This Reagan is a brother of Cruz and Palin, and the Grandfather of the tea party.
Posted on 02/21/2014 6:02:26 PM PST by Innovative
Ronald Reagan on the importance of political compromise (in his own words)
An American Life (his autobiography) | 8/7/03 | Ronald Reagan
Posted on 8/7/2003 2:05:04 PM by Diddle E. Squat
"When I began entering into the give and take of legislative bargaining in Sacramento, a lot of the most radical conservatives who had supported me during the election didn't like it.
"Compromise" was a dirty word to them and they wouldn't face the fact that we couldn't get all of what we wanted today. They wanted all or nothing and they wanted it all at once. If you don't get it all, some said, don't take anything.
"I'd learned while negotiating union contracts that you seldom got everything you asked for. And I agreed with FDR, who said in 1933: 'I have no expectations of making a hit every time I come to bat. What I seek is the highest possible batting average.'
"If you got seventy-five or eighty percent of what you were asking for, I say, you take it and fight for the rest later, and that's what I told these radical conservatives who never got used to it.
"A political party cannot be all things to all people. It must represent certain fundamental beliefs which must not be compromised to political expediency, or simply to swell its numbers.
I do not believe I have proposed anything that is contrary to what has been considered Republican principle. It is at the same time the very basis of conservatism. It is time to reassert that principle and raise it to full view. And if there are those who cannot subscribe to these principles, then let them go their way.” -- Ronald Reagan
Innovative, you must be one of those who really hated Reagan to so gleefully twist his words out of context the way you have.
Are you going to participate in your troll thread, or did you just post it and go to bed?
Your problem, Innovative, is that you don’t believe in fighting for the right thing, and you hide behind the premise that winning is more important and the strategy used is more important than fidelity to principle.
Anyone reading your posts here on FreeRepublic would correctly deduce that you have no fiercely held princples, that it is more important that your side win, than anything else (Tribal Politics vs. Principled Politics). Which probably means that your approach to politics is because there is some sort of financial gain for you personally to make or some form of power you seek personally.
As other posters have posted to you, you really don’t belong here.
/johnnyz
This Reagan is a brother of Cruz and Palin, and the Grandfather of the tea party.
Are you calling Ronald Reagan a RINO?
Exactly - you posted some words, that didn't have to do with voting for RINOs, but the collective that probably wouldn't even vote for a Reagan today decides that your post is unacceptable and they all jump on. We are truly lost if the spittle of the knee-jerk retort gets so heavy that actual thinking becomes an impossible impediment. Dims took over half a century to bring us to this point and there are those who live in La-La Land and think we will have a magic moment event that will turn everything around.
To quote Pogo, "We have met the enemy and he is us".
trebb, trebb, trebb. You’re a little late to the game on this tread. I suggest you go back and read some of it; you’ve been passed by, my friend.
tread = thread
He wisely left. The boss was starting to get pretty riled up, and that never ends well for trolls.
Reagan, an optimally capable politician, was able to slow the decay slightly.
The end came in the sixties. We’ve been coasting down ever since.
Anyone who thinks there is hope is a fool.
You sure misread the motivations of the thread poster, then you are idiot enough to claim conservatives wouldn't vote for Reagan.
Read post 46, it will do you some good.
I guess that I prefer to allow enough thoughts in to keep thinking alive. I have seen many decide to start trashing a very good and solid conservative because of some rumor/misstatement in the MSM, or other "unacceptable behavior". Not long ago, many were spouting that Scott walker was unclean because he made some statement that they equated to amnesty. When folks become rabid 9calling others an idiot for instance), then they have become akin to the low-info voters that the Dim Party relies on. trouble is, we can never get any kind of consensus or sense of when we have to actually stick together to defeat an Obama. Our tactics suck and many decide it's time to punish the GOPe/RNC which means insuring the farthest left commie available gets elected. Then we moan because we have no conservatives to vote for. If we don't take any little improvement we can get, we will never build a base to ensure we get more conservatives. They also fail to distinguish the difference between a Romney and an Obama for the "big" election.
I read the post 46 and agree with it. I also notice that Innovative seems to have been "bumped". I find post 51 to be a little weird in that it calls JR "the boss". That would indicate that nobody can ever question/suggest something that he disagrees with or they get what we're fighting against in our own government. Kind of ironic how folks will "distinguish" in that way - similar to those who think the Constitution has their own personal "Noble Cause" clause and will support very un-Constitutional ideas if they seem like they would help the conservative side of the aisle.
