Thought IS a conservative. check out this quote from Thoughtone himself:
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?p=6014023#post6014023
post 11
And I agree Thought, we need to cut spending!
Why Republican????
- Thread starter Andeyhollawho
- Start date
Thought IS a conservative. check out this quote from Thoughtone himself:
http://www.bgol.us/board/showthread.php?p=6014023#post6014023
post 11
And I agree Thought, we need to cut spending!
Rep because politics should be local. Dems want to take it global regardless and the Bush II reps bought into it, prolly because Bill Clinton is the antichrist and he put some kinda spell on them. Now we really only have one party but if we are going to take back this country the old school rep platform is the way to go.
Ok, so you agreed with Jimmy Carter's policies and the New Deal. That was pre-Reagan.
After being a registered Dem for years, I switched my affiliation to Independent. Without getting into detail, I noticed that as I get older I find that some of my views are fairly liberal, while others are conservative. And these views evolve/change as time goes on.
Another badly thought out, deflection, what are you talking about comment.
Smoking the good stuff again.
respond to what? The job location and movements of your sisters son,'s godmother? What y'all find funny in Dekalb,GA? The education level and how they got it of a few people in DC?.....btw isn't that what republicans say how it should be done, on ones own without help from anybody?
wasn't insulting you bro but you remind me of how scatterbrained I would get when I lit one up. Nothing wrong with it. Enjoy
I guess your right, the republicans are the only ones to say this.
Actually, the republicans have scorn for education. Don't they try and cut down educated people as elitists? Your move.
na, I agree with the spending levels, not necessarily what it was spent on!
I, especially, like the JFK Supply-side tax cuts, which doubled tax revenue, that Reagan later copied
http://www.nationalreview.com/nrof_bartlett/bartlett200401280907.asp
The only thing I disagree with is the fact CARTER, and ADMINS before him didn't know how to beat the russians, Reagan did. People tend to forget that Reaganomics was made to defeat the Soviet Union. Cut spending down to the barebone, then use all the tax revenue to create a STRONG military that the Soviet Union wouldn't be able to compete with. I know that there's a lot of distaste for the military industry, but without that industry, a lot of people wouldn't have a job, we wouldn't have some of the best technology in the world if we had an halfassed military. Eisenhower was wary of the military industry only because of his experiences in WORLD WAR 2. He feared that OUR country would turn into something like Nazi Germany if the wrong leader gets full control of a strong military. I can't say I agree/disagree with that notion, however, many on here uses what Eisenhower says for their political benefit.
I've notice that people would say "Reagan wasn't a conservative because he spend all that money for the military". I would have to politely ask this, what do you expect Reagan to spend money on if he cut many government programs?
Not all educated people are elitists. However, if ONE republican call ONE person they disagree with ELITIST, then ALL of the republicans cut down EDUCATED people, right?
I wouldn't say disdain but with their preference for limited government their way would severely cut down on the number of people that would be able to attend College. Not a good idea IMO. Boneheaded actually, it limits the number of people with advanced education and training that would be needed for any economic growth to occur.
How about this alternative. Federal government bankrolls the education/technical training for the first 2 yrs. after High School provided student meets academic, attendance and behavioral benchmarks. Included in this would be a monthly stipend, at least enough to take care of lets say basic personal necessities that would be needed to support the academic/technical training.
Last edited:
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/W6Y3nUH_0-8&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/W6Y3nUH_0-8&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>
I disagee with alot of this
First Reagan did not defeat the Soviets.The collapsed and breakup of the Soviet Union occurred when Bush 1 was president. All Presidents beginning with Truman did their part to confront and weaken the Soviets.They were crumbling internally already from trying to keep up with the United States. Reagan's part was to ratchet up the economic and military pressure by advancing the Strategic Defense initiative and supporting the Mujahiddin in Afghanistan. The downside of this were massive cuts in social spending which devastated cities across the country. If I remember correctly Reagan had to back off on a lot of what he wanted to do because he was being sounded criticized for advocating having the..." best defended ghettos in the world"....
Reagan did more to defeat the Soviets than any other president. You are right about Bush 1 finishing the job.
