Friggen' Socialist

[AMonger]

Ron Paul is/was a lousy candidate. He never had a chance, never even tried to win. Only had the ideas of the Founding Fathers, NEVER had the FIRE in his gut!

He is just a shell of what we need.

You're wrong, but for the sake of argument, ok. Now what are your alternatives? I mean, if your choices are a couple of effective socialists or 1 guy who (according to you) never had the fire in his gut (though he stood his ground in DC and want corrupted by the system in decades--show me another guy that strong) but believes the right things, how can you possibly have trouble figuring that one out?

--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.

 

[layoutshooter]

You're wrong, but for the sake of argument, ok. Now what are your alternatives? I mean, if your choices are a couple of effective socialists or 1 guy who (according to you) never had the fire in his gut (though he stood his ground in DC and want corrupted by the system in decades--show me another guy that strong) but believes the right things, how can you possibly have trouble figuring that one out?

--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.

IF he had that "FIRE" that the Founding Fathers had he would have won over those who he needs to vote for him. He did not. He needed to draw the attention of those who would be willing to FIGHT to insure our Constitution stands. I would NEVER fight under him. He does not inspire me with his lack of leadership skills.

Just keep in mind, you have your OPINION, and that is all it is, and I have MINE, and that is what is is, MY OPINION. It is VALID for me, it is based on MY beliefs and experience, which are VASTLY different than yours. There is NO ONE out there, that is running that is worth the effort. I want NONE of them.

 

[Pilgrim]

Originally Posted by Pilgrim Let's see...over the past 32 years the GOP strategy has resulted in:

1980 - 1988 Ronald Reagan (removed Carter from office - thank God!)
1988 - 1992 Bush 41 (obviously preferable over Dukakis)
2000 - 2008 Geo. W. Bush (defeated Gore and Kerry - two really BAD candidates)

Also, let's not forget the GOP landslide of victories in the 2010 mid-term elections - an obvious repudiation of the Democrat's liberal agenda, especially in the House.

Looks like 20 out of the past 32 years shows the strategy has worked pretty good, and in NONE of those cases was the elected POTUS a lighter version of the person he replaced. This year is very similar to 1979, and the differences will become clearer as the campaign progresses. A vote for anyone other than Romney is effectively an endorsement for Obama, and it accomplishes nothing of substance."

And none of them cut government spending, cut out one unconstitutional government department, or balanced a budget!

I rest my case!!!

OK...if you can't refute the point, change the subject. But let's consider what it takes to do any of the above actions that you mention. None of these can be accomplished by a POTUS unless he has the full cooperation of Congress - and in spite of the cuts and abolishments candidate Paul may claim he would impliment if elected President, the reality is he would do NONE of any consequence - especially considering he's only been able to pass one piece of legislation in his entire career as a congressman.

Reagan probably did the best that could have been expected in reducing the rate of growth in govt spending (commonly called "cuts" by politicians) in 1981 when the Gramm-Latta reconciliation bill was passed, reducing the spending increase from 18% to 8% over the previous year.

Consider President Reagan’s 1981 package of domestic-spending cuts, the so-called Gramm-Latta bill. It remains the bête noire of liberal acolytes of the welfare state. And that’s understandable. The measure reduced spending by $130 billion over three years on a wide array of federal domestic programs, including food stamps, Medicaid, dairy price supports, and even Social Security. Thirty years ago, $130 billion was real money. But though the Gramm-Latta spending cuts spiked the blood pressure in liberal salons and on the editorial pages of the New York Times, the tone was decidedly different on Capitol Hill. The cuts ultimately sailed through Tip O’Neill’s House on a voice vote. (Yes, a voice vote!) The legislation won an 80-vote majority in the Senate, including the support of 31 Democrats.

Reconciliation is Rarely-Used and Has Serious Consequences

Reagan also made a concentrated effort to eliminate the Dept of Education, but wasn't able to get any cooperation from the Democrat controlled House. Regarding balanced budgets, a couple of years were balanced during the Clinton years with the cooperation between him and the Republican controlled House - that's the only way it can happen. Contrast that with the current administration, which hasn't even passed a budget since its inception. And true cuts in govt. spending??
Maybe in our dreams.

 

[AMonger]

IF he had that "FIRE" that the Founding Fathers had he would have won over those who he needs to vote for him. He did not. He needed to draw the attention of those who would be willing to FIGHT to insure our Constitution stands. I would NEVER fight under him. He does not inspire me with his lack of leadership skills.

.

Funny how you see or relate everything to fighting/military stuff. A little disconcerting.

