PDA

View Full Version : The Ronald Reagan Poll


Roguish Lawyer
06-07-2004, 18:26
Rate him, please.

Ghostrider
06-07-2004, 18:47
I went with Top 5.

In no particular order, imho:

George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, Thomas Jefferson, and Ronald Reagan.

brownapple
06-08-2004, 01:04
I have some specific criteria by which I grade Presidents, and it is pretty straight-forward.

A. Points for saying great things... George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, John F. Kennedy, Ronald Reagan, Abraham Lincoln all score high in this area (as does F.D. Roosevelt, Teddy Roosevelt and even Woodrow Wilson).

B. Points for doing great things.... Again, George Washington, Teddy Roosevelt, Ronald Reagan, FDR, Abraham Lincoln, score high in this one.

C. Negative points for harm to the nation. Abraham Lincoln, FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Clinton all take hits here.

As a result, I rate Reagan higher than Lincoln or Jefferson (Jefferson's greatest actions for the Republic were before he became President in my opinion), but below Washington.... and about equal with T. Roosevelt. The question becomes where to rank FDR and JFK?

Roguish Lawyer
06-08-2004, 01:25
GH:

What did Lincoln do that you object to?

Radar Rider
06-08-2004, 02:10
President Reagan is definitely top three. Right now, though, it's a little too close to his time in order to be more definitive.

rubberneck
06-08-2004, 13:50
Negative points for harm to the nation. Abraham Lincoln, FDR, LBJ, Nixon, Clinton all take hits here.

If you use this criteria objectively than Reagan has to take a hit for Iran-Contra. While I agree with the aims of the arms for hostages deal it still violated federal law and while Reagan may or may not have had prior knowledge of the deal it happened on his watch and was pulled of by his staff. It still doesn't change my opnion of him (top 5) but you can't hold Clinton liable for a committing perjury in a private lawsuit while ignoring a clear violation of federal law.

brownapple
06-08-2004, 19:07
Originally posted by rubberneck
If you use this criteria objectively than Reagan has to take a hit for Iran-Contra. While I agree with the aims of the arms for hostages deal it still violated federal law and while Reagan may or may not have had prior knowledge of the deal it happened on his watch and was pulled of by his staff. It still doesn't change my opnion of him (top 5) but you can't hold Clinton liable for a committing perjury in a private lawsuit while ignoring a clear violation of federal law.

How did it harm the nation? I didn't say "against the law", I said "harm the nation". I don't see how Iran-Contra did that. Exactly the opposite in my opinion. Btw, it wasn't so clear a violation. Read the actual investigation.

rubberneck
06-08-2004, 22:23
How did it harm the nation? I didn't say "against the law", I said "harm the nation".

I for one think that it is particularlly harmful to the nation when members of the Executive branch (which may or may not have included Reagan and Bush Sr) intentionally break the law. When some in the White House feel they are above laws passed by Congress then it comes dangerously close to upsetting the central them of our government, which is the balance of power. You may differ but it certianly is no better than lying about a BJ and before anyone lables me a lib here I have never once voted for a Democrat.


Btw, it wasn't so clear a violation. Read the actual investigation.

I did many moons ago but because Welsh couldn't say for certian what went on doesn't mean it didn't happen. After all, the final Starr report couldn't find any clear violations even though everyone knew the score.

Airbornelawyer
06-08-2004, 22:55
I tried copying several posts to a new thread on the New York Draft Riots, but instead removed them to that thread. RL, GH's answer to your Lincoln query is there.

Thread is here: http://www.professionalsoldiers.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=2098

That way this can stay a Reagan legacy thread and that topic can take a life of its own.

Dave

tache18x
06-09-2004, 10:08
I rated him mediocre, but I really believe he's in the top 15, not 10. I do think he is a great president because of his brash communication skills, and willingness to stand on conservative pricnciples. However, I don't like the fact that he completely ignored the poor, the oppressed, and the destitute. Reagan has this iconic view of what he thinks America should be (which is not all bad), a place like is was in the 40's and 50's. When things were "simpler". A time when blacks, asains, and others would die in war to fight the nazis, but the nazi had a better chance of coming to America and getting a decent meal, job, etc, than a black or asain person. I feel that in the 80's, little was done to address this part of America. The 80's are a time when inner cities feel apart, when drugs and gangs ruled, and I feel that the Reagan admin. ignored these things. Do I believe he was a man of fine moral character and ability? Yes, by all means. Do I think he deep down gave a damn about people who didn't fit into his iconic vision of America? No.

I rate the top 5 as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, and FDR.

Roguish Lawyer
06-09-2004, 10:11
Originally posted by tache18x
However, I don't like the fact that he completely ignored the poor, the oppressed, and the destitute.

NDD! Found one for you!

brownapple
06-09-2004, 12:48
Originally posted by rubberneck

I did many moons ago but because Welsh couldn't say for certian what went on doesn't mean it didn't happen. After all, the final Starr report couldn't find any clear violations even though everyone knew the score.

In other words, you can't say what happened for certain, but you are sure it was some sort of a violation. I think that is generally called prejudice.

The Reaper
06-09-2004, 16:16
Originally posted by tache18x
I rated him mediocre, but I really believe he's in the top 15, not 10. I do think he is a great president because of his brash communication skills, and willingness to stand on conservative pricnciples. However, I don't like the fact that he completely ignored the poor, the oppressed, and the destitute. Reagan has this iconic view of what he thinks America should be (which is not all bad), a place like is was in the 40's and 50's. When things were "simpler". A time when blacks, asains, and others would die in war to fight the nazis, but the nazi had a better chance of coming to America and getting a decent meal, job, etc, than a black or asain person. I feel that in the 80's, little was done to address this part of America. The 80's are a time when inner cities feel apart, when drugs and gangs ruled, and I feel that the Reagan admin. ignored these things. Do I believe he was a man of fine moral character and ability? Yes, by all means. Do I think he deep down gave a damn about people who didn't fit into his iconic vision of America? No.

I rate the top 5 as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, and FDR.

So you are a Sociaist, and believe in redistribution of wealth from the earners to the needy?

You need to work on your grammar and syntax.

TR

tache18x
06-09-2004, 17:14
I aoplogize for the grammar mistakes, I typed fast and I should have proofread. I am FAR from a socialist. I'm a lifelong conservative, I volunteered on Bush's 2000 campiagn, and I was chairman of the College Republicans at my school. Although I am a conservative I do not believe in ignoring the poor and downtrodden, I would fight for them, just like anyone else, because they are Americans too. I do not think the way to help the poor is through "giving them money", with no direction. But, I am for helping the poor through useful programs for those who want to help themselves (ie, Pell grants, head start, etc.). I'm not for severe redistibution of wealth, then we'd be like Europe, and that would not be good. In my opinion Reagan ignored the poor, as an American president, you job is not only to tend to the rich and privileged, but also to the poor. We have a responsibility as a society to care about those people, because through institutions like slavery, jim crow, etc, our society has aided in the subjugation of these groups. This dosn't mean welfare or quotas (which I am totally against), this means practical and effective means of helping people. I am all about helping my fellow man, and more importantly my fellow Americans. I believe, just as I think that Reagan did, that Americans are an exceptional group of people.