The problem with the inner cities is that we did not invest in our own communities. For example, here in Texas, mostly everyone did their best to get out of the bad neighborhoods due to them making more money from companies like Boeing, GM, Lockheed, ect. However, no one put any money back into the communities in a LEGAL way. We ran from our situation rather than taking care of our neighborhoods. Add that with the fact that a whole generation rather think about themselves more than making a situation better for the next generation. I'm that next generation *I'm 24 btw*, and I had to learn from people that became lazy after the civil rights movement.
Limited government does not automatically means cutting spending for education. I believe that education, and military is the biggest institutions that cannot be cut. However, we do need to make sure we are spending the money correctly. I believe that teacher's unions have messed up the education system way more than any republican has, but that's another story.
You can't quantify your first statement. Each President dealt with the situation they inherited as they saw fit. Reagan came in and dealt another blow to an already weakened adversary from the cumulative actions of the Presidents before him.
Your second point has merit in that the community has to make investments in itself in order for it to prosper. The government plays a role in this under the provide for the general welfare thingy in the Constitution. For Reagan or any President to suddenly pull the rug out from under those communities is callous and I believe morally abhorrent.
Unc, you won't get an argument from me about what Reagan did in regards to the Cold War.
However, its our responsibility to take care of our neighborhoods. Government really do not have any control of anyone investing in our businesses. The only thing government can do to really create economic growth is to give the individual the opportunity to make a choice. What happened in the 80's was many people in the inner cities either decided to move out, sell drugs, or do drugs. The moral responsibility is on OUR end of the bargain.
You basic argument is sound but government does have a role to play in the scenario you described. That would be to provide and maintain basic services like protecting lives and property, take the necessary actions to mitigate the problems you described like drug prevention and treatment and to make general investments to prepare the land and entice private money to come back in. This would happpen in an effort to return that community to a healthy state then for the government to back out. To just leave it in a wild wild west state would let the problem spread to other areas. I believe the let it be mentality of republicans is it's Achilles heel. The problem for Dems is they go too far in the other direction by trying to micro-manage everything and force people to get along.
That's where balance, and self responsibility comes in. I'm not saying eliminate GOVERNMENT entirely. Government has a role to keep order beyond anything else.
Republicans ultimately believe that we can self-govern ourselves. Now, when it comes to abortion, and gay marriage. That's another story within itself. The one thing that's constant is that the extreme side of both parties have a tendency to become the tyrannical entity it claims the other side is guilty of. That's why I'm for a balanced, limited government that works for the constitution, and the American people.
A well thought out reasonable comment. You're a ray of hope for your party. Keep it up bro.
I prefer the Independent label. Gives me the freedom to smack both parties around
A well thought out reasonable comment. You're a ray of hope for your party. Keep it up bro.
I prefer the Independent label. Gives me the freedom to smack both parties around
Hell trust me, I smack around the republicans too. I'm a conservative 80 percent of the time. I just happen to like sex, some drugs, and freedom...
Actinanass your views are on point. It's funny how whenever liberals run out of things to say they bring out the racist scarecrow to try and shew away your thoughts. Its my contention that liberalism is anti-intellectual and a philosophy based on envy and pure emotionalism. Why else would someone envy a country like cuba or North Korea. What the media doesn't show you is massive famine and extreme poverty. Liberals enjoy keeping blacks and the poor clueless to the real world. As a people we must seek to become political and economic players.
This is a typical liberal response when presented with facts:
1. Since you can't make a factual, coherent response, make a snide remark.
2. Blame Bush.
Always remember>>> Reason obeys itself: ignorance submits to what is dictated to it. Thomas Paine
Last edited:
I can respect your views. We as a people cant afford to be democrats. Think about it? When you think of Toyota what country comes to mind? BMW? Mercedes? Coke?
Oil producers? Chase? Mc'Donald's? What can we as Black America point to and say that multinational corporation was created buy Africans or Black America. I just think to highly of our people to just settle for table scraps. It amazes me how a group of people who are looking for a charismatic leader, that has a liberal mindset can be so easily deceived. Non-thinkers will always seek an easy path which takes little effort on their part.
Similar threads