As for the previous stuff, being a leader has nothing to do with winning over the opposition. Well, not "nothing," but because somebody doesn't win over committed opposition isn't a leadership failure. In fact, a strong leader may encounter greater resistance. If you don't face resistance, it's because your enemy doesn't consider you a threat. But the enemies of freedom in both parties are committed socialists and/or statists. It's if they welcomed and wanted to work with Dr. Paul that would be worrying.

 

[AMonger]

Regarding balanced budgets, a couple of years were balanced during the Clinton years with the cooperation between him and the Republican controlled House - that's the only way it can happen.

That's a myth that had been thoroughly debunked both here and elsewhere many times. There was no balanced budget during the Clinton administration.

 

[layoutshooter]

Funny how you see or relate everything to fighting/military stuff. A little disconcerting.

As for the previous stuff, being a leader has nothing to do with winning over the opposition. Well, not "nothing," but because somebody doesn't win over committed opposition isn't a leadership failure. In fact, a strong leader may encounter greater resistance. If you don't face resistance, it's because your enemy doesn't consider you a threat. But the enemies of freedom in both parties are committed socialists and/or statists. It's if they welcomed and wanted to work with Dr. Paul that would be worrying.

Countries are not formed by playing checkers, nor are to protected at the ping pong table.

You cannot change my mind. Your beliefs and experiences are yours and mine are mine. They are VASTLY different. There is NO chance I would EVER vote for Paul. For me it would be, at best, voting for the lessor to two evils. I am DONE doing that. I will now ONLY vote FOR someone, someone that I believe, based on my 61 years, believes as I.

I will tell you one thing, I am SO glad I am 61 and not 21. I would HATE to have a full life ahead of me knowing the horror that is likely to soon haunt this Nation.

 

[AMonger]

.

I will tell you one thing, I am SO glad I am 61 and not 21. I would HATE to have a full life ahead of me knowing the horror that is likely to soon haunt this Nation.

On that, we agree. I pity the young.

 

[layoutshooter]

On that, we agree. I pity the young.

WE MIGHT not even agree totally on that. I pity those who are younger than 10 or so. The rest are bringing this on to themselves by choice. I have NO pity for them.

My time is past. It is now the time for those younger to live as they choose. It would seem that many would prefer slavery to freedom. They will, in the end, reap exactly what they sow.


ALL I wanted for my self at this age was to spend my days on the River and Lake Erie, hunting for ducks and fishing for walleye. I earned the rest. Too bad I will never have it. Not that rest at least.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

When did the GOP follow the constitution?

View attachment 4617

...............

 

[Ragman]

View attachment 4624

...............

Thank you, You proved my point.

 

[Tennesseahawk]

Thank you, You proved my point.

Believe it or not, the Democrats did as well, at one time.

 

[Turtle]

Reagan also made a concentrated effort to eliminate the Dept of Education, but wasn't able to get any cooperation from the Democrat controlled House.

Reagan promised to reduce the size of government and eliminate unnecessary departments. He did just the opposite.

The US Department of Education is, thanks to the efforts of Jimmy Carter, a Cabinet-level department. Not surprisingly (though I think it would be a surprise today), upgrading Education to Cabinet-level status in 1979 was opposed by most in the Republican Party who saw the department as unconstitutional, arguing that the Constitution doesn't mention education, and deemed it an unnecessary and illegal federal bureaucratic intrusion into local affairs. However, most liberals and the Democrats saw (and still see) the department as constitutional under the ever-popular catch-all Commerce Clause, and that the funding role of the Department is constitutional under the Taxing and Spending Clause.

But since it's a Cabinet-level department which was not created by the Constitution, Reagan could have eliminated it with the stroke of a pen. How much effort and concentration it would have taken for Reagan to sign his name to the Executive Order is open for debate.

 

[Pilgrim]

But since it's a Cabinet-level department which was not created by the Constitution, Reagan could have eliminated it with the stroke of a pen.

I'm curious as to what makes you think it would have been so easy for him to issue such a decree. No doubt the Democrat controlled House and Senate would have sat idly by with nothing to say about the matter. Other presidents and presidential candidates have made noises about eliminating the DOEd and other agencies, but these threats seem to rarely come to fruition and for good reason:

"When Ronald Reagan ran for president in 1980, he promised to eliminate the newly created U.S. Department of Education. And yet the Great Communicator couldn’t get it done. Sean Theriault, an associate professor in the Department of Government at the University of Texas, said a president can push an idea but that Congress has to pass it. "It only takes 40 votes to hold something up in the Senate,” Theriault said. “So presidents and candidates always talk about how they want to rearrange the bureaucracy. But, of course, any type of rearrangement has to go through Congress. And as soon as it has to go through Congress, it becomes much more difficult for that to be accomplished."...

