Posted on 10/22/2007 6:17:02 PM PDT by pissant
time for phyllis to get aboard the Duncan Hunter campaign train...we already have annie coulter...jump on phyllis...we need you..
I wonder why she has yet to state her preference between Hunter or Tancredo (and she has stated her druthers for BOTH).
I suspect she thinks it’s best to wait.
“It’s generally very rare for her to actually have any idea of what she’s talking about.”
Now folks this is a perfect example of a liberal using the well known tool of projection!
she’s a freakin genius...ann coulter has pointed this out lots of times....both are shining stars in the conservative firmament...
That Old Biddy almost single-handedly stopped the ERA.
She's one formidable woman.
this guy should go here and read up on phyllis and send us a report...
http://www.eagleforum.org/misc/bio.html
In other words, you can’t provide an instance where either Dobson or Schlafly told people to vote a particular way. In other words, you’ve just got a beef against high-profile Christians, and you’d love nothing more than to see them and their ministries fail.
Nice.
Oh, BTW, you use the term “arrogantly.” Please provide one instance where either of these individuals exhibited arrogance. Just one, please.
If you’re a Christian, I’m puzzled by your anti-Christian stance. If you’re not a Christian, I understand your anti-Christian stance.
hear hear..!
n go here........
get an idea of who phyllis is...
http://www.eagleforum.org/misc/bio.html
>>Free trade with enemies was not a centerpiece of Reagan’s policies. China is an enemy. The notion that they would improve their behavior with ‘free trade’ was ridiculous. We’ve enriched a nation of communists who are perhaps the most irresponsible nation on the world stage.<<
You make good points about President Reagan - he had the best interest of the country first and didn’t trade mindlessly with enemies.
But as long as have been aware there have been lower cost countries and we have to either produce things they want at prices they’ll pay or we have deficit or a trade war.
But yes, Reagan did strongly favor free trade.
>> President Reagan delivered the, following remarks in his radio address to the nation on Nov. 26.
My fellow Americans, this week, as we prepared for Thanksgiving, Canada held an important election, and I’m pleased to again send my congratulations to Prime Minister Mulroney. One of the important issues in the Canadian election was trade. And like our own citizens earlier this month, our neighbors have sent a strong message, rejecting protectionism and reaffirming that more trade, not less, is the wave of the future.
Here in America, as we reflect on the many things we have to be grateful for, we should take a moment to recognize that one of the key factors behind our nation’s great prosperity is the open trade policy that allows the American people to freely exchange goods and services with free people around the world.
The freedom to trade is not a new issue for America. In 1776, our Founding Fathers signed the Declaration of Independence, charging the British with a number of offenses, among them, and I quote, “cutting off our trade with all parts of the world,” end quote. And that same year, a Scottish economist named Adam Smith launched another revolution with a book entitled “The Wealth of Nations,” which exposed for all time the folly of protectionism. Over the past 200 years, not only has the argument against tariffs and trade barriers won nearly universal agreement among economists, but it has also proven itself in the real world where we have seen freetrading nations prosper, while protectionist countries fall behind.
America’s most recent experiment with protectionism was a disaster for the working men and women of this country. When Congress passed the Smoot-Hawley Tariff in 1930, we were told that it would protect America from foreign competition and save jobs in this country-the same line we hear today. The actual result was the Great Depression, the worst economic catastrophe in our history; one out of four Americans were thrown out of work. Two years later, when I cast my first ballot for President, I voted for Franklin Delano Roosevelt, who opposed protectionism and called for the repeal of that disastrous tariff.
Ever since that time, the American people have stayed true to our heritage by rejecting the siren song of protectionism. In recent years, the trade deficit led some misguided politicians to call for protectionism, warning that otherwise we would lose jobs. But they were wrong again. In fact, the United States not only didn’t lose jobs, we created more jobs than all the countries of Western Europe, Canada, and Japan combined. The record is clear that when America’s total trade has increased, American jobs have also increased. And when our total trade has declined, so have the number of jobs.
...
Yet, today, protectionism is being used by some American politicians as a cheap form of nationalism, a fig leaf for those unwilling to maintain America’s military strength and who lack the resolve to stand up to real enemies: countries that would use violence against us or our allies. Our peaceful trading partners are not our enemies, they are our allies, We should beware of the demagogues who are ready to declare a trade war against our friends, weakening our economy, our national security, and the entire free world-all while cynically waving the American flag. The expansion of the international economy is not a foreign invasion, it is an American triumph, one we worked hard to achieve and something central to our vision of a peaceful and prosperous world of freedom.
...........
Yes, back in 1776, our Founding Fathers believed that free trade was worth fighting for, and we can celebrate their victory. Because today, trade is at the core of the alliance that secures the peace and guarantees our freedom; it is the source of our prosperity and the path to an even brighter future for America.