Airbornelawyer
06-09-2004, 19:22
Originally posted by tache18x
I rated him mediocre, but I really believe he's in the top 15, not 10. I do think he is a great president because of his brash communication skills, and willingness to stand on conservative pricnciples. However, I don't like the fact that he completely ignored the poor, the oppressed, and the destitute. Reagan has this iconic view of what he thinks America should be (which is not all bad), a place like is was in the 40's and 50's. When things were "simpler". A time when blacks, asains, and others would die in war to fight the nazis, but the nazi had a better chance of coming to America and getting a decent meal, job, etc, than a black or asain person. I feel that in the 80's, little was done to address this part of America. The 80's are a time when inner cities feel apart, when drugs and gangs ruled, and I feel that the Reagan admin. ignored these things. Do I believe he was a man of fine moral character and ability? Yes, by all means. Do I think he deep down gave a damn about people who didn't fit into his iconic vision of America? No.

I rate the top 5 as George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson, Teddy Roosevelt, and FDR. Originally posted by tache18x
I aoplogize for the grammar mistakes, I typed fast and I should have proofread. I am FAR from a socialist. I'm a lifelong conservative, I volunteered on Bush's 2000 campiagn, and I was chairman of the College Republicans at my school. Although I am a conservative I do not believe in ignoring the poor and downtrodden, I would fight for them, just like anyone else, because they are Americans too. I do not think the way to help the poor is through "giving them money", with no direction. But, I am for helping the poor through useful programs for those who want to help themselves (ie, Pell grants, head start, etc.). I'm not for severe redistibution of wealth, then we'd be like Europe, and that would not be good. In my opinion Reagan ignored the poor, as an American president, you job is not only to tend to the rich and privileged, but also to the poor. We have a responsibility as a society to care about those people, because through institutions like slavery, jim crow, etc, our society has aided in the subjugation of these groups. This dosn't mean welfare or quotas (which I am totally against), this means practical and effective means of helping people. I am all about helping my fellow man, and more importantly my fellow Americans. I believe, just as I think that Reagan did, that Americans are an exceptional group of people. You call yourself a conservative, yet your sheer ignorance of what conservatism means is astounding, and is only compounded by your ignorance of President Reagan's views. And the only thing worse than that is your slanders of the man which come directly from the liberal/left playbook.

"Although I am a conservative I do not believe in ignoring the poor and downtrodden..."? What the hell does that mean? Who the hell are you to insult all the rest of us rich, privileged, bigoted, uncaring conservatives that aren't as enlightened as you?

:mad:

Ghostrider
06-09-2004, 19:58
Originally posted by tache18x
Although I am a conservative I do not believe in ignoring the poor and downtrodden, I would fight for them, just like anyone else, because they are Americans too. I do not think the way to help the poor is through "giving them money", with no direction. But, I am for helping the poor through useful programs for those who want to help themselves (ie, Pell grants, head start, etc.). I'm not for severe redistibution of wealth, then we'd be like Europe, and that would not be good. In my opinion Reagan ignored the poor, as an American president, you job is not only to tend to the rich and privileged, but also to the poor. We have a responsibility as a society to care about those people, because through institutions like slavery, jim crow, etc, our society has aided in the subjugation of these groups. This dosn't mean welfare or quotas (which I am totally against), this means practical and effective means of helping people. I am all about helping my fellow man, and more importantly my fellow Americans. I believe, just as I think that Reagan did, that Americans are an exceptional group of people.

So are you stating that conservatives believe in ignoring the poor and downtrodden? In addition, since you are not for "severe" redistribution of wealth does this mean you ARE for some redistribution of wealth? If that's the case you are espousing more socialism.

The job of the American president is not about tending to either the rich or poor. His job is to take all available advice/resources and make decisions based on that information for the good of the entire country. Finally we should care about the less fortunate NOT because of the past but rather because it is the right thing to do. Using past subjugation as a reason is a poor excuse....read your own sig line.

The Reaper
06-09-2004, 22:23
Originally posted by tache18x
I aoplogize for the grammar mistakes, I typed fast and I should have proofread. I am FAR from a socialist. I'm a lifelong conservative, I volunteered on Bush's 2000 campiagn, and I was chairman of the College Republicans at my school. Although I am a conservative I do not believe in ignoring the poor and downtrodden, I would fight for them, just like anyone else, because they are Americans too. I do not think the way to help the poor is through "giving them money", with no direction. But, I am for helping the poor through useful programs for those who want to help themselves (ie, Pell grants, head start, etc.). I'm not for severe redistibution of wealth, then we'd be like Europe, and that would not be good. In my opinion Reagan ignored the poor, as an American president, you job is not only to tend to the rich and privileged, but also to the poor. We have a responsibility as a society to care about those people, because through institutions like slavery, jim crow, etc, our society has aided in the subjugation of these groups. This dosn't mean welfare or quotas (which I am totally against), this means practical and effective means of helping people. I am all about helping my fellow man, and more importantly my fellow Americans. I believe, just as I think that Reagan did, that Americans are an exceptional group of people.

tache18x:

That was contradictory, ill-informed, poorly reasoned, illogical, and one of the worst explanations I have ever read. Your dialogue and your argument are not tracking.

Clearly, you believe in taking from one group of people you define as less deserving of the property they possess, and forcibly redistributing it without compensation to those you deem needy as they are "poor and downtrodden". Your definition of that sub-class you want to redistribute my wages to and mine may not be the same.

Your plan is clearly Marxist. From the Communist Manifesto: "To each according to his needs; from each according to his means."

I am not sure that "I'm not for severe redistibution of wealth" means "I am not for any additional redistribution of wealth." I pay quite enough in taxes right now, I do not think that I want to pay any more, certainly not while Ms' Heinz-Kerry pays a lower percentage of her income in taxes than I do.

Finally, it occurs to me that there are ample opportunities in our society today for fulfilment at whatever level is desired, all that stands between a citizen of any color and success is his own motivation and desire to succeed.

I grew up working on a farm, and succeeded to a modest degree, because of it, not in spite of it. I hope that my children do even better, and will expend my time and material resources to see that they have that opportunity. In the final analysis, what they choose to do with the opportunity is their choice. Should we not expect others do the same for themselves?

TR

NousDefionsDoc
06-09-2004, 22:34
tache18x,
You can't be on my team if you can't do any better than that. We've got a bad enough rep as it is. These guys are Pros and you don't even have game with those posts. Wait'll Reaper and GH get through kicking your ass and I'll teach you how to be a real communist.

brownapple
06-09-2004, 23:08
Originally posted by tache18x
In my opinion Reagan ignored the poor, as an American president, you job is not only to tend to the rich and privileged, but also to the poor. We have a responsibility as a society to care about those people, because through institutions like slavery, jim crow, etc, our society has aided in the subjugation of these groups. This dosn't mean welfare or quotas (which I am totally against), this means practical and effective means of helping people. I am all about helping my fellow man, and more importantly my fellow Americans. I believe, just as I think that Reagan did, that Americans are an exceptional group of people.

