I have seen this concept of PUB roots bandied about for quite a bit now and am curious as to a few things. This, from another thread, motivated me to ask a couple of questions.
Can you imagine just how motivated the right would be if the GOP had returned to it's roots?
Upon reflection, and having voted mostly PUB since 1964 in my rebellion against LBJ, DIMS, and mostly liberals, I was motivated to ask;
What are the PUB roots?
When did the PUBS acquire those roots?
How would the PUBS return to those roots?
I suppose everyone has their own take on such a subjective question. Someone could go all the way back to the abolitionist roots of the 1950s if they really wanted too althought I don't see how that would be practical.
For me, I think of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Small government types. Not sure how others would define it.
Quote from: Dan on September 30, 2010, 06:52:43 AM
I suppose everyone has their own take on such a subjective question. Someone could go all the way back to the abolitionist roots of the 1950s if they really wanted too althought I don't see how that would be practical.
Not picking here, Dan, but presume you mean the 1850s, which BTW, wasn't conservative.
QuoteFor me, I think of Barry Goldwater and Ronald Reagan. Small government types. Not sure how others would define it.
Barry yes, though in truth he never had the opportunity to eviscerate Big Government as he wished to, and Reagan actually chose not to.
Quote from: Shooterman on September 30, 2010, 06:58:26 AM
Not picking here, Dan, but presume you mean the 1850s, which BTW, wasn't conservative.
Yes I did. Thanks for the catch. ;)
Quote from: Shooterman on September 30, 2010, 06:58:26 AMBarry yes, though in truth he never had the opportunity to eviscerate Big Government as he wished to, and Reagan actually chose not to.
In defense of Reagan, he was working against a pretty stiff headwind. He didn't have a Congress that would work with him on most of the things he wanted to do. Like abolishing the department of education.
When I say roots, I'm referring to the better qualities of the GOP, smaller Gov, lower taxes, a less intrusive gov.
Following their motto of "Neighbors Helping Neighbors", not Gov stealing tax dollars to create a permanent voting class.
Quote from: Dan on September 30, 2010, 07:00:48 AM
Yes I did. Thanks for the catch. ;)
In defense of Reagan, he was working against a pretty stiff headwind. He didn't have a Congress that would work with him on most of the things he wanted to do. Like abolishing the department of education.
Ronnie, as the Great Communicator actually managed to get what he wanted by enlisting the people's aid. He did not eliminate the Departments of Education and Energy, and engaged in horrendous spending deficits ( for his time ) and I have to presume he was willing to do so to get what he really wanted.
Along those lines it's pretty simple.
Lower taxes. Smaller government. Less power at the federal level and more at the state and local levels. A constructionist view of the constitution. Decisions on social issues being made by the voters of each state. Not by the federal government and not by judges. Less involvement in the projection of power overseas, but maintaining a strong military that could defend our interests whenever and whereever they were needed. Defense of our borders. Enforcement of immigation laws. A balanced budget. Defense of the second ammendment. And a lot less hostility towards people of faith.
Quote from: Solar on September 30, 2010, 07:04:22 AM
When I say roots, I'm referring to the better qualities of the GOP, smaller Gov, lower taxes, a less intrusive gov.
Following their motto of "Neighbors Helping Neighbors", not Gov stealing tax dollars to create a permanent voting class.
Fair enough, Solar, so I'll reiterate; when did these qualities first show themselves. Lincoln? Teddy Roosevelt? Hoover? Ike? Nixon-Ford? Reagan?, Bush One-Two?
Quote from: Shooterman on September 30, 2010, 07:15:09 AM
Fair enough, Solar, so I'll reiterate; when did these qualities first show themselves. Lincoln? Teddy Roosevelt? Hoover? Ike? Nixon-Ford? Reagan?, Bush One-Two?
I have no doubt is was a slow process, they all didn't come at the same time, just as the Dim party hasn't always been Marxist.
Quote from: Solar on September 30, 2010, 07:22:29 AM
I have no doubt is was a slow process, they all didn't come at the same time, just as the Dim party hasn't always been Marxist.
