Posted on 02/25/2015 10:01:01 AM PST by detective
It’s interesting reading your posting history, it is that of a troll who wants to pull constantly and subtly to the left.
Just as you are doing on this thread as you mislead on Reagan and sneer at freerepublic and conservatism.
Don’t know first thing about Lew Rockwell except it was the showed up on Google search. You seem to be familiar with his agenda?
Again, where are your links to dispute my claims about blanket amnesty by president Reagan and the federal spending increases during his 8 years? If I am wrong, I will accept my error like a man.
Just calling someone a troll is your method of debate?
That tells me a lot about you. Just hollow and empty accusations. How about some depth of thoughts?
In 1968 Reagan ran against a sitting republican president, in 1976 he ran against a sitting republican president and almost beat him.
The first time he ran Reagan was a sitting governor already identified as a conservative leader, in his second run he was only months out of his second term as Governor of California, and he almost knocked off a sitting president as the counting went on after midnight “Ford prevailed with 1,187 delegates to Reagan’s 1,070”.
Reagan was a fighter for conservatism and was evidently ready to take out rino Republican presidents to move the party right.
“We don’t intend to turn the Republican Party over to the traitors in the battle just ended. We will have no more of those candidates who are pledged to the same goals as our opposition and who seek our support. Turning the Party over to the so-called moderates wouldn’t make any sense at all.”- Ronald Reagan
” Again, where are your links to dispute my claims about blanket amnesty by president Reagan”
Listen IDIOT, there is not one FReeper other than you who would make such an asinine statement as this. Buzz off!
bold colors - conservatism
pale pastels - RINOism
1976 “impromptu” Convention speech by Reagan
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-p-Nuu8hYQ
here is a take on the 1976 primary
http://www.historynet.com/gerald-fords-near-miracle-of-1976.htm
Reagan might have won had he NOT tried to woo moderates at the convention by saying he would ask Schweiker to be his running mate.
Compromising is a loser strategy.
Reagan may not have meant it to be abortion on demand, but it pretty much worked out that way, didn’t it? Nobody could see where the mental health of the mother exception would go? I think that is disingenuous. It did not even take very long to happen. Legal abortions went from around 500 in California in 1967 to an average of over 100,000 a year for the rest of his time in office because of that law. Judging solely by his actions, Governor Reagan was a pro gun control politician who signed a law that vastly liberalized abortion in his state. He signed amnesty for illegal aliens while he was president along with more gun control at the federal level. He was pro gun control to the end. He really did sign those laws. Any candidate who did the exact same things would be called a RINO today regardless of what else he did, and rightly so in my view. I thought this thread is supposed to be about where Reagan would be in the conservative spectrum today? I would put him close to Romney, but that is just me. I read somewhere that Reagan later regretted signing that abortion law. That sounds to me like he changed his mind about it, so it does not seem like a lie to me to say he changed his mind about it later.
So you really do want to go after Reagan, well the answer is that isn’t the bill that he signed into to law, so you are still a liar.
Lying is something you are so comfortable with that you aren’t even embarrassed to keep typing them up and posting them.
I also thought that I saw some Romney defending in your posting and there it is, you are saying that Reagan and Romney are a match.
You are collecting a handful of issues from his two terms as Governor and two terms as president, well we already know his record and his life, and it made him the hero of conservatism that he is today, right now.
Romney on the other hand was pure liberal scum who left the party because of Ronald Reagan, Romney became a supporter of democrats, a fund raiser for a democrat and Planned Parenthood, and even voted democrat in 1992, Romney was passionately devoted to abortion, while Reagan was pro-life his entire life.
If Reagan ran today he would still be leading the conservative movement and scum like you would still be attacking him.
Here is just one of the passionate statements by your Romney on abortion.
“My position has been the same throughout my political career, and it goes back to the days of 1970,” he said. “There was a woman who was running for political office, U.S. Senate. She took a very bold and courageous stand in 1970, and that was in a conservative state. That was that a woman should have the right to make her own choice as to whether or not to have an abortion. Her name was Lenore Romney, she was my mom. Even though she lost, she established a record of courage in that regard.”