Familiar with the concept of "charity"? I suggest your research Ronald Reagan and his charitable works and donations before making ridiculous claims. The fact that you put a true socialist (FDR) in your top five indicates a great deal about your positions regarding socialism and your lack of knowledge given the other claims you have made.

tache18x
06-10-2004, 01:03
As I said before, I am no socialist, liberal, or marxist. I find it interesting how many of you selectively read. When I say "severe" redistribution of wealth I am not talking about a socialist system like much of Europe, I thought that was clear, apparently not. I am not even talking about our current system which is too skewed, making the rich pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. I'm much more in favor a flat tax, to be honest. I didn't say that money was the only way to help the poor. Quite frankly, I don' t even think it is a very effective way to help.
"You call yourself a conservative, yet your sheer ignorance of what conservatism means is astounding". As I said before I was chairman of the College Republicans my school. I am a member of the Young America's Foundation's "Club 100", a group of the nations top college conservative activists (Which was founded by Ronald Reagan by the way). My hero is Dinesh D'Souza, I've read ever book he's written cover to cover. I idolize people like Walt Williams and Jonah Goldberg. If there's anything I know well, it's politics and what it means to be a conservative. I've spent my life being the LONE conservative voice in a sea of liberals. On the one hand, blacks see me as a traitor because I stand up for conservatism. On the other, my college friends see me as a racist (yes, racist agains my own people). So for you all say I'm not a conservative is off base. I am going to serve my country, and I would give my life for it, so for you all to call me a marxist, socialist, etc. is ridiculous.

"Who the hell are you to insult all the rest of us rich, privileged, bigoted, uncaring conservatives that aren't as enlightened as you?" I made it clear that my reasons for my rating of Reagan were a matter of my opinion. So the fact that you are insulted means you are too easily offended. I said nothing referring to what anyone else should think about Reagan.


Part of conservatism is believing in the greatness of the principles that this Nation was founded on, and that we pride ourselves on.
"Give me your tired your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Look, I don't blame many people for putting Reagan in their top five. He was a decent man, and an exceptional leader. However, for ME as a young patriotic black man, I cannot ignore this part of the country that I believe Reagan ignored.

I'd rather have a debate about policy or issues on Reagan, not why I'm a supposed marxist. This should NOT be personal, I have made NO personal references to anyone else, I feel I should be afforded the same respect.

DanUCSB
06-10-2004, 01:13
Right or wrong, took a thumpin' and came back swinging. Something to be said for that, at least. :lifter

brownapple
06-10-2004, 01:57
Originally posted by tache18x
Part of conservatism is believing in the greatness of the principles that this Nation was founded on, and that we pride ourselves on.
"Give me your tired your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

I think you would find many conservatives who disagree with you. I don't (regarding the above quote), but I do think that quote is not about helping them, but rather about simply making opportunity available to them. Ronald Reagan did that in a manner not matched by any President of the 20th Century (and surely not matched by FDR).

You claim President Reagan ignored the poor, needy, etc... but President Roosevelt (the socialist one) put people in relocation camps!

How better to help all the people, rich, poor, silver spoon or wooden spoon than to lead a strong nation, a strong economy and restore pride in being American?

My personal observation, being from a city that is fairly multi-cultural and has its share of minorities, is that President Reagan's actions did more to create true equality and color-blindness than any other President in my life time (both before and after). And he did that by treating everyone as equals..no one due anything special, each rewarded by their skills and talents.

Let's look at your five:

George Washington - founder of the country, beloved by a huge majority (some more than others given where he slept).

Abraham Lincoln - you can read more in the NY draft riots column, but he certainly doesn't qualify as a conservative. He made more changes than all the Presidents before him.

Thomas Jefferson - As a President, what exactly did he accomplish? As a founding father, I give him full credit.

Teddy Roosevelt - Might want to research Teddy a bit. Lots of good things and one of my favorite Presidents. But he was as racist as they get (he believed in the "white man's burden" which is just disguised racism). Also not what would be called a conservative considering how many changes he made in how the US Government did things (buying land instead of giving it away for example).

FD Roosevelt - Interred American citizens. Was President when German POWs were treated better than many US Citizens. Started the mass of social programs that still haunt us. Had a Soviet spy as a close advisor. Was effectively a dictator once the US entered the war. Considered Joe Stalin a likeable and trustworthy person. In my opinion, the farthest left President the United States has had to date.

The Reaper
06-10-2004, 07:55
Originally posted by tache18x
As I said before, I am no socialist, liberal, or marxist. I find it interesting how many of you selectively read. When I say "severe" redistribution of wealth I am not talking about a socialist system like much of Europe, I thought that was clear, apparently not. I am not even talking about our current system which is too skewed, making the rich pay a higher percentage of their income in taxes. I'm much more in favor a flat tax, to be honest. I didn't say that money was the only way to help the poor. Quite frankly, I don' t even think it is a very effective way to help.
"You call yourself a conservative, yet your sheer ignorance of what conservatism means is astounding". As I said before I was chairman of the College Republicans my school. I am a member of the Young America's Foundation's "Club 100", a group of the nations top college conservative activists (Which was founded by Ronald Reagan by the way). My hero is Dinesh D'Souza, I've read ever book he's written cover to cover. I idolize people like Walt Williams and Jonah Goldberg. If there's anything I know well, it's politics and what it means to be a conservative. I've spent my life being the LONE conservative voice in a sea of liberals. On the one hand, blacks see me as a traitor because I stand up for conservatism. On the other, my college friends see me as a racist (yes, racist agains my own people). So for you all say I'm not a conservative is off base. I am going to serve my country, and I would give my life for it, so for you all to call me a marxist, socialist, etc. is ridiculous.

"Who the hell are you to insult all the rest of us rich, privileged, bigoted, uncaring conservatives that aren't as enlightened as you?" I made it clear that my reasons for my rating of Reagan were a matter of my opinion. So the fact that you are insulted means you are too easily offended. I said nothing referring to what anyone else should think about Reagan.


Part of conservatism is believing in the greatness of the principles that this Nation was founded on, and that we pride ourselves on.
"Give me your tired your poor,
Your huddled masses yearning to breathe free,
The wretched refuse of your teeming shore.
Send these, the homeless, tempest-tossed to me,
I lift my lamp beside the golden door!"

Look, I don't blame many people for putting Reagan in their top five. He was a decent man, and an exceptional leader. However, for ME as a young patriotic black man, I cannot ignore this part of the country that I believe Reagan ignored.

I'd rather have a debate about policy or issues on Reagan, not why I'm a supposed marxist. This should NOT be personal, I have made NO personal references to anyone else, I feel I should be afforded the same respect.

This has not been personal, nor have there been any ad hominem attacks.

While I may applaud you for having the courage to take an unpopular stand, you have to defend your position, which IMHO, you have not adequately done yet.

You speak ill of President Reagan and his policies, but are too young to remember much, if anything about his Presidency. You may be more influenced by what people said about him while you were a child than what you know about him.

No one here has done anything more than ask you to defend your position, and pointed out to you the apparent dichotomy between your position, and the facts.

You want to play with the big dogs, you have to bring an A Game, and back it up with facts. If you choose not to do so, I suggest that you pick your battles carefully and stay off of contentious issues.

If you would like to see excellent examples of arguments here, I suggest that you look no further than Airborne Lawyer, and examine his recent posts. He is among the best on this board at answering questions and presenting arguments supported by cold, hard, incontrovertible facts and expert opinions.

Now, rather than telling us more about yourself, what specific actions by President Reagan are you basing your complaints on?