True dat. The converse question is when did the DIMS cease being the Party of Jefferson? Or even Andy Jackson?
Quote from: Shooterman on September 30, 2010, 07:43:08 AM
True dat. The converse question is when did the DIMS cease being the Party of Jefferson? Or even Andy Jackson?
The Dim party of the 60s is the current GOP, but the Dims were doing a slow move left, until Newt killed them, and a majority jumped ship, only to overload the GOP life raft.
WE took on liberal amounts of water, while the Dims were taking on socialists, like Hussein.
It was during this time the the Dims ceased to be a party of the the peolple, and became a party over the people.
But never having dreamt it possible, the Dim party has but one direction to go, and that is to return to it's so called roots as well.
We are watching history in the making.
It happened at distinct break points. The first step was FDR. The second was LBJ. The third was the 70s and the strong leftist push in popular media from TV to Movie to Music to Newspapers.
Quote from: Shooterman on September 30, 2010, 07:43:08 AM
True dat. The converse question is when did the DIMS cease being the Party of Jefferson? Or even Andy Jackson?
I think it was 1940 in Chicago with Roosevelt for me.
Quote from: Shooterman on September 30, 2010, 06:44:25 AM
I have seen this concept of PUB roots bandied about for quite a bit now and am curious as to a few things. This, from another thread, motivated me to ask a couple of questions.
Can you imagine just how motivated the right would be if the GOP had returned to it's roots?
Upon reflection, and having voted mostly PUB since 1964 in my rebellion against LBJ, DIMS, and mostly liberals, I was motivated to ask;
What are the PUB roots?
When did the PUBS acquire those roots?
How would the PUBS return to those roots?
I think answers to these questions would vary on which part of the country it is asked. I live in New York and our Republicans have a different agenda and approach then those in the South. I guess this is true of the Democrats but I don't think to the same degree.
Quote from: Solar on September 30, 2010, 07:54:45 AM
The Dim party of the 60s is the current GOP, but the Dims were doing a slow move left, until Newt killed them, and a majority jumped ship, only to overload the GOP life raft.
WE took on liberal amounts of water, while the Dims were taking on socialists, like Hussein.
It was during this time the the Dims ceased to be a party of the the peolple, and became a party over the people.
But never having dreamt it possible, the Dim party has but one direction to go, and that is to return to it's so called roots as well.
We are watching history in the making.
Don't see the DIMS of the 60s being today's PUBS. God help us if that is true. There were two distinct factions, both liberal and conservative in both parties in the 60s. Mostly Big East was the liberals, especially the PUBS. Of course, many in the South were liberal DIMS, notably LBJ, Sam Rayburn, Jack Brooks, and a slew more. The liberals began to control politics in Texas primarily with LBJ stealing the Senate seat from Coke Stevenson in '48.
The liberal PUBS basically defeated Bob Taft in the PUB convention in '52 and installed Ike as the candidate, and were the direct cause of the failure of Goldwater in '64. Everything went to shit after that.
I personally see the Tea Party as morphing into a new party or dying if it becomes only the mouthpiece for PUBS. Time will tell.
I would also tell you, I see no return to either parties roots within my lifetime.
Quote from: Shooterman on September 30, 2010, 08:40:15 AM
Don't see the DIMS of the 60s being today's PUBS. God help us if that is true. There were two distinct factions, both liberal and conservative in both parties in the 60s. Mostly Big East was the liberals, especially the PUBS. Of course, many in the South were liberal DIMS, notably LBJ, Sam Rayburn, Jack Brooks, and a slew more. The liberals began to control politics in Texas primarily with LBJ stealing the Senate seat from Coke Stevenson in '48.
The liberal PUBS basically defeated Bob Taft in the PUB convention in '52 and installed Ike as the candidate, and were the direct cause of the failure of Goldwater in '64. Everything went to shit after that.
I personally see the Tea Party as morphing into a new party or dying if it becomes only the mouthpiece for PUBS. Time will tell.
I would also tell you, I see no return to either parties roots within my lifetime.