COPYRIGHT 1988 U.S. Government Printing Office<<
SO I believe that to be consistent with Reagan vision we need to concentrate on more productivity here rather relying on higher prices for over seas good. For most part will still buy overseas goods and just send even more dollars overseas. I was looking at Sweden’s economy last night to see how they have not collapsed after instituting socialized medicine (which has been bad for them). their saving grace is their exports - exports equal to their imports and equal to about 30% of GDP. That’s what we need to do.
>>As for the issue of free trade, consideration must be given to what the legitimate military needs of the United States will be in the future. Unless you adhere to a Ron Paul-like position of withdrawing from world affairs<<Of course consideration must be given to legitimate military needs of the US. You're absolutely right. When the USSR was our enemy we sold them wheat and corn not submarine technology. I have no doubt we have erred in some of the things we've sold the Chinese.
The Civil War and the two World Wars were won by the side that had the greater industrial capacity. If the United States lacks sufficient capacity in areas such as aircraft, motor vehicles, machine tools, electronics, primary metals, computers, and shipbuilding, our ability to project military power will be limited.Right again, although I'd add that in each of those times trade was critical. If the South had been able to trade with Europe the war might have gone differently. We need more industrial production. We need more efficient production but we need to be able to trade with people who produce things more cheaply than we possibly can.
>>Phyllis Schlafly's most important contribution to the conservative cause was her opposition to the Equal Rights Amendment in the 1970s. Had that passed, the reconstruction of American society along secular humanist, anti-family, anti-male lines would be even further along than it is now.<<I understand Mrs. Schlafly's position on the ERA but she lacked critical information. That the equal protection clause that seems to provide equal rights would be interpreted as allowing discrimination against males and majorities. Its ironic but I suspect the ERA would have actually helped white males most since we have the least equal legal position
Maybe a few isolationists here and there would be good for the Country.
>>“Kingmaker.”
Clever.
Remind me — where did either Dobson or Schlafly tell you to vote for a particular candidate?
<<
That doesn’t strike me as Mrs. Schlafley’s style.
But Dobson with his talk of a third party rather than concentration on winning the primaries has led many to wonder if he doesn;t see himself heading that third party.
Interesting link, thank you.
Right you are, this site is becoming infested with liberals.
There were several bad decisions made in the 1970s by the U.S. and the Western allies, during the so-called detente era, with respect to trade with the Soviets. Ford and Fiat helped construct large motor vehicle plants in the old USSR, and trade goods exported to that nation and its Warsaw Pact allies included semiconductors through companies such as Control Data and Honeywell. The majority of these decisions were made during the Nixon, Ford, and Carter Administrations, where the effects of the Vietnam War had seriously depleted our military resources and at least temporarily discredited anti-Communist efforts. The Reagan Administration tightened export controls, a key element in rebuilding American military power after over a decade of neglect. You are right with respect to the same mistakes being made today. Israel sold China key components for the latter nation's jet fighter program. The Chinese reciprocated the favor by recently selling ten of these fighters to Iran, Israel's mortal enemy.
If the South had been able to trade with Europe the war might have gone differently.
The reason the South could not trade with Europe was due to the effectiveness of Northern shipyards in building warships that slowly but steadily strangled Southern trade in cotton and other commodities for war materiel. The U.S. Navy presently commands the seas, but we cannot be assured of continuation of this power, especially with China developing a blue water navy, unless we maintain within our borders both the shipyards and the ancillary industries necessary to maintain it.
With regard to the effects of the Equal Rights Amendment, if Schlafly was mistaken in this matter, so were the feminists who promoted the Equal Rights Amendment. Given the fact that the Federal courts were more liberal then than now, the feminists and their liberal allies would not have bothered with the effort if they believed they could have accomplished the same via the courts.
“In other words, you’ve just got a beef against high-profile Christians, and you’d love nothing more than to see them and their ministries fail.”
So let me get this straight...if I oppose the attempt of Schafly and Dobson to be kingmakers....I’m trying to undermine their ministry? If I disagree with these two people, I’m an enemy of God? Are you kidding me????
That’s what you said in post #179.
You mischaracterize these high-profile Christians without evidence, and then hope to see them (and, it follows, their ministries) become ignored.
Again, why are you so against these Christians? Is it because they are Christians? Would you prefer they shut up? Would you prefer they keep their opinions to themselves and let you broadcast your opinion instead? Why the eagerness to mischaracterize and diminish decent Christian leaders?
I guess it’s the faddish thing to do.
“Again, why are you so against these Christians? Is it because they are Christians? “
You are a damn troll. Seriously.
A troll that’s been on FR 7 years longer than you have? A troll because I don’t so easily dismiss Christian leaders? A troll because I am slow to believe trash published about Christians?
So be it, then.
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.