For Perry, No Easy Path to Eliminating Federal Agencies — 2012 Presidential Election | The Texas Tribune

 

[aristotle]

Presidents must choose their battles wisely. Did Reagan feel so strongly about eliminating the Dept. of Education that he was willing to spend all his political capital and goodwill on this one issue? No. Had he acted unilaterally without bipartisan support, Reagan would have created such a maelstrom among Democrats, no further cooperation from Congress would have been available to him on other pressing issues. He sought bipartisan support and finding none, let it go. Unlike Obama, President Reagan understood the importance and value of not alienating the loyal opposition. Reagan knew how to govern.

 

[RLENT]

and value of not alienating the loyal opposition.

Not alienating the loyal opposition ?

.... sure smells like wussy to me ....

Howz about we all go tiptoeing thru the tulips .... and afterwards we can all join hands and sing a rousing chorus of Kumbaya ?

.... mebbe in solemnical celebration of Reagan's raising of the Social Security payroll tax ....

 

[Turtle]

I'm curious as to what makes you think it would have been so easy for him to issue such a decree. No doubt the Democrat controlled House and Senate would have sat idly by with nothing to say about the matter.

Because that's how it works. The President composes an Executive Order and then signs it. It's real easy. For a Cabinet-level department, the president can order it to cease operations completely. He can't de-fund it, but he can rearrange it and eliminate most or all of its functions and cause its effective (or literal) disappearance. No doubt Congress would have a fit over it, but the Executive Branch is still nonetheless the one in charge of Executive Branch Cabinet Departments. In order to overrule the president on his own cabinet, congress would have to show his actions were unconstitutional. That's not gonna happen unless the department is prescribed by the Constitution, which none are. The president can have as many or as few executive departments as he likes, as per the Constitution. The only catch is that the department heads must be approved by the Senate, and they cannot be a current member of Congress or currently hold any elected office. But they can also be non-existent.

 

[Pilgrim]

Because that's how it works. The President composes an Executive Order and then signs it. It's real easy. For a Cabinet-level department, the president can order it to cease operations completely. He can't de-fund it, but he can rearrange it and eliminate most or all of its functions and cause its effective (or literal) disappearance. No doubt Congress would have a fit over it, but the Executive Branch is still nonetheless the one in charge of Executive Branch Cabinet Departments. In order to overrule the president on his own cabinet, congress would have to show his actions were unconstitutional. That's not gonna happen unless the department is prescribed by the Constitution, which none are. The president can have as many or as few executive departments as he likes, as per the Constitution. The only catch is that the department heads must be approved by the Senate, and they cannot be a current member of Congress or currently hold any elected office. But they can also be non-existent.

Sorry, but historical facts would indicate that's not "how it works" and just because you declare it to be "real easy" for a POTUS to eliminate a cabinet level department doesn't mean it's so. All the libertarian handbooks seem to make it sound "real easy" to get rid of departments and agencies, but if that were really the case we would have seen them being jettisoned by various presidents over the years - and that definitely hasn't happened. It's probably safe to say that the professor at the Univ. of TX is the expert on the subject matter, so I'm inclined to go along with his take on it.

 

[Turtle]

Playing fast and loose with the word "definitely" aren't you?

 

[AMonger]

Sorry, but historical facts would indicate that's not "how it works" and just because you declare it to be "real easy" for a POTUS to eliminate a cabinet level department doesn't mean it's so. All the libertarian handbooks seem to make it sound "real easy" to get rid of departments and agencies, but if that were really the case we would have seen them being jettisoned by various presidents over the years - and that definitely hasn't happened. It's probably safe to say that the professor at the Univ. of TX is the expert on the subject matter, so I'm inclined to go along with his take on it.

The government is the size it is and has abused its power and violated the constitution for one reason: that's how they want it. Washington is the way it is because that's how both parties want it. Neither party wants to decrease their power or the scope of government. No, no president in my lifetime would have abolished anything, even if there were a flashing red button in the oval office that would do it in one fell swoop.

And at the very least, they could re-assign management of a particular department to other agencies and issue an executive order instructing the employees that are left there to sit and their desks and do nothing until they hear otherwise. Whenever any of them quits, dies, or is fired, you don't replace them. And we'd all be freer for it.

--

You know the problem with bad cops? They make the other 5% look bad.

 

[Turtle]

And at the very least, they could re-assign management of a particular department to other agencies and issue an executive order instructing the employees that are left there to sit and their desks and do nothing until they hear otherwise. Whenever any of them quits, dies, or is fired, you don't replace them. And we'd all be freer for it.

That's actually happened more than once. The history of the president's cabinet isn't nearly as static as many people might think.