Both sides have crossed the line and I see no return to either parties roots in my lifetime also.
author=Shooterman link=topic=90.msg1382#msg1382 date=1285861215]
QuoteDon't see the DIMS of the 60s being today's PUBS. God help us if that is true. There were two distinct factions, both liberal and conservative in both parties in the 60s. Mostly Big East was the liberals, especially the PUBS. Of course, many in the South were liberal DIMS, notably LBJ, Sam Rayburn, Jack Brooks, and a slew more. The liberals began to control politics in Texas primarily with LBJ stealing the Senate seat from Coke Stevenson in '48.
The liberal PUBS basically defeated Bob Taft in the PUB convention in '52 and installed Ike as the candidate, and were the direct cause of the failure of Goldwater in '64. Everything went to shit after that.
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.
QuoteI personally see the Tea Party as morphing into a new party or dying if it becomes only the mouthpiece for PUBS. Time will tell.
Nope!
That is what the Pubs want you to think, by touting Palin as it's representative.
QuoteI would also tell you, I see no return to either parties roots within my lifetime.
Ahhh out comes the pessimist again. ;)
I believe that the Republican Party can trace it's REAL roots to the McKinley/Teddy Roosevelt time frame, right around the turn of the century, with the "peak" of the Republican Party "influence" occurring during the Reagan administration. 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.
Thus, as of right now, there isn't a whole lot of difference between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party. This created a "perfect storm" and a void that was filled by the American Tea Party.
You are either a CONSERVATIVE, or you are not. If you are NOT a conservative, then you don't belong in the REPUBLICAN Party. You belong in the Democrat or Green or Communist Party (sorry for the redundancy).
People like Collins and Snowe and Graham and McCain and the other RINOS must be expunged from the Republican Party, if the party is ever going to return to it's core priniciples and beliefs.
I'll say this. The conservative southern Democrats of the past are all but gone. There is no room for a conservative southern democrat in today's party. If you aren't a handicapped hispanic lesbian vegan marxist, then they just don't want you. :P
Quote from: AmericanFlyer on September 30, 2010, 10:19:07 AM
I believe that the Republican Party can trace it's REAL roots to the McKinley/Teddy Roosevelt time frame, right around the turn of the century, with the "peak" of the Republican Party "influence" occurring during the Reagan administration.
McKinley and Teddy R were certainly not conservatives and paved the way for Wilson, et al. Reagan compromised his principles ( though as a liberal FDR supporter, I'll always wonder about his bonafieds.
QuoteReagan 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.
Possibly, but he never seemed apologetic about doing the un-Republican things. The question is was he like Ike, Nixon, Ford, all who did un-Republican things. Bush One actually touted Choice when he ran against Reagan. Was he a typical PUB. Junior Bush was basically a liberal through and through- what core PUB principles did he run on?
QuoteSince Reagan, the ideals, core principles, and core beliefs of the Republican Party have been blurred and compromised by a bunch of spineless political opportunists.
How about from the time of Ike and Warren? Hell, how about the core that started the PUB Party.
QuoteThus, as of right now, there isn't a whole lot of difference between the Republican Party and the Democrat Party. This created a "perfect storm" and a void that was filled by the American Tea Party.
That is the truth, and as long as the Tea Party stays basically free of the PUBS, they'll survive and hopefully become a viable party within their own right
QuoteYou are either a CONSERVATIVE, or you are not. If you are NOT a conservative, then you don't belong in the REPUBLICAN Party. You belong in the Democrat or Green or Communist Party (sorry for the redundancy).
So, AF, what exactly are you saying? A Conservative must be a PUB? The two are synonymous? Non- conservatives can not be a PUB? Slightly less conservatives can not be a PUB? Right leaning, so called MODERATES can not be a PUB? Liberals can not be a PUB? ( Barry G would have been pleased to know that shit )
QuotePeople like Collins and Snowe and Graham and McCain and the other RINOS must be expunged from the Republican Party, if the party is ever going to return to it's core priniciples and beliefs.
Oh shit, here we go again. The core principles and beliefs of who? Lincoln? Earl Warren?(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fusera.imagecave.com%2FShooterman%2FSNORKorangeylwblk-vi.jpg&hash=57fecffaf0b61caf8903fc7f21baba84315de905)
Shooterman, your definition of "conservative ideals and priniciples" and MY definition of the same, are very different apparently.