Why the attack on my personal integrity? It is not a lie to say that Reagan signed gun control, abortion and amnesty laws. Those are called facts. Romney signed gun control and abortion laws as governor too. That is why I would put Romney near Reagan on the conservative spectrum, because of what they both did not because I like or care about Romney. I do not know of any other candidate or potential GOP candidate who has signed gun control and abortion laws, but if there is one I would also put him in that group. In my view, candidates who did not support abortion, gun control or amnesty in the past are generally more conservative than those that did. I posted earlier that it is probably not fair to compare the positions of a candidate 35 years ago to those of the candidates today and this is why. If it makes you feel better you can say that Reagan was the most conservative amnesty, abortion and gun control law signing governor/president ever. As to calling me a liar, you don’t even know me. I do not care what you think but I find your personal attacks are annoying. I am just posting my opinions on this topic. I won’t call you names, please return the courtesy.
I can see your lack of integrity in your posts.
You want to tell us that we would not support Reagan, that Reagan was a rino, you want to try and convince us that he was pro-abortion and not conservative, and like a truly vile little troll man, you want to continue saying that he and Romney are the same when they were actually opposites, to the degree that Romney left the GOP because of him.
I have read enough of your posting history to know that know better, so evidently this is just you doing some trolling, and of course lying.
I notice that you want to keep glossing over Romney, while putting the absolute most hateful spin on Reagan, that tells us about your honesty and integrity.
All we need to know about what kind of trolling liar you are is to know what you believe “”I would put Romney near Reagan on the conservative spectrum””, perhaps you are just drunk today.
IMO Reagan was never so much about positions on issues. More importantly, he was able to appropriately and unapologetically convey a message of conservatism. This is where the heart of working Americans reside.
No alcohol is allowed here in Afghanistan so the drunk thing is unfortunately out. My lack of integrity? What have I posted that is a lie? Reagan did sign amnesty, abortion and gun control laws, those are facts. I do not think any GOP candidate could do those things today and not be called a RINO by some. I also never said that Romney and Reagan are the same. If you actually read my earlier post I said that Reagan was a visionary leader who set the stage for the conservatives of today. I voted for Reagan in both primaries and general elections that I could. Romney is not, was not and could never be a movement leader like Reagan. Very few people could. What I said was that I would put them near each other on the conservative spectrum because of similar things they both did while they were in office. I care more about what politicians actually do when they are in power than what they claim they believe or what regrets they vocalize after they do damaging things. Comparing the conservatives of today to Reagan from 35 years ago is not fair because, in my view, Reagan tends not to come off well in the comparison. He made it possible for people more conservative than he was to get elected, which is a great thing. I honestly think that if you go down a list of issues one by one, you will find that many candidates of today are more conservative than Reagan was on many issues, but that is just my take. I do not think that Walker, Cruz, Perry, Rubio or even Jeb Bush would ever sign pro abortion or gun control laws today. I don’t think they would remain viable candidates if they did. I believe that is because the GOP has moved further right than it was back in 1980, thanks in large part to Reagan. If you do not like my opinions and think I am wrong, that is fine. You do not have to be personally insulting about it. Just so there is no doubt, I really liked Reagan when he was President. He was the best one in my lifetime so far. I hope for our country’s sake we find and elect another great one.
If that happens and Hillary or that ultra left senator from MA is the rat nominee, I will be forced to vote for the republican. OTOH if the nominee is someone much more centrist democrat like Manchin, I may have a decision to make.
So you WILL vote for Jeb and/or Cristy.
That’s all you need to say.
Jeb versus Hillary?
Makes absolutely no sense to help Hillary by abstaining.
Did you abstain in 2012? So you helped Obama?
You are going farther than abstaining, you are considering voting democrat.
Exactly!
Actually it was Tip O’Neil who had cocktails with Ronald Reagan.
I won’t vote for liberals regardless of which party they claim.
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.