For economy fix, Americans pick Reagan over Roosevelt
Quote: Ronald Reagan beat out Franklin Delano Roosevelt as the former president Americans would like to see in the White House during these trying economic times, a new 60 Minutes/Vanity Fair poll finds.
Thirty-six percent of those polled said they wanted the Gipper to lead America out of the economic crisis, while 29 percent picked Roosevelt. Thomas Jefferson came in third place with the support of 14 percent of those polled, followed by Roosevelt’s successor Harry Truman at 8 percent. William Henry Harrison, who was inaugurated in March 1841 and died one month later, came in last with 1 percent support.
Reagan was the pick of 68 percent of Republicans, 16 percent of Democrats and 34 percent of independents surveyed. Sixteen percent of Republicans, 43 percent of Democrats and 26 percent of independents chose Roosevelt.
So the key to victory this election is be like Reagan guys. Don't act like a bunch of tax and spend liberals. I think this poll shows people are feeling today is a lot like it was when Jimmy Carter was President and Reagan took over. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 06 Nov 2011 14:41
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
Really, when was the last time someone won with 36% of the vote? The democrates listed there Roosevelt and Truman brought in 37% more than Regan, and Jefferson was technically a democrat, and was big proponant of the social welfare clause, and was certainly a radical intelectual for the day, so maybe you're just reading into the poll what you want to believe huh?
Still Regan who raised taxes and increased speding to get our economy running again, and likewise believed the rich needed to pay their fair share of taxes, is probably a good modle for now, and less controversial than the major overhaul of the economy we had in the great depression. So yea, a Stealth liberal like Reagan is probably just what we need...Go Romney!
Posted: 06 Nov 2011 20:13
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Stealth liberals; what 'Star Wars' was really for. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 09 Nov 2011 15:04
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: when was the last time someone won with 36% of the vote?
Well in this poll there were lots more candidates than just two Matches so it would be easy to win with only 36 percent of the vote. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 09 Nov 2011 17:28
Registered User Currently Offline
Posts: 391
Join Date: Nov 2009
O.k. so how did the Republicans come in. If A Truman Roosevelt ticket would do 37%, who was Regan's running mate?
Still, like I said, that doesn't really speak to the stealth liberal (at least in application) policies of Regan that would be embraced?
Honestly, comparitivly, Obama's policies are far closer to Regans than Roosevelts, and much closer to Regans actual policies than anything any of the Republicans are offering.
Posted: 11 Nov 2011 14:42
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
So the huge expansion of government and new new deal healthcare of Obama isn't in the same vein as Roosevelt? The only expansion of government from Reagan I remember was building up a huge defense, and that wasn't the role of government getting bigger just it's military might. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 11 Nov 2011 21:33
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: that wasn't the role of government getting bigger just it's military might.
__________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 14 Nov 2011 17:35
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Government rules controlling our lives wasn't growing just government's ability to protect us from the commies that wanted to kill us all. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 14 Nov 2011 22:11
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
If building a 'huge defense' isn't building the government, what is it? The motive doesn't change the fact. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 15 Nov 2011 20:53
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
The idea is that defense is a legitimate power of the government according the constitution while healthcare and diaper changing is not. Your defense spending is based on what your enemy does. That's one area you can't just spend only what you think is best economically. You can make sure that every dollar counts, but if your enemy has 500 thousand soldiers armed to the teeth, you better be too. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 16 Nov 2011 01:14
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Invading other countries isn't defense. Policing the world isn't defense. Setting up permanent military bases in foreign nations is not defense.
The argument can clearly be made that we wouldn't have those enemies except for doing those specific activities. Fighting some invisible bogeyman called 'terrorism' created most of those enemies, where even if you happen to buy how it was a fringe element of Islam that carried out the attacks on 9/11 you have to accept the fact that it was our nation doing what it shouldn't have in the first place, which is meddling in other people's affairs, that cause those attacks in the first place and now instead of having just 'extreme Islam' as an enemy, the entire Islamic world is looking at us as enemies.