Like it or not, this country is governed by a TWO-party system. The average voter is too damn STUPID and IGNORANT to have more than TWO choices in an election. Most of the time, they screw it up with only TWO choices. Imagine what would happen if there were THREE or more choices!
It's very cut and dried.............
Democrats are fiscally and socially liberal, and Republicans SHOULD be fiscally and socially conservative.
Democrats believe that the U.S. Constitution and the Bill Of Rights are nothing more than "guidelines" that are subject to change and liberal interpretation. Republicans SHOULD believe that the U.S. Constitution and Bill Of Rights are the foundation on which this country must be built on, and the words of our founders are NOT open to interpretation and negotiation.
The Republican Party has strayed from these basic principles, and THIS election is the BEST opportunity many of us have to get the Republican Party back on track.
THANK GOD FOR THE TEA PARTY!
Quote from: AmericanFlyer on September 30, 2010, 11:44:58 AM
Shooterman, your definition of "conservative ideals and priniciples" and MY definition of the same, are very different apparently.
Like it or not, this country is governed by a TWO-party system. The average voter is too damn STUPID and IGNORANT to have more than TWO choices in an election. Most of the time, they screw it up with only TWO choices. Imagine what would happen if there were THREE or more choices!
It's very cut and dried.............
Democrats are fiscally and socially liberal, and Republicans SHOULD be fiscally and socially conservative.
Democrats believe that the U.S. Constitution and the Bill Of Rights are nothing more than "guidelines" that are subject to change and liberal interpretation. Republicans SHOULD believe that the U.S. Constitution and Bill Of Rights are the foundation on which this country must be built on, and the words of our founders are NOT open to interpretation and negotiation.
The Republican Party has strayed from these basic principles, and THIS election is the BEST opportunity many of us have to get the Republican Party back on track.
THANK GOD FOR THE TEA PARTY!
First, we can agree on the Tea Party.
With that out of the way, a couple of simple questions. Was Lincoln a Conservative? Was Earl Warren a Conservative? Was Richard Nixon a Conservative? Each one of these men were Republicans and each affected and hastened the downfall of the the principles of the Constitution. So, I ask again. What core principles are we speaking of?
Quote from: Shooterman on September 30, 2010, 11:58:56 AM
First, we can agree on the Tea Party.
With that out of the way, a couple of simple questions. Was Lincoln a Conservative? Was Earl Warren a Conservative? Was Richard Nixon a Conservative? Each one of these men were Republicans and each affected and hastened the downfall of the the principles of the Constitution. So, I ask again. What core principles are we speaking of?
Small government, lower taxes, conservative judicial power and a lesser role for the federal government and a greater role for state and local governments.
Quote from: Dan on September 30, 2010, 12:16:39 PM
Small government, lower taxes, conservative judicial power and a lesser role for the federal government and a greater role for state and local governments.
Can we agree that automatically eliminated Lincoln and every PUB President since FDR?
Quote from: Shooterman on September 30, 2010, 12:21:27 PM
Can we agree that automatically eliminated Lincoln and every PUB President since FDR?
Only if you want to go under the assumption that presidents are absolute rulers who govern by decree. ;)
Quote from: Dan on September 30, 2010, 12:24:37 PM
Only if you want to go under the assumption that presidents are absolute rulers who govern by decree. ;)
They generally set the agenda. Lincoln certainly did. Wilson did. FDR. LBJ. Nixon. Reagan. Bush 2.
Obambam has.
BTW, Daniel, I'm still waiting for you to tell me if the aforementioned fellas were conservatives. ;)
Quote from: Shooterman on September 30, 2010, 12:38:42 PM
BTW, Daniel, I'm still waiting for you to tell me if the aforementioned fellas were conservatives. ;)
What do you consider a Conservative?
Quote from: Shooterman on September 30, 2010, 07:43:08 AM
True dat. The converse question is when did the DIMS cease being the Party of Jefferson? Or even Andy Jackson?