Originally posted by tache18x
"I don't like the fact that he completely ignored the poor, the oppressed, and the destitute. Reagan has this iconic view of what he thinks America should be (which is not all bad), a place like is was in the 40's and 50's. When things were "simpler". A time when blacks, asains, and others would die in war to fight the nazis, but the nazi had a better chance of coming to America and getting a decent meal, job, etc, than a black or asain person. I feel that in the 80's, little was done to address this part of America. The 80's are a time when inner cities feel apart, when drugs and gangs ruled, and I feel that the Reagan admin. ignored these things. Do I believe he was a man of fine moral character and ability? Yes, by all means. Do I think he deep down gave a damn about people who didn't fit into his iconic vision of America? No."

BTW, I don't think you are using the word "iconic" properly in your complaint; it is "Asian", not "asain"; and "Nazi", not "nazi".

Look forward to your response.

TR

Jack Moroney (RIP)
06-10-2004, 08:03
[QUOTE]Originally posted by tache18x
[B]. "However, I don't like the fact that he completely ignored the poor, the oppressed, and the destitute. "

Let's see. Ignored the poor, the oppressed, and the destitute. So I guess the fact that he was instrumental in bringing democracy to Central America doesn't count for much, nor does my side trip to a West African Country with a four other SF soldiers to keep a country from going under, nor does the fact that he hastened the demise of the USSR. Perhaps these millions that were given a chance to better themselves were not poor enough, oppressed enough, nor destitute enough. I wonder how many of them came to the US legally to populate our decaying, drug and gang laden cities.




"The 80's are a time when inner cities feel apart, when drugs and gangs ruled, and I feel that the Reagan admin. ignored these things. "

I really cannot fault your memory of the 80s as you were born in 1981 and were subject to re-written history according to the liberal bias of the schools that you attended. My memory of the 80s apparently is a little more fact based as I lived thru them and had the priviledge of serving under CINC Reagan. As far as the poor, oppressed and destitute folks in this country, anyone with enough guts to pull themselves up by their boot straps can make it here.

Jack Moroney

tache18x
06-10-2004, 08:51
In 1980, Philidelphia, Miss. Reagan kicked off his campaign in a town that was none for NOTHING else besides the lynching of three civil rights leaders just over a decade before that. His speech made NO reference to the brutality of the lynching. He advidly supported Bob Jones Univ., a school known for its anti-black policies. He ignored aparthied in SA. Reagan choose this site because he wanted to, in a coded way, appeal to the "southern base". Which was frankly was a good strategy to win. But, morally I can't support his attempt to appeal to the Southern whites through racism. This was made famous by Nixon, with the "Southern Strategy". Before the 60's the South was a democratic stronghold, but somewhere along the way Republicans decided that they could catch a large number of votes by playing on the fears of whites. Bush 41 did it famously in his 88' campaign. This is one of the only things I am embarassed about when it comes to my party. People may find it hard to swallow when someone says something negative about Reagan, but I have never been a blind follower of anything. Meaning I don't lean a certain way on issues simply because I'm a conservative. I think for myself, and it just so happens that most of my views are conservative. I will point something out if it is wrong, regardless of how other conservatives view it. In slavery there were lots of people who were for it, if I was alive during that time I certainly would not have been.

On the one hand, I believe that America is a country, perhaps the only one, that offers significant opportunities for people from all walks of life, and all classes. However, this has only been true since all people were adequately included in our law through the CR act of 1964 (which Reagan vehemetly opposed). On the other, it is not as cut-and-dry as "pull your self up by your boot straps". If significant impedements have been placed in front of a group for a couple of centuries, it is then difficult to abruptly say, "let's call it even", then ask "why can't you compete?". Does this mean have ridiculous Welfare programs and unfair quotas? No. I stand for equality in opportunity, and quotas undermine that. That being said, I am all for blacks solving problems through hard work. I believe blacks have significant problems with internal cultural dysfunction. However, I certainly cannot, and will not ignore history. I feel Reagan did. Did Reagan energize the majority of people in this country. Yes. But, could I acknowledge him as one of the top Presidents if I feel that, based on his actions, people like me were not included in his view of what America should be.

btw- I was not referring to you Reaper when I referenced personal attacks. I've enjoyed reading your responses. I

Sacamuelas
06-10-2004, 09:09
Originally posted by tache18x
As I said before, I am no socialist, liberal, or marxist.
No, I believe you are ignorant to the true meanings of those terms in relation to being a "conservative". Let me guess, your next defense and diversion tactic in attempting to cover up your true ideological stance will be trying to claim you are "friends with, meet with, and work with conservatives on a daily basis”. That must prove that you are a "conservative", right?

Originally posted by tache18x
As I said before I was chairman of the College Republicans my school. I am a member of the Young America's Foundation's "Club 100", a group of the nations top college conservative activists (Which was founded by Ronald Reagan by the way).

LOL...there it is.
"Guilt by association"??? Having the bumper sticker, joining a group, and giving yourself a title based on meaningless memberships ... is that what defines a conservative? I always considered the term to define a specific ideology and way of viewing the world.
That didn't work... so what's next? Are you going to try the all things are relative approach to explain your "contradictory, ill-informed, poorly reasoned, illogical explanations "?

Originally posted by tache18x
If there's anything I know well, it's politics and what it means to be a conservative. I've spent my life being the LONE conservative voice in a sea of liberals. On the one hand, blacks see me as a traitor because I stand up for conservatism. On the other, my college friends see me as a racist (yes, racist against my own people). So for you all say I'm not a conservative is off base.
Bingo... there it is. We just don't understand your "background". In YOUR America, you are conservative. Since everyone in this country feels that they have a right to make up there own rules, choose which laws to obey, make special exceptions which undermine other's freedoms, create free passes for the undeserving/unqualified, enact quotas to discriminate in the veiled disguise of fighting for "anti-discrimination", start their own languages while demanding its acceptance into the formal public education system, and create an environment where free speech is undermined due to PC bullshit, then why not be able to make up your own definitions too?
I don't know your background... you might be MORE conservative in ideology than your friends/family. That doesn't make you a conservative... that makes you "less" of a socialist lib.

Finally, what's next? Going to play the race card? (see above quote by you). Oops, already started in on that too, huh? Well, that is where you and I differ in our views. I consider "my own people" to include ALL Americans! The only racist thing I see in this thread is the fact that you and your friends view America through racially biased glasses. If you would quit looking to always be the victim, utilize the public education system (which I did), utilize the government loans, grants, etc for higher education for minorities and others ( LIKE I DID), and mold yourself into a quality citizen then you would not have time to sit around and be a "wish-I-was". It's all there for the plucking for the "ignored poor, the oppressed, and the destitute"... you just have to get off your ass and go get it.
It won't happen overnight or even in one generation for most, but progress can be made to improve the next generation's chances at higher success. Nobody has a right to immediate prosperity or comfort... only the opportunity to make sacrifices that might pay off over the long term for their next generation of siblings. In the end, it enables them the "opportunity" to be better off than they were before they started WORKING towards their goal.

edited to add.. it appears while I was typing this that you continued to focus on race. I hope someday as you grow older/wiser that you will find that this crutch is slowly becoming a hindrance to OUR nation and OUR people's advancement into prosperity...

