• If you are having problems logging in please use the Contact Us in the lower right hand corner of the forum page for assistance.

Ronald Reagan Sounds Like Ron Paul

A

Anonymous

Guest
If you get an extra 10 minutes listen to this speach-- and then tell me why the Republican party chose the most Liberal (I think as Liberal as Obama), loose cannon, nation building, warmongering, immoral, dishonest, Lobbyist corrupted, elitist neocon candidate running over Ron Paul... :???:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STLR6tFP4S4&feature=related
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
BRG said:
The voice doesn't match up to the video at all. Looks pretty fake to me.

I guess you'd have to ask Youtube-- but it definitely does express the actual old Republican beliefs-- but so many of you anymore have been sold the bill of goods that this new neocon Republicanism is actually conservative-or Republican-- that I wouldn't expect most to understand :roll: :( :(
 

VanC

Well-known member
Oldtimer said:
BRG said:
The voice doesn't match up to the video at all. Looks pretty fake to me.

I guess you'd have to ask Youtube-- but it definitely does express the actual old Republican beliefs-- but so many of you anymore have been sold the bill of goods that this new neocon Republicanism is actually conservative-or Republican-- that I wouldn't expect most to understand :roll: :( :(

You said in your original post that you think McCain is as liberal as Obama, and now we're supposed to look to you for guidance on what real conservatism is? Now THAT'S funny!! :lol: :lol:
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
VanC said:
Oldtimer said:
BRG said:
The voice doesn't match up to the video at all. Looks pretty fake to me.

I guess you'd have to ask Youtube-- but it definitely does express the actual old Republican beliefs-- but so many of you anymore have been sold the bill of goods that this new neocon Republicanism is actually conservative-or Republican-- that I wouldn't expect most to understand :roll: :( :(

You said in your original post that you think McCain is as liberal as Obama, and now we're supposed to look to you for guidance on what real conservatism is? Now THAT'S funny!! :lol: :lol:

Whats really funny to me is that so many have fallen into this neoconism- that you buy into as conservativism that you still backslap the Bush/McSame policies of spending like a drunken sailor- to send $Trillions overseas for nationbuilding- while having no way- or even no idea of how to pay for that debt -- instead charging the debt to our kids and grandkids...
A policy of globalism that has not only lost the country sovereignty, but has almost bankrupt the economy...

Ronald Wilson Reagan (February 6, 1911 – June 5, 2004) was the 40th President of the United States (1981–1989) and the 33rd Governor of California (1967–1975). Born in Illinois, Reagan moved to Los Angeles, California in the 1930s, where he was an actor, president of the Screen Actors Guild (SAG), and a spokesman for General Electric (GE). His start in politics occurred during his work for GE; originally a member of the Democratic Party, he switched to the Republican Party in 1962 After delivering a rousing speech in support of Barry Goldwater's presidential candidacy in 1964, he was persuaded to seek the California governorship, winning two years later and again in 1970.

I can't tell you if that was Reagan--but that sounds like the policies that Goldwater ran on at the time...

I don't think you'll ever see a true Conservative President again for sometime-- as once the immigrants are given amnesty/fasttracked to citizenship (which both candidates endorse)- and the borders are opened to many more legal immigrants from around the world with fasttrack to citizenship (which is even more strongly supported by McSame than Obama)- you will see 20+ million new Democrats added to the population- and according to those tracking the statistics the number of descendants of those immigrants/minorities/more liberal Democrats is increasing at a rapid rate while the number of conservatives/traditional Republican is stagnated or decreasing....

The closest to a true conservative may in years to come might be a Centrist/Populist independent or third party candidate....
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
VanC said:
Oldtimer said:
BRG said:
The voice doesn't match up to the video at all. Looks pretty fake to me.

I guess you'd have to ask Youtube-- but it definitely does express the actual old Republican beliefs-- but so many of you anymore have been sold the bill of goods that this new neocon Republicanism is actually conservative-or Republican-- that I wouldn't expect most to understand :roll: :( :(

You said in your original post that you think McCain is as liberal as Obama, and now we're supposed to look to you for guidance on what real conservatism is? Now THAT'S funny!! :lol: :lol:
OT is getting lost in his own game!!! :lol2:

OT, who is the more conservative of these pairs (or should I say less liberal?)...

Bush--Algore

Bush--Kerry

McCain--Obama

None are Reagan conservatives!!!!!!!!!!
This is a no win election for us true conservatives and , if you are going to support/promote Obama, you are NO REAGAN CONSERVATIVE!!!!!!
 
A

Anonymous

Guest
RobertMac said:
VanC said:
Oldtimer said:
I guess you'd have to ask Youtube-- but it definitely does express the actual old Republican beliefs-- but so many of you anymore have been sold the bill of goods that this new neocon Republicanism is actually conservative-or Republican-- that I wouldn't expect most to understand :roll: :( :(

You said in your original post that you think McCain is as liberal as Obama, and now we're supposed to look to you for guidance on what real conservatism is? Now THAT'S funny!! :lol: :lol:
OT is getting lost in his own game!!! :lol2:

OT, who is the more conservative of these pairs (or should I say less liberal?)...