When Progressives were first introduced to our country. They first appeared on the political scene under Teddy Roosevelt. FDR was an all out Progressive who used his four terms in an attempt to do what Obama is now trying to do. In fact, I have no doubts that they are using FDR's blueprint to establish their form of government.
Quote from: Seawolf on September 30, 2010, 12:57:43 PM
When Progressives were first introduced to our country. They first appeared on the political scene under Teddy Roosevelt. FDR was an all out Progressive who used his four terms in an attempt to do what Obama is now trying to do. In fact, I have no doubts that they are using FDR's blueprint to establish their form of government.
Yep, check out the chart for pork spending by Administration -
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Freason.com%2Fassets%2Fmc%2Fmwelch%2F2010_09%2Fregulation_chart.png&hash=773596d3bcd954a1d39cad65813bf3309b925f17)
I really get tired of the NeoCon excuse for 'Dubya when they say "Democrat controlled during his last two years". Shit he was a bigger pork spender when the GOP controlled everything.
Only cuts where during Ronnie's first term.
Quote from: Pagan on September 30, 2010, 01:44:19 PM
Yep, check out the chart for pork spending by Administration -
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Freason.com%2Fassets%2Fmc%2Fmwelch%2F2010_09%2Fregulation_chart.png&hash=773596d3bcd954a1d39cad65813bf3309b925f17)
I really get tired of the NeoCon excuse for 'Dubya when they say "Democrat controlled during his last two years". Shit he was a bigger pork spender when the GOP controlled everything.
Only cuts where during Ronnie's first term.
I'd love to see a chart that includes Hussein, I know it would be off the chart. ;D
Quote from: Solar on September 30, 2010, 01:47:29 PM
I'd love to see a chart that includes Hussein, I know it would be off the chart. ;D
Just double 'Dubya's
Quote from: Shooterman on September 30, 2010, 12:38:42 PM
BTW, Daniel, I'm still waiting for you to tell me if the aforementioned fellas were conservatives. ;)
I'm confident you can find fault in anyone. So what's the point of the exercise. I'll give you some names. You'll tell me I'm wrong. I'll say you're wrong. And then where will we be? We've been doing this dance for a couple of years. No need to do it again. I still remember how this one ends. ;)
Quote from: Pagan on September 30, 2010, 01:44:19 PM
Yep, check out the chart for pork spending by Administration -
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Freason.com%2Fassets%2Fmc%2Fmwelch%2F2010_09%2Fregulation_chart.png&hash=773596d3bcd954a1d39cad65813bf3309b925f17)
I really get tired of the NeoCon excuse for 'Dubya when they say "Democrat controlled during his last two years". Shit he was a bigger pork spender when the GOP controlled everything.
Only cuts where during Ronnie's first term.
You are making a SWEEPING generalization by categorizing a chart titled "Regulatory Budget Dollar Increase Per Presidential Term" as a chart that shows "pork spending".
The one "constant" on this chart that I see is that spending increased during the Republican administrations because this country was involved in armed conflicts. I don't know what excuses Carter and Clinton have for THEIR spending increases.
Quote from: Dan on September 30, 2010, 02:00:56 PM
I'm confident you can find fault in anyone. So what's the point of the exercise. I'll give you some names. You'll tell me I'm wrong. I'll say you're wrong. And then where will we be? We've been doing this dance for a couple of years. No need to do it again. I still remember how this one ends. ;)
Yep, that puddle around your leg, ain't a spilled drink, and don't believe him if he claims it's raining. ;D
Quote from: AmericanFlyer on September 30, 2010, 02:04:57 PM
You are making a SWEEPING generalization by categorizing a chart titled "Regulatory Budget Dollar Increase Per Presidential Term" as a chart that shows "pork spending".
The one "constant" on this chart that I see is that spending increased during the Republican administrations because this country was involved in armed conflicts. I don't know what excuses Carter and Clinton have for THEIR spending increases.