Originally posted by tache18x
I am going to serve my country, and I would give my life for it,

Good for you. That is an honorable thing to aspire to attempt. Good luck and stay safe :cool:

tache18x
06-10-2004, 09:51
I must say that your argument gives a new meaning to the phrase "selective reading". You say my membership in groups dosn't identify my true ideology. Very true. However, if you would have read, you would have seen that I said I idolize, Dinesh D'Souza, perhaps the current ideological leader of the conservative movement, and I agree with him on practically everything. Being a conservative DOES NOT mean saying every problem someone has is there own fault, that's not practical.

Secondly, read in context. When I am speaking in a racial context (this would be indicated by the terms "race" and "racism") my own people refers to blacks. If I was speaking in a broader context, Americans would be my people. See, that was simple.

Thank you for explaining exactly why I am a conservative. Because, I think that blacks complain WAY too much, and at this point alot of it is not helpful. My family came from Haiti in the 70's, poor, didn't know English. They all want on to med and law school (my dad's a lawyer), because of hard work. I understand completely the opportunities America affordes to everyone. The problem is that alot of poor people aren't poor because they were on their "ass" as you say. Some certainly are. But the demographic makeup of the poor is not a coincidence. What I don't want to do is give the impression that I am against there even being poor people. In our great system, there is and should be a lower classes. Equality of opportunity, not reults. However, when that poor is extremely skewed to one race (30% of blacks live in poverty, 10% of whites), that's where I think we as a society should at the very least acknoledge why this is the case. So I'll ask you, why is it the case?

Racial glasses huh? I wonder if Reagan had them on when he went to Philidelphia, Mississippi. Probably not right, he just picked that town randomly!

Murph
06-10-2004, 10:16
I did a search on the Philadelphia, MS speech - I didn't know much about it. I've found 2 articles written around the time that Trent Lott found himself in trouble and that give a bit of background...

First is a Time Magazine article that contains many of the accusations brought up by Tache18x:

time.com/time/nation/article/0%2C8599%2C399921%2C00.html

The second is counterpoint in National Review:

http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-hayward121902.asp

I hope this helps...


MJH

The Reaper
06-10-2004, 10:17
Originally posted by tache18x
In 1980, Philidelphia, Miss. Reagan kicked off his campaign in a town that was none for NOTHING else besides the lynching of three civil rights leaders just over a decade before that. His speech made NO reference to the brutality of the lynching. He advidly supported Bob Jones Univ., a school known for its anti-black policies. He ignored aparthied in SA. Reagan choose this site because he wanted to, in a coded way, appeal to the "southern base". Which was frankly was a good strategy to win. But, morally I can't support his attempt to appeal to the Southern whites through racism. This was made famous by Nixon, with the "Southern Strategy". Before the 60's the South was a democratic stronghold, but somewhere along the way Republicans decided that they could catch a large number of votes by playing on the fears of whites. Bush 41 did it famously in his 88' campaign. This is one of the only things I am embarassed about when it comes to my party. People may find it hard to swallow when someone says something negative about Reagan, but I have never been a blind follower of anything. Meaning I don't lean a certain way on issues simply because I'm a conservative. I think for myself, and it just so happens that most of my views are conservative. I will point something out if it is wrong, regardless of how other conservatives view it. In slavery there were lots of people who were for it, if I was alive during that time I certainly would not have been.

On the one hand, I believe that America is a country, perhaps the only one, that offers significant opportunities for people from all walks of life, and all classes. However, this has only been true since all people were adequately included in our law through the CR act of 1964 (which Reagan vehemetly opposed). On the other, it is not as cut-and-dry as "pull your self up by your boot straps". If significant impedements have been placed in front of a group for a couple of centuries, it is then difficult to abruptly say, "let's call it even", then ask "why can't you compete?". Does this mean have ridiculous Welfare programs and unfair quotas? No. I stand for equality in opportunity, and quotas undermine that. That being said, I am all for blacks solving problems through hard work. I believe blacks have significant problems with internal cultural dysfunction. However, I certainly cannot, and will not ignore history. I feel Reagan did. Did Reagan energize the majority of people in this country. Yes. But, could I acknowledge him as one of the top Presidents if I feel that, based on his actions, people like me were not included in his view of what America should be.

btw- I was not referring to you Reaper when I referenced personal attacks. I've enjoyed reading your responses. I

tache18X:

Trying hard to follow this, but are you implying that President Reagan was a racist based upon the fact that he visited a poor town in Mississippi with a bad civil rights record, "actively supported" BJU and had a policy WRT South Africa that you disagreed with?

Are we free to draw the same parallels with those that you say you admire, like FDR?

BTW, just for your info, there is a Black SF General Officer who came from Philadelphia, Mississippi. Wonder how he became successful in a city with that shameful legacy?

TR

tache18x
06-10-2004, 10:33
I don't think Reagan was a racist. I just don't agree with the blatant use of the southern strategy. I enjoyed the debate, it's been fun.

Sigi
06-10-2004, 10:51
If significant impedements have been placed in front of a group for a couple of centuries, it is then difficult to abruptly say, "let's call it even", then ask "why can't you compete?". that's where I think we as a society should at the very least acknoledge why this is the case. So I'll ask you, why is it the case?

I am not sure if I agree with this. Any examples on how a certain race or nationality cannot compete in the US today?

Part of the difficulty in defining the problem is that a large percentage of that "30%" and "10%" do not even try to better themselves, so how can we say "pulling yourself up by the bootstraps" doesn't work?

Why is it the case? Like I said a large portion of those %'s don't try.

Sacamuelas
06-10-2004, 11:12
Tache18x-
It truly disappoints me to read the obtuse thoughts you have expressed on this thread.

You talk of the lack of equality and opportunity, yet you turn around and give proof that during the late 70's and through the 80's (during President Reagan's terms in office) that opportunities existed and were fostered in such a dramatic fashion that a NON-ENGLISH speaking COLORED immigrant could become a Lawyer in ONE generation's time. WTF??? In my book, You are the QUINTISSENTIAL COMPLAINER with blinders on. To me, that is insulting to your father's hard work.

Please don't try to play the victim card for all the American's that actually faced REAL discrimination and bias in opportunities back in the 40's,50's, 60's, 70's, and even into the early 80's as our Nation struggled to level the playing field. Neither YOU nor your Family faced slavery IN THE USA or that dramatic example you like to bring up in argument- lynching in MS. Am I sayiong that racism doesn't exist, NO. There is a dramatic difference in America today verses the timeframe you like to quote. We all face discrimination for all sorts of reasons, but in today's world Americans are able to overcome these issues if you really want to do it.

IMO, You (not your father) are a typical Lib... Part of the privileged few(economically) who never had to worry about REAL poverty or the struggle for opportunities. Turning around to support societal institutions that will placate and repress the very people who you "symbolically" represent. By merely providing excuses and perpetuating the "victim" ideology on the masses of the self described "my people", you harm the progress towards equality that you claim to champion. All the while, stripping the “my people" of the desire to work hard and sacrificefor the FUTURE generations of their family by promising "immediate and guaranteed" quick fix solutions and entitlements. Of course, this only represses their desire and motivation to improve their situation by providing a environment that allows for existence but not progression into a higher quality of life.

You attacked President Reagan due to his stance AGAINST wealth redistribution? That is right from the “how to be a lib media guide”.
Ronald Reagan promoted EQUAL opportunity programs for all that were willing to dream, work, and sacrifice to obtain their goals. He tried to removed government incentives that kept people in their current 'comfort' state and tried to remove tax burdens on the very people that were trying to prosper and achieve their dreams. He removed the burden off the men like your father from having to pay taxes to support the "victims" of our society.