Bush--Algore

Bush--Kerry

McCain--Obama

None are Reagan conservatives!!!!!!!!!!
This is a no win election for us true conservatives and , if you are going to support/promote Obama, you are NO REAGAN CONSERVATIVE!!!!!!

Depends on what? Bush has been the most liberal spending President in modern history- sending much of the taxpayer money overseas for the neocon version of foreign aid...He has also built the biggest and fastest growing bureaucracy in history...McSame has backed all his policies....Bush has been the most liberal President on allowing illegal immigrants- following on the heels of Clinton- all of which is being echoed again twofold by McSame....

Bush has been the most liberal about tearing apart our rule of laws and eroding our US Constitution- along with delegating power to Agencies and Departments and allowing Agency rulemaking to make mandates on..He has also been the most liberal about signing agreements with countries tying us into treaties and losing our soveriegnty- one treaty at a time....

I differ from most of you because I could care less on the legislating abortion choices, bedroom preferences, and many of those social issues which I think in most cases should be personal decisions or left to the states--not for neocon Federal governments to decide...

And just like Bush did- McSame tells you one thing- but does the opposite-- and when you look at McSames history he has been all over the place- mainly depending on which Lobbyist waved the most money in front of his face- but almost always (90+% of the time) supporting GW Bush's neocon policies-- which no way are conservative in the values of the old conservatism- which was a rule of law- strict following of the Constitution- mind your own business- keep your nose at home- support the USA, both producers and industry policy....They put America first-- not Iraq...
 

mrj

Well-known member
Guys, surely you know by now that OT is so bent on (or twisted by) his failure to understand or to admit the possibility that GWB just might know more about the threat from the Islamic terrorists who are determined to overcome of kill all "infidels", that he refuses to credit any action taken by this administration.

It is only logical that such knowledge has driven this president to take some difficult measures to try to protect our country, and to undertake a war in Iraq in order to prevent take-over of that country with its oil, by those extremists. Yes, we are helping Iraqi's rebuild their country, but there was a very real danger of those Taliban gaining control of that nation, too.

Does OT have some inside knowledge that the Iraqi's will never return any of our expenditures made in their behalf? While we didn't demand that of Japan or Germany or Italy, I believe the USA has benefitted from trade with those nations. And I certainly believe that was a better choice than being taken over by Hitler and his allies!

I say elect McCain and keep the pressure on him to enable him to do the correct, conservative things necessary, starting with forcing Congress to allow our troops to WIN a war, something that body has prevented since WWII, IMO.

mrj
 

RobertMac

Well-known member
MRJ, the thing that is far more important about Germany, Japan, and Italy than trade or any amount of money to be repaid is that they are now allies. That is the long term payback from Iraq and Afghanistan and, hopefully, other Islamic countries...if we protect them long enough from the extremist for them to be able to take care of themselves. The only way to win the war against terrorism is to show the people of these countries what it is like to live free and without the fear of repression. And the most important thing is to show the Islamic people that want to be free is that we won't cut and run!!!
 

fff

Well-known member
RobertMac said:
MRJ, the thing that is far more important about Germany, Japan, and Italy than trade or any amount of money to be repaid is that they are now allies. That is the long term payback from Iraq and Afghanistan and, hopefully, other Islamic countries...if we protect them long enough from the extremist for them to be able to take care of themselves. The only way to win the war against terrorism is to show the people of these countries what it is like to live free and without the fear of repression. And the most important thing is to show the Islamic people that want to be free is that we won't cut and run!!!

The Iraqi Constitution is based on Shira Law. They're happy with that. They apparently don't want a country where a variety of religions are acceptable. They're a Muslim country and want to stay that way. Why do you think destroying the country and killing as many as a million citizens will make them want to be like us?

And they want us OUT of there. Not in 2015. Not "when conditions on the ground are good". They want a definite date and they want it to be in the timeframe Obama has been talking about for over a year. Now how can such a "novice" in foreign affairs know more than McCain and Bush? Or even Condi Rice? He must be a lot smarter than Republicans give him credit for. :D
 

fff

Well-known member
mrj said:
Guys, surely you know by now that OT is so bent on (or twisted by) his failure to understand or to admit the possibility that GWB just might know more about the threat from the Islamic terrorists who are determined to overcome of kill all "infidels", that he refuses to credit any action taken by this administration.

It is only logical that such knowledge has driven this president to take some difficult measures to try to protect our country, and to undertake a war in Iraq in order to prevent take-over of that country with its oil, by those extremists. Yes, we are helping Iraqi's rebuild their country, but there was a very real danger of those Taliban gaining control of that nation, too.