OK here's the figures for "discretionary" spending aka PORK
Total real discretionary outlays will increase about 35.8 percent under Bush (FY2001-06) while they increased by 25.2 percent under LBJ (FY1964-69) and 11.9 percent under Reagan (FY1981-86). By contrast, they decreased by 16.5 under Nixon (FY1969-74) and by 8.2 percent under Clinton (FY1993-98). Comparing Bush to his predecessors is instructive. Bush and Reagan both substantially increased defense spending (by 44.5 and 34.8 percent respectively). However, Reagan cut real nondefense discretionary outlays by 11.1 percent while Bush increased them by 27.9 percent. Clinton and Nixon both raised nondefense spending (by 1.9 percent and 23.1 respectively), but they both cut defense spending substantially (by 16.8 and 32.2 percent).
http://reason.com/archives/2005/10/19/bush-the-budget-buster (http://reason.com/archives/2005/10/19/bush-the-budget-buster)
Quote from: Pagan on September 30, 2010, 02:25:11 PM
OK here's the figures for "discretionary" spending aka PORK
Total real discretionary outlays will increase about 35.8 percent under Bush (FY2001-06) while they increased by 25.2 percent under LBJ (FY1964-69) and 11.9 percent under Reagan (FY1981-86). By contrast, they decreased by 16.5 under Nixon (FY1969-74) and by 8.2 percent under Clinton (FY1993-98). Comparing Bush to his predecessors is instructive. Bush and Reagan both substantially increased defense spending (by 44.5 and 34.8 percent respectively). However, Reagan cut real nondefense discretionary outlays by 11.1 percent while Bush increased them by 27.9 percent. Clinton and Nixon both raised nondefense spending (by 1.9 percent and 23.1 respectively), but they both cut defense spending substantially (by 16.8 and 32.2 percent).
http://reason.com/archives/2005/10/19/bush-the-budget-buster (http://reason.com/archives/2005/10/19/bush-the-budget-buster)
So you are saying that ALL "discretionary spending" is PORK? That's quite a leap, especially considering that you have provided NO evidence to support your assumptions.
Quote from: AmericanFlyer on September 30, 2010, 02:47:20 PM
So you are saying that ALL "discretionary spending" is PORK? That's quite a leap, especially considering that you have provided NO evidence to support your assumptions.
Oh, really. I guess bridges to nowhere, moving sidewalks, so called "No Child Left Behind", the prescription drug bill, etc. etc.
Get real ::)
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.
Liberals say you're greedy if you want to keep half of what you earned. Really?
I say it's far more greedy to spend you day counting other people's money and demanding that they subsidize a lifestyle you are incapable of earning for yourself.
Put the bong down you damned dirty hippie and get a job.
Just teasing Bama, but if you can traffic in nonrepresentative stereotypes then so can I.
Quote from: Pagan on September 30, 2010, 03:18:51 PM
Oh, really. I guess bridges to nowhere, moving sidewalks, so called "No Child Left Behind", the prescription drug bill, etc. etc.
Get real ::)
Of course discretionary spending is riddled with pork that should be cut. Pork that cannot be defended. We can all list our favorite examples of indefensible pork. But the question AF asked you was to prove ALL discretionary spending was pork and you can't prove thy point by listing some famous examples.
Quote from: Shooterman on September 30, 2010, 07:15:09 AM
Fair enough, Solar, so I'll reiterate; when did these qualities first show themselves. Lincoln? Teddy Roosevelt? Hoover? Ike? Nixon-Ford? Reagan?, Bush One-Two?
I've always thought that rep roots came from Lincoln. However, political ideals and/or ideas change over time, and parties change along with those ideals and/or ideas although the parties keep the well-known name.
Quote from: crepe05 on October 01, 2010, 03:10:49 AM
I've always thought that rep roots came from Lincoln. However, political ideals and/or ideas change over time, and parties change along with those ideals and/or ideas although the parties keep the well-known name.
The problem, Dear Lady, is Mr Lincoln was certainly not a conservative, so any conservative roots acquired by PUBS, have had another source.
Personally my "republican" roots come from my Daddy. ::) ::)
Although they look more like the Tea Party than the Republican Party.. ???
Quote from: bama_beau_redux on October 01, 2010, 05:29:22 AM
Whoa, that was close! You mean I don't have to put the bong down and get a job?
Not as long as enough of you guys keep voting Democrat.
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.