As to Philadelphia.. Have you been there? Have you talked with the people that lived there then and now? I live in that state... Do you know first-hand what you posted about? From your expressed viewpoint, I doubt it...

tache18x
06-10-2004, 11:16
Typical logic. Ignore histories part in this demographic inconsistency, and only focus on "laziness". Granted, I do think that if a person is born poor they have to suck up that unfortunate circumstance and work twice as hard. But, that's not what I asked. I asked WHY are these people are poor in the first place. If you cannot see that it is because of centuries of subjugation, then you extremely ill-informed my friend. I think it is hard for some people to distinguish that I am not saying people should use their social class as an excuse, I cannot stand the victim mentality. But, I am talking about WHY they are in that social class, and have been since 1864. This is not totally because of laziness, this is because of an institutionalized injustice, that has since ended, but has lasting effects.

I don't credit those gains in the 60's and 70's to Reagan. He oppossed the CR act of 64', as did Gore Sr. Let me just say for the record, LBJ's liberal "great scoiety" programs were much more
harmful to blacks than Reagan could ever be. Let's all be clear about that.

Just stating facts: you asked about current problems... http://www.careerjournal.com/myc/diversity/20030226-imdiversity.html

edit: why has everyone failed to address the southern strategy used in our party, is it right?

Ghostrider
06-10-2004, 11:36
Originally posted by tache18x
But, that's not what I asked. I asked WHY are these people are poor in the first place. If you cannot see that it is because of centuries of subjugation, then you extremely ill-informed my friend. I think it is hard for some people to distinguish that I am not saying people should use their social class as an excuse, I cannot stand the victim mentality. But, I am talking about WHY they are in that social class, and have been since 1864. This is not totally because of laziness, this is because of an institutionalized injustice, that has since ended, but has lasting effects.

Why some people are in a social class (because of the past)cannot be changed. The HOW and WHAT they do NOW is what counts. Subjugation occurred, I don't think anyone is arguing it didn't. Yes there are long-lasting effects.....but again, the only way to change that is to address what needs to be done NOW.


edit: why has everyone failed to address the southern strategy used in our party, is it right?

Admittedly, I do not know enough about the southern strategy to comment on whether it is right or not....BUT, it is politics afterall (not that that makes anything right or wrong rather it's the nature of politics).

Sigi
06-10-2004, 11:54
Ignore histories part in this demographic inconsistency, and only focus on "laziness".
I am not ignoring racism and its many facets that existed. There is less racism today than there was in 1864 and 1964.

Just don't ignore that a large percentage of the 30% and 10% are lethargic and apathetic, i.e., LAZY.

I won't ignore your position if you won't ignore mine. There are 100"s of ways to spin this. I won't give you a typical response if you won't give me one.

I think you make some good points, but those arguments aren't working in the real world anymore. The problem still exists. Personally I think accountability in those poor black neighborhoods is a huge problem. Bill Cosby is the first prominent person to point that out.

tache18x
06-10-2004, 12:09
I love what Bill Cosby said, he's the man for that. I think you'd like Dinesh D'Souza's book "The End of Racism", is the best book I've ever read on race, and tells the conservative viewpoint to a T. He's also written a book on Reagan, and a great book called "What's So Great About America". If you ever get the time, and you like conservative ideology you should read them. Also, John McWhorter's book called losing the race. He coins the term "the cult of victimology", it's an excellent read.

"There is less racism today than there was in 1864 and 1964."
I completely agree.

Sigi
06-10-2004, 12:27
Dinesh D'Souza , John McWhorter
I have read some of the work of Jonah Goldberg, but haven't heard of these two. Thanks for the names.

tache18x
06-10-2004, 12:40
read this article Sigi...http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-dsouza070203.asp

brownapple
06-10-2004, 18:34
Originally posted by tache18x
this has only been true since all people were adequately included in our law through the CR act of 1964 (which Reagan vehemetly opposed).

LOL...

Well, I guess that the Chinese, Irish, etc. that were here before that all never had the opportunity to compete. :rolleyes:

The Civil Rights Act of 1964 institutionalized discrimination. It was NOT a move forward, it was a move backwards. Prior to that act, groups had come to the US, been discriminated against, rose above it and become part of America. The Germans (revolutionary era), the Irish (Civil War era) the Chinese (post-Civil War), the Jews (WWI-WWII), the Italians (WWI-WWII), etc. The Civil Rights Act of 1964 changed that. It is one of the worst pieces of legislation ever written, because it attempts to address with legislation that which is only addressable with education and experience.

CommoGeek
06-10-2004, 18:38
I'm not excusing it or accepting it, but almost every race, religion, etc. has suffered some form of discrimination in their history.

Some choose to get over it and drive on.

Airbornelawyer
06-10-2004, 19:29
You can call yourself a conservative, but your views seem at best a left-wing caricature of conservatism, and of American politics in general. I do not have the inclination to address more than a few issues raised, so this will be short (for me).

Regarding the Southern Strategy, perhaps that was not addressed because some are unfamiliar enough with the details to be comfortable making unsupported assertions (or aspersions). Perhaps it was not addressed because it (or at least it as it is conventionally expressed) is a myth. Perhaps it wasn't addressed because no one got around to it.

As applies to the so-called "Southern Strategy," the essence of the myth is that Republicans consciously chose an electoral strategy based on race-based appeal to Southern whites. The claims range from opposing civil rights to using what are characterized as code words like "state's rights" or "law and order" or "color blind society" to get the racial message out with a wink and a nod. There are elements of truth to some of this, especially as relates to Nixon's 1968 campaign. However, upon actual testing in the laboratory of national elections, the thesis suffers from a number of flaws. First, Republican efforts to gain votes in the south began to gain traction before the civil rights era, when the GOP was the leading party on civil rights. Second, Republican gains were primarily in the growing states of the Southern periphery - states like Florida, Texas, Tennessee and Virginia - where racial issues were less dominant in politics, than in the Deep South - states like Alabama, Mississippi and South Carolina. The electoral-vote rich states on the periphery have been in play for the Republicans since Eisenhower's 1952 campaign (when he took Florida, Tennessee, Texas and Virginia

If the GOP Southern Strategy were primarily race-based, the party would have gained in the Deep South before the New South. But it wasn't George Wallace's base that began moving to the GOP, it was the same upwardly mobile middle and lower-middle class social conservatives that were moving the GOP's direction in other parts of the country. And many of those were literally moving: they were immigrants to the New South from the Northeast and Rustbelt seeking individual opportunity - the type of conservative you do identify with. GOP party identification is also stronger among younger rather than older Southern white voters, the opposite trend you'd expect if race were the main appeal. Also, GOP gains in the South were solidified during and after the Reagan era, when racial issues were less salient than in the 1950s and 1960s. Or do you think the South became more racist in 1980s and 1990s?

As Prof. Gerard Alexander of UVa has noted, the GOP's growing base in the South "was disproportionately suburban, middle-class, educated, younger, non-native-Southern, and concentrated in the growth-points that were, so to speak, the least "Southern" parts of the South."

