Wouldn't Reagan's doing un-Republican things put him into the "spineless political opportunist" fold?

It seems to me that you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth.  Am I wrong?

For example, when did Reagan cave on principal?

Quote from: crepe05 on October 01, 2010, 02:22:39 PM
What's the difference between Reagan doing "un-Republican" things and the "bunch of spineless political opportunists"?

Wouldn't Reagan's doing un-Republican things put him into the "spineless political opportunist" fold?

It seems to me that you're speaking out of both sides of your mouth.  Am I wrong?

Reagan made some errors in judgment.  Leaving Lebanon after the bombing of the marine barracks was an error in judgment.  Granting amnesty to illegals was an error in judgment.  Delegating too much authority to his cabinet was another error in judgment. 

These examples do not make Reagan a "spineless political opportunist".  They make him a human being who did what he believed was the correct thing to do at that point in time.

Reagan held fast to his core beliefs and core principles.  I believe that Ronald Reagan was the most politically INCORRUPTIBLE President in my lifetime. 

Quote from: AmericanFlyer on October 01, 2010, 04:49:32 PM
Reagan made some errors in judgment.  Leaving Lebanon after the bombing of the marine barracks was an error in judgment.  Granting amnesty to illegals was an error in judgment.  Delegating too much authority to his cabinet was another error in judgment. 

These examples do not make Reagan a "spineless political opportunist".  They make him a human being who did what he believed was the correct thing to do at that point in time.

Reagan held fast to his core beliefs and core principles.  I believe that Ronald Reagan was the most politically INCORRUPTIBLE President in my lifetime.

Was that when he was an FDR DIM, or after he became a Reagan PUB? ;D

Of course considering what others he was up against, he may have been the most politically incorruptible.

What Reagan was was highly-focused.

He made the safety of the U.S. from the Soviet Union his number one priority and his goal. He had a strategy for achieving that goal and he did achieve it. That was the shortcoming of Reagan's Mideast strategy; he went in without a clear, achievable purpose so there was no means of determining whether any particular decision moved us closer to his goal of farther from it.