Only an idiot thinks that conservatives wouldn’t vote for their favorite president who is their conservative hero.
You seem to be whining about something but you are unwilling to say what it is, you seem to dislike conservatism but won’t be specific or clear about it, and what does “bumped” mean?
As far as the owner of freerepublic, if you had a complaint about him, why didn’t you address him?
You seem to be whining about something but you are unwilling to say what it is, you seem to dislike conservatism but won’t be specific or clear about it, and what does “bumped” mean?
As far as the owner of freerepublic, if you had a complaint about him, why didn’t you address him?
hat's fine if it will result in a setback for the Left. Voting for a Virgil Goode because you think he's better than Romney is also being idiotic if Virgil hasn't a snowballs chance to place, much less win. If your hero doesn't make the slate, continuing to put energy into he success through the election is counterproductive - time to cut your losses and begin anew to see if you can get him on a ticket. If we will only accept a conservative idol to vote for, and cannot do what we can to stop the tyranny of the Dems, then we are doomed. If our best chance is to get more conservatives elected to the Congress, great - let's do it. let's not throw a hissy fit and ensure that the Dems get a free pass with an Obama.
I'm all for conservatism but also realist enough to know that if we don't use some of the same strategy the Dims have been using to advance their cause by fractions of an inch over a long period, and do whatever we can to try to get conservatives on the ticket, and having lost that particular battle, doing whatever we can to keep an Obama from getting a second term, then we are the useful idiots for the Democrat Party. All or nothing is a nice ideal, but reality is what reality is.
I have no problems with JR being the proprietor/owner of FR and I agree with most of what he stands for - that won't stop me from thinking and striving to get the best foothold we can get under the circumstances of the time. I will support his endeavors 100% when it looks like the result will be an advantage for us. Else, I will mention my uneasiness. Prior to the last presidential election, I did go directly to him about a few issues that I saw as likely to result in another Obama win.
I said "bumped" because I revisited the original post and noticed that the guy's inputs had disappeared. If we can't explore all sides of a debate, we become unthinking automatons and might as well turn our computers off.
If that strikes you as "whining", so be it - I will try not to engage you in any future debates/arguments/sharing of potential viewpoints.
That was just rambling nonsense, from something called a Goode, to more about a poster being “bumped”.
Best I can tell, the rambling was some kind of plea to move left, anyone so confused that he thinks conservatives would reject Ronald Reagan, could be expected to be an enemy of conservatism I guess, that is why they like to attack conservatives with the idiotic remark.
It looks like you want to promote Romney, but don’t have the courage to speak plainly.
It looks like you should be looking in the mirror the next time you use the adjective "idiot".
If wanting to keep an Obama out of office equates to "wanting to promote Romney" is what you got out of it, it is clear that you don't really have the capacity to think in terms of reality. It takes more courage to speak the truth to those who don't want to hear it than it does to spout what you think will get you the most support - that's one of the reasons we keep losing and it will only get worse. Folks are afraid that others will think less of them if they do what it takes to make a dent in the progressive takeover. Bad enough that the RINOs are complicit, it's a sure sign of lunacy that "the plan" is to never vote for anyone but some mythical conservative hero that will fix everything and to think that someone that is not "The One" can't get our support even if the option is another Obama.
Here's hoping we actually have some real conservatives on the final tickets, else you and yours will consider it your duty to give a Hillary a chance to follow up on Obama.
I submit that you either weren't paying attention during the last election, or need to feign ignorance to be able to tell yourself that your "plan" makes sense.
At any rate, you have passed the test where it makes no sense to try to engage you in a thoughtful debate - you have turned your thinking machine over to the thoughts of others so you can feel like you are in good company as the Left continues its inexorable march towards communist control while you bitch about not having anyone to vote for and refusing to vote against a proven evil.
Good day.
I observed that you are an idiot, because you think that conservatives are anti-Reagan, that is clearly idiotic.
You continue posting gibberish, even ramblings about obscure third parties, why not just spit out what you want to say.
It is clear that you want to hammer conservatives and promote Romney, why not just do it in a clear manner?
What “plan” of mine are you rambling about, what is the “bumped” that you can’t explain.
Why are you rambling about me having a “plan” and “bitching about not having anyone to vote for”, what posts are you getting this from?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.