Does OT have some inside knowledge that the Iraqi's will never return any of our expenditures made in their behalf? While we didn't demand that of Japan or Germany or Italy, I believe the USA has benefitted from trade with those nations. And I certainly believe that was a better choice than being taken over by Hitler and his allies!

I say elect McCain and keep the pressure on him to enable him to do the correct, conservative things necessary, starting with forcing Congress to allow our troops to WIN a war, something that body has prevented since WWII, IMO.

mrj

So what to you expect the next president to do when Prime Minister Malaki says 'thanks for your help. I couldn't have done it without you. But now we're going to sell our oil to China and we want you guys to go home.' What then? Are you suggesting that we continue to have toops there until YOU consider the war WON?

Iraqi Prime Minister Nouri Maliki said Monday that an agreement on the future of U.S. forces in Iraq must include a firm withdrawal date and that Iraq wants them out of the country by the end of 2011.

It was the first time Maliki explicitly demanded a fixed deadline for the departure of all U.S. troops from Iraq. His words appeared to rule out the presence of any U.S. military advisors, special forces and air support after the withdrawal date.

The current draft of the U.S.-Iraqi security agreement, details of which had previously been reported, outlines a conditional timeline of 2011 for U.S. combat troops to be out of Iraq. However, it leaves the door open for the U.S. military to stay on in a noncombat role.

The hardened position came after last week's visit by Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice to Iraq, where she met with Maliki in hopes of clearing obstacles to an agreement. But officials familiar with the talks say that the prime minister remains undecided about whether he even wants a deal.

After their meeting, the agreement was supposed to be reviewed by Maliki, Iraq's three-member presidency council and Kurdistan regional President Massoud Barzani. However, the group has yet to convene to review the text.

Speaking before a gathering of Shiite Muslim tribesmen, Maliki said that negotiations with U.S. officials were still ongoing, but made it clear he was opposed to a timeline based on conditions on the ground. He said the only agreement acceptable to Iraq was one that guaranteed it "full sovereignty."

"There is . . . agreement between the two sides that there will not be any foreign soldiers in Iraq after 2011," he said.

In Crawford, Texas, White House spokesman Tony Fratto said: "Any decisions on troops will be based on the conditions on the ground in Iraq. That has always been our position. It continues to be our position.

"There is no agreement until there's an agreement signed," he added. "There are discussions that continue in Baghdad."

In July, Maliki told Der Spiegel magazine that he believed Democratic Party presidential candidate Barack Obama's plan to withdraw all U.S. troops from Iraq in 16 months was a realistic time frame, with slight changes. After the remarks stirred controversy, Maliki's spokesman clarified that, if security continued to improve, the Iraqi government hoped all U.S. troops would be out of Iraq by the end of 2010.

U.S. and Iraqi negotiators have been haggling for months over the security agreement, which must be approved by Iraq's parliament by the end of the year. That is when the United Nations mandate governing the presence of U.S. forces here expires. If an agreement is not reached, U.S. forces would, in effect, be left with no legal standing to be in Iraq.

But the issues of a withdrawal deadline and immunity for U.S. forces accused of crimes in Iraq have been major sticking points, and some Iraqi officials close to the negotiations have made it clear that the two sides remain deeply divided on those topics.

On Monday, Maliki ruled out "open immunity" for foreign troops, suggesting that a deal was in the works that would grant immunity under certain conditions.

According to Iraqi and Western officials familiar with the talks, Maliki is under pressure from those within his ruling Shiite Muslim coalition and even inside his own circle of advisors not to endorse an agreement, based on the belief that Iraq is strong enough militarily that it no longer needs the Americans. Maliki, who is intensely nationalistic, does not want to be branded an agent of the Americans, they said.

He is under pressure from Iran, as well as the grand ayatollahs in Iraq's Shiite shrine city of Najaf, who could come out against an agreement if they feel it infringes on Iraq's sovereignty. At a time when he needs political cover, the Supreme Islamic Iraqi Council, the largest Shiite party in his alliance, is also deeply divided on ties with the Americans.

Those officials familiar with the talks stressed that time was running out. Most were skeptical that Iraq and the U.S. would approach the United Nations for an extension of the American security mandate in Iraq after previously stating that 2008 should be its last year. But they expected that some compromise mechanism would still be found to resolve differences.

In part, those officials faulted American missteps at the beginning for creating the current situation, specifically sending a technical team that had negotiated previous status of forces agreements around the world to lead the talks here last spring.

The original team, which was eventually pulled, called for an agreement that granted the Americans the right to launch military operations without the permission of the Iraqi government and gave soldiers and contractors complete immunity from Iraqi law, those officials said. The team's negotiating stance triggered a popular backlash after Shiite politicians leaked its demands.

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/world/la-fg-iraq26-2008aug26,0,4355364.story
 
Top