Posted on 02/28/2006 7:02:23 PM PST by RWR8189
To all the Reagan bashers on this thread, I dare to speculate what Reagan would have accomplished if he were President today. And I'd hate to think what Bush would have done had he been in Reagan's shoes. He may have "...looked the man [Brezhnev] in the eye," and got "...a sense of his soul."
Congressional make-up by party during Reagan's tenure. Democratic Party majority counts highlighted in yellow.
Source:
The office of the Clerk U.S. House of Representatives
Party Division in the Senate, 1789-Present
House Senate Reps Dems Reps Dems 1981-1983 192 243 51 53 46 7 1983-1985 167 268 101 54 46 8 1985-1987 182 253 71 53 47 6 1987-1989 177 258 81 45 55 10
"....most of whom probably haven't even read the book."
Much less our Constitution!!!
I commend your post - and this link is for those who want to see how the Progressives rewrote our constitution via judicial fiat and what new laws allowed what.
http://www.cato.org/event.php?eventid=2655
BTW, in my book, ANY so-called conservative that holds up criminal FDR as any kind of role model whatsoever is a blatant political hack.
Not sure I follow - is Weinersavage just a joke re: Michael Savage??
I have a hard time listening to him sometimes. Most of what he says is true about left.
He tends towards the same emotionalism that gives the left little credibility.
But hey, any anti-socialist/leftist, no matter how much I may disagree with them on some isssues, I still consider them to be on my team.
You couldn't exactly have a show called Weiner Nation...........LOLOLOL
Another Jew that changed his name? Like Marx's father Herschel Levy did, or Adolph?
What's up with that? Of course I understand stage names etc., just strikes me as funny!
False. "Bush has enacted policies contrary to conservative principles on too many occasions." "Too many" is not "all."
Why not, since they apparently think hating liberals is all it takes to be a conservative?
A massive new Medicare entitlement has made us safer?
Sickening to ponder what might have been.
Bottom line is that Kerry & W are both CFR creatures, and while Reagan was not, his cabinet like W's is chocked full of them as have most presidents and their cabinets been, going all the way back to the big one, and even before.
The CFR usually has a horse from both parties in the race - they win no matter who gets elected. Reagan is the only exception that I can think of.
Bob Grant didn't use his ethnic Italian name when he broke into the business.
Perhaps your bias is showing?
NO, I wasn't refering to Domestic policies, but you knew that and are simply engaging in juvenile musings
You read others' thoughts as poorly as you express your own.
LOL, And you've contributed so much to this thread, Go back to DU
You cannot ignore the fact that he raised corporate taxes and signed Bill Bradley's tax reform.
You can never take away from his vision of defeating the Soviet Union but you cannot ignore the domestic side of his spending either.
He did what he had to do to further his vision.
I don't see that as any less honorable than what President Bush is doing.
Preventive medical care and prescription coverage will mitigate the spending down the line.
Neither activity can make Bush more conservative.
I love Bush for what he done against terrorism but I beleive that Mr. Bartlett is dead on correct. GWB has betrayed the Reagan legacy. In 6 years he has not issued 1 veto.....NOT 1! Yes, spening increased under Ronaldus Magnus, he was saddled with a RAT congress. He tried his best and stuck to his conservative priciples. I personally think the Contract with America was a goiod idea, virtually none of the programs marked for closure ever died. As soon as real conservatives realize you just can't vote AGAINST something or someone forever, it will come back to bite us in the ass.
I can't think of a single liberal spending program that they didn't claim would decrease spending "down the line."
It has now started on the security issue. The neocon 'bomb the world' group versus the 'free trade is God' group. A plague on both their houses from American worker citizens.
Not biased in the least - every individual proves his own integrity and their roots have no bearing on the matter AFAIC.
But you make a good point I failed to consider re: the media.
THEY are the biased ones playing to the prejudices of wasps, which I guess I was raised one of.
It just struck me that Jews, even under freedom, seem more inclined than other ethnicities to more frequently hide their heritage, that's all. But as you say others have as well.
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.