You've accepted the justification(s) for it and I haven't and that's probably not going to change, but that's not what we were talking about.
You made a distinction between building a huge defense and increasing the size of the government. The first is directly related to the second, regardless of justification. If you've got some way to build a military without growing the size of the government in the process, clue us all in. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 16 Nov 2011 20:04
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: Fighting some invisible bogeyman called 'terrorism'
I'm not sure how you can make that assertion considering the real physical assault on New York on 911. Have you considered the people that want to attack us are just crazy insane?
Quote: The first is directly related to the second, regardless of justification.
The difference is one is justified by the constitution and is necessary. The military can be as huge as it wants, but as long as the regulations hanging over our heads are fewer and farther between we can rest more in the knowledge our government is here to protect us verses attempting to controlling us. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 16 Nov 2011 21:21
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: Have you considered the people that want to attack us are just crazy insane?
Have you considered that if the official story is true that the attacks were retaliation, not just random madness from out of the clear blue?
Quote: The difference is one is justified by the constitution and is necessary.
This is getting a bit tedious.
As the military grows, the government grows. Yes or no? __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 17 Nov 2011 17:40
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: if the official story is true that the attacks were retaliation
What could ever be bad enough to justify acts of terror?
Quote: As the military grows, the government grows. Yes or no?
To me it sounds like you are trying to pull a lawyer trick.
You know well as I do that everything depends on the situation.
Military growth and government regulation aren't the same thing. If the law of the land is good then the more powerful the military and law the better. If our laws are evil then heaven help us because even a small military can by tyrannical. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 17 Nov 2011 21:43
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: What could ever be bad enough to justify acts of terror?
Start with the formation of Israel and work your way up.
Quote: To me it sounds like you are trying to pull a lawyer trick.
It's not complicated or tricky. It's a simple question. Really simple.
Quote: Military growth and government regulation aren't the same thing.
Good thing then that I didn't say they were. Increasing the size of the military and increasing the size of government were the two things I linked. Wait, I didn't link those. Obviousness linked them.
Quote: If the law of the land is good then the more powerful the military and law the better. If our laws are evil then heaven help us because even a small military can by tyrannical.
I ask a simple question which you say looks like a lawyer trick and then proceed to produce your own magic show avoiding what was actually said, several times now, and supplanting that with values rhetoric, several times now. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 18 Nov 2011 15:46
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: Start with the formation of Israel
Figures a atheist would be against Israel practically the only democracy in the region.
Quote: avoiding what was actually said
I'm just giving you a more detailed viewpoint than one simple answer that ignores all of the facts.
I see arguing over certain policies of our government and whether or not this military tactic works or doesn't, but what I can't see is arguing over the fact that we need a strong defense of some kind to protect us from the bad guys out there. Reagan saw that clearly and that's why he built us up, and why we most likely saw the Soviet Union crack under the pressure of keeping up with us. The wall did fall under Reagan.
It's just common sense. We have countries and terrorists out there that hate freedom and love their own power. If we had no defense they'd run over us in 2 minutes. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 18 Nov 2011 22:04
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: Figures a atheist would be against Israel practically the only democracy in the region.
Who said I was against Israel? And my lack of belief in folklore means what in light of that?
This is why you're not getting that the attacks were provoked; the obvious escapes you.
Quote: what I can't see is arguing over the fact that we need a strong defense of some kind to protect us from the bad guys out there.
Last time. More military = bigger government. That doesn't include any value judgments about whether it's good or necessary or otherwise. You made it into a contest, for absolutely no reason.
Quote: We have countries and terrorists out there that hate freedom and love their own power.
Imagine how many countries say the same about the US hating their freedom and loving it's own power.
You can't imagine that can you? You think that even though they supposedly hate us for our freedom, they respect us at the same time and want to be just like us, don't you?
Wake up, Tim. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 22 Nov 2011 19:27
Administrator Currently Offline
Posts: 4786
Join Date: Jul 2007
Quote: This is why you're not getting that the attacks were provoked
How is that again? So we made crazy people who chop off heads and run into buildings somehow? I don't get it.
Quote: Last time. More military = bigger government.
Ok, then by your definition I'm for bigger government but less regulation and fewer laws. I'm also for fewer government institutions whenever possible and having government do as little as possible that we can get away with and still have a safe society.
Quote: Imagine how many countries say the same about the US hating their freedom
America for now in it's core is about individual freedom. That's the big divide between liberals and conservatives. Conservatives see themselves as individuals and liberals I think are more inclined to see themselves as part of some collective like the Borg, I suppose. So the question is did we ever do anything ever to eliminate or hold back individual freedom or the freedom of a terrorist country as a whole to operate?
These countries in the middle east aren't usually huge on freedoms for religious expression or women's rights a pet liberal cause supposedly or anything else. America is where it's at. That's where individuals can be free to pursue their individual dreams. Try that in some of these middle east countries if you don't happen to be a part of their collective ideology. There your dreams better go along with the country's or it's adios amigos with your head. __________________
Lucas McCain the Rifleman: A man doesn't run from a fight, Mark...but that doesn't mean you should go running *to* one, either.
Posted: 23 Nov 2011 02:39
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
Quote: How is that again? So we made crazy people who chop off heads and run into buildings somehow? I don't get it.
I'm suddenly reminded of trying to get you to watch less than an hour's worth of educational programming centered on evolution and what a waste of time that was. 'Close the comic books at least a minute and read up on some actual history' is about as far as I'm going on this one.
Quote: Ok, then by your definition I'm for bigger government...
No, by my definition, bigger military = more government. The definition stops there. Whether you choose to acknowledge that or not is up to you. It does run counter to your idea of having the government do 'as little as possible' when the government uses this military to not only invade other countries, but police them and nation build with them and set up permanent installations with them.
Quote: America for now in it's core is about individual freedom.
No. You have that mistaken with what the founders intended, and by that I mean what is contained in the Constitution, followed closely by the Bill of Rights and a handful of amendments that shamefully took a while to catch on.
Right now we're more about silencing dissent and watching everyone's every move and whacking people who say the wrong thing upside the head and telling other countries they better be run the way we want them to or else and a select few capitalizing on the carnage. This is decidedly not about freedom in any way.
Quote: Conservatives see themselves as individuals and liberals I think are more inclined to see themselves as part of some collective like the Borg, I suppose.
If that fantasy makes you feel better, stick with it.
Quote: did we ever do anything ever to eliminate or hold back individual freedom or the freedom of a terrorist country as a whole to operate?
What is a 'terrorist country'?
Quote: These countries in the middle east aren't usually huge on freedoms for religious expression or women's rights a pet liberal cause supposedly or anything else.
So, because another country doesn't have enough 'freedom for religious expression' or women's rights in your estimation it becomes OK for this country to have a military show up and start cracking skulls? Explain that one.
Quote: America is where it's at.
As an American, i agree. This is where it's at, for us, not for the whole world. It's not up to us to tell others how to live when we don't even have our own shit together anymore.
Quote: That's where individuals can be free to pursue their individual dreams.
Sounds good. Let's ask the homeless and the unemployed and the vanishing middle class and the veterans coming home to the mounting reality of a dead end what they think of pursuing their dreams, shall we?
Never mind that in plenty of other places in the world they have just the same ability to pursue their dreams as well with just a different set of circumstances, and a different group of legalities and a different piece of geography.
Quote: There your dreams better go along with the country's or it's adios amigos with your head.
You didn't happen to catch anything in the news about an 'Arab spring' or what they did with Qaddaffi, did you? All of it without any help from the US on their side; we actually supplied their opposition with mny of the weapons and tear gas. __________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
Posted: 23 Nov 2011 09:37
Registered User
Posts: 4725
Join Date: Aug 2007
You think a boycott of a product would help in Egypt right now?
__________________
But the backdrops peel and the sets give way and the cast get eaten by the play, there's a murderer at the matinee, there are dead men in the aisles
And the patrons and the actors too are uncertain if the show is through and with sidelong looks await their cue, but the frozen mask just smiles