Reagan himself was part of the so-called Sagebrush Rebellion, the rise of an anti-Federal government interference, Republican-leaning constituency in the Western states. For them, state's rights had less the loaded connotation it had in the Deep South (though no doubt many knew exactly how it would be taken there). Though federalism is the preferred term today, there was some hope then that the pedigree of state's rights might be retaken from the segregationists (personally I think this was a forlorn hope at best, but I am not willing to call a closet racist everyone who expressed a belief in state's rights against the federal government).

Regarding "code words" or charges of subversive racial appeals, the burden is on those making the charge to prove them. There is evidence that Goldwater's invocation of "state's rights" was part of a strategy to woo segregationists in 1964, but in too many cases leftists treat the charge as self-evident (and hence unprovable). If I say I am against affirmative action, then I am secretly a racist against black opportunity. This has the appeal of allowing liberals to charge conservatives with being racists without having to explicitly say it. It also allows them to delegitimize conservative policy positions as being just pretexts for racism.

Views in opposition are deemed racist because they are defined as racist, and the burden of proof is shifted to the conservative to prove he is not a racist (usually by supporting some liberal measure in the name of "civil rights" as liberals define them).

Which takes me to the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Do not assume that because someone opposes a measure called a "civil rights" measure, someone opposes civil rights. As GH notes, that Act, which Sen. Humphrey vociferously denied would lead to quotas, in fact led to quotas. Reagan opposed it at the time precisely for those reasons. This is an example of letting the liberal caricature control.

Another example of that caricature is the deployment of Pershing IIs and cruise missiles to Europe. As far as liberals were concerned, conservatives are warmongers. Therefore it was self-evident that the deployment was a prelude to war and "peace through strength" was just pablum. The INF treaty thus came as a complete surprise to the Western left.

And God save the politician who opposes a measure the Democrats or the media manage to characterize as "for the children"!

And of course, another prime example of the caricature is the one you invoke that Reagan and Republicans are insensitive to the poor or minorities because they oppose race-based measures or government entitlement programs which liberals characterize as pro-poor or pro-minority. In this regard, though more can be said, I will just leave you with the words of Mr. Reagan himself:Alexander Hamilton, one of our greatest Founding Fathers, once said that "a power over a man's subsistence amounts to a power over his will." What we've seen in too many cases in the inner city is the broken will of people who desire to be as proud and independent as any other American. And perhaps unintentionally, many government programs have been designed not to create social mobility and help the needy along their way, but instead to foster a state of dependency. Whatever their intentions, no matter their compassion, our opponents created a new kind of bondage for millions of American citizens.

CPTAUSRET
06-10-2004, 20:16
I don't have time to reply to this thread in depth, but suffice it to say that tache18x, has not impressed me with his logic, or his version of the reality that I lived through. I was retired in 1980 as a CPT over 20 at 100% disability, I spent 3 1/2 years flying helicopter gunships in VN, and did some other interesting things during those 20 years.

I did not see racism in the military (Au Contraire), we all bled green, and one of the finest officers I ever served with Jerry M Free, (Maj USA retired) would tell you that you are full of shit, he might not have stated it that plainly, but I will.

I never had an agenda, I merely wanted to serve my country...You on the other hand seem to have an agenda, and as has been stated before I am not sure that I would want you serving with me. You seem to be intelligent, and I for one am hoping you get your shit together, if not, you shouldn't be around long enough to matter.

Terry

Sigi
06-10-2004, 22:39
As applies to the so-called "Southern Strategy," the essence of the myth is that Republicans consciously chose an electoral strategy based on race-based appeal to Southern whites.
AL,
While I love to hear you bang your drum, there is no doubt that Republicans DO choose not only a Southern strategy, but a Black strategy, Midwestern strategy, Western and Eastern strategy, ect...


Who you trying to kid here? It's politics. I am not buying your 50 paragraphs.

There is a strategy in every election, and every Dog Politician is looking for an angle.

IMHO.

You can write until the cows come home. Although you may be capable of spinning the conservative agenda, I don't doubt you would find Democrats do the same.

While I agree with most of what you say, I am disappointed that you don't admit that Republicans sell out and use certain demographies to their advantage, i.e., Blacks, Whites, Rich Whites and Blacks, Very Rich Whites and Blacks, and oh yeah, the Military.


I am not judging. I am just saying. It's politics. Don't tell me the Republicans are "ABOVE" those tactics. Nobody running for President is above it. And if you think Bush is running on principle alone than I may have misjudged this entire board.

Sigi
06-10-2004, 22:42
EDIT: Thanks for sharing Terry, Sir.

Sigi
06-10-2004, 22:50
Originally posted by teaches
read this article Sigi...http://www.nationalreview.com/comment/comment-dsouza070203.asp
I liked it. Thanks for the article. Now Dinesh D'Souza certainly has my attention.

tache18x
06-11-2004, 01:11
If you feel that someone that LOVES this country the way I do, and has clearly expressed that in every post, cannot serve with you, you either have a reading problem or don't understand what this country is. I love for people to disagree. That's what America is about. I have fully expressed my feelings about this nation, if you fail to read that, then your comments are silly. Just because I have a different ideological opinion in one specific issue means that you think I'm not fit to serve. That's bullshit. I never said anything about the military being racist, WTF are you talking about? The military has been an example how race relations can work effectively. I can respect you if you disagree with me, but DO NOT question my motives or willingness and abaility to serve my country. I respect people like The Reaper, Airborne Lawyer, Greenhat, etc who in no way agree with me, but are not making it personal.


Greenhat, you mentioned some groups that rose above the odds and became part of America prior to the CR act of 1964. These groups history in the context of America are much different from that of blacks. There is absolutely no way you can argue that unless you have completely no understanding of slavery and jim crow. For one, I disagree that the act is bad legislation. I've read it serveral times, I think that liberals have implemented the act poorly. Also, you failed to mention blacks prior to 1964. Do you know why? It's because blacks couldn't rise above. Blacks tried and were crushed. (You should research Reconstruction and black codes).

Airborne lawyer. I agree with some of what you said. But alot of it is an attempt to skew the truth about our party. You act as if race was a passing issue in the South. No, it was THE issue. Why would Helms and Thurmond create their own party (the were both southern democrats at one time) called the dixiexcrats? Their number one issue was being against intergration. They didn't talk about anything else. Why would national guard troops have to be sent in to let some kids intergrate a school? Is America, and the South less racist now? Of course, this is obvious. But, for you to say the Southern Strategy is not race based makes little since, that is the definition of the term.

I'll sum it up this way... In the past 50 yeard Republicans have dome some things that have rubbed me the wrong way When and only when, it come to race. In 99% of other issues, I am completely satisfied with the Republican party and I am lockstep with it. Despite, this one small issue, I believe this country is the greatest civilization in the history of this earth.

Sigi
06-11-2004, 01:45
tache18x.

Good response. Since I'm not in the pipeline (civilian) I will not offer a SF opinion. But as an American, I say bravo.

That was GTG in my book. .

Good luck.

Sigi.

brownapple
06-11-2004, 03:33
Originally posted by tache18x

Greenhat, you mentioned some groups that rose above the odds and became part of America prior to the CR act of 1964. These groups history in the context of America are much different from that of blacks. There is absolutely no way you can argue that unless you have completely no understanding of slavery and jim crow. For one, I disagree that the act is bad legislation. I've read it serveral times, I think that liberals have implemented the act poorly. Also, you failed to mention blacks prior to 1964. Do you know why? It's because blacks couldn't rise above. Blacks tried and were crushed. (You should research Reconstruction and black codes).

Really?

http://www.sportingnews.com/archives/jackie/jackie1.jpg

Wonder if they felt crushed? (http://history.acusd.edu/gen/WW2Timeline/Tuskegee.html)

http://img.infoplease.com/images/muhammadali.jpg

Crushing Aryan supremacy (http://espn.go.com/sportscentury/features/00016393.html)

CPTAUSRET
06-11-2004, 09:22
Originally posted by tache18x
If you feel that someone that LOVES this country the way I do, and has clearly expressed that in every post, cannot serve with you, you either have a reading problem or don't understand what this country is. I love for people to disagree. That's what America is about. I have fully expressed my feelings about this nation, if you fail to read that, then your comments are silly. Just because I have a different ideological opinion in one specific issue means that you think I'm not fit to serve. That's bullshit. I never said anything about the military being racist, WTF are you talking about? The military has been an example how race relations can work effectively. I can respect you if you disagree with me, but DO NOT question my motives or willingness and abaility to serve my country. I respect people like The Reaper, Airborne Lawyer, Greenhat, etc who in no way agree with me, but are not making it personal.


Airborne lawyer. I agree with some of what you said. But alot of it is an attempt to skew the truth about our party. You act as if race was a passing issue in the South.

I'll sum it up this way... In the past 50 yeard Republicans have dome some things that have rubbed me the wrong way When and only when, it come to race.

That was not personal...What ANY team needs to function as an effective fighting unit is cohesiveness, and your use of the "race card" would be divisive. I stand by what I said:

Terry

CPTAUSRET
06-11-2004, 10:22
tache18x:

I mentioned Jerry Free in my previous post, I did so because Jerry was one of the better people I served with, Jerry flew Cobras in VN, and I am going to tell you a story about him. I may have some of the details wrong but here is the gist of the story, while on a mission one or maybe two of his birds were shot down, not sure whether Jerry was himself shot down but he nonetheless was on the ground, one of the birds was in flames ammo cooking off, extreme heat, etc, etc Jerry ignored the inferno and managed to drag at least one of the people out of the ship, he didn't quit til he got him out, Jerry suffered severe burns over much of his body:

A few years later someone was recounting the tale of Jerry's heroics, he mentioned the fact that Jerry was Black and the man he rescued was white, I said "that's Bullshit", "we were all the same color", "we all bled green"! I had never viewed Jerry as a "Black" man, I never will.

Hope this puts my comments in perspective for you.

Terry

Editted to add, Jerry was a SOLDIER he was color blind when it came to black and white!

tache18x
06-11-2004, 11:11
Color means nothing to me in regards to the Army. We are all Americans fighting for our country. Just because I point out past racial injusticies (which have certainly happened in the military as well, but the military advanced much quicker then the rest of society on that front) does not mean that I would ever think about the color of someone's skin in a high pressure situation. That would be the fatherest thing from my mind. I understand that I might have to one day shoot a dark colored person, and I have absolutely no problems with doing it in the least. Color dosn't matter in that context. It's all about the guy next to me. White, black, asain, we are all Americans and it's us versus them.

Roguish Lawyer
06-11-2004, 11:24
I think the comments by tache18x illustrate the importance of taking back our schools from the leftist elites. He seems to be a decent guy who has been feeding at a polluted trough.

D9
06-11-2004, 12:05
I voted mediocre, although I think he was among the top five presidents of the 20th C. Maybe the top two or three from that era.

I think Jefferson, Madison, Washington, Adams, and others of that era were statesmen beyond anything we've come close to in at least a century.

brownapple
06-11-2004, 12:07
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
I think the comments by tache18x illustrate the importance of taking back our schools from the leftist elites. He seems to be a decent guy who has been feeding at a polluted trough.

I agree.

NousDefionsDoc
06-11-2004, 15:24
Originally posted by tache18x
Color means nothing to me in regards to the Army. We are all Americans fighting for our country. Just because I point out past racial injusticies (which have certainly happened in the military as well, but the military advanced much quicker then the rest of society on that front) does not mean that I would ever think about the color of someone's skin in a high pressure situation. That would be the fatherest thing from my mind. I understand that I might have to one day shoot a dark colored person, and I have absolutely no problems with doing it in the least. Color dosn't matter in that context. It's all about the guy next to me. White, black, asain, we are all Americans and it's us versus them.

How do you know there has been racial injustice in the military?

Why do you think the military advanced much more quickly than the rest of society?

Bill Harsey
06-11-2004, 16:49
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
I think the comments by tache18x illustrate the importance of taking back our schools from the leftist elites. He seems to be a decent guy who has been feeding at a polluted trough. This goes way beyond a "feeding at a polluted trough" in public schools. I think it's more like receiving poison in a forced IV.

Airbornelawyer
06-11-2004, 17:16
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
How do you know there has been racial injustice in the military?

Why do you think the military advanced much more quickly than the rest of society? Regarding the second question: discipline, the recognition of individual merit, and once the shooting starts the realization that everyone bleeds the same color.

Regarding the first:
http://www.army.mil/cmh-pg/topics/afam/flipper.htm
http://www.aogusma.org/PUBS/Register/Flipper.htm
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h943.html
http://www.redstone.army.mil/history/integrate/history.htm

Sometimes the injustices were deliberate: the 1906 Army War College study that said blacks lacked the intelligence to serve in the artillery branch, the 1925 study that said the same for serving as pilots in the Army Air Corps.

Sometimes they weren't deliberate but still problematic: The stigma attached to white officers commanding black troops meant they often received poor leadership, and then found themselves blamed when discipline broke down or when the unit performed ineffectively in combat.

Sometimes it was societal: Black soldiers in Southern garrisons often found themselves on the receiving end of Jim Crow, and in too many cases the Army didn't come to the defense of its soldiers, but instead blamed the victims (though in some cases such as the Camp Logan Riot, culpability became muddied by the course of events).

Two black officers in the 92nd Infantry Division in World War One described the division thusly:The division trained in sections and was never assembled in one place until the last days of the war. It was given "the most ignorant and physically disqualified Negroes in the United States . . . ," with 40 percent of its men illiterate. Its white officers were unsympathetic to the Negro men and hostile to the Negro officers. They were all Southern "in accordance with, tradition," some even introducing themselves to Negro troops with the announcement that they "had once suckled black mammies' breasts." The model officer held up to the Negroes by the commanding general was 2d Lt. John H. Alexander, who "knew how to stay in his place." The Houston riot of 1917 and the implied threats thereafter demoralized the officer trainees at Des Moines, Iowa. The white instructors at Des Moines, from the Regular units, expected the officer trainees to conduct themselves like the old Regular enlisted men. Commissions were not awarded on the basis of merit, but "they went to those regulars who had given satisfaction as privates and `noncoms.' Very few of those men had even a fair education . . . . They did their best as they saw it. But the unalloyed truth is that commissions were often awarded to those who were more likely to fail than succeed. [One man] won a commission by singing plantation songs." Officers were assigned without regard to training; infantry officers were "indiscriminately" assigned to artillery, machine gun, and other units for which they had no special training. A graduate of the Sheffield Scientific School was sent to the infantry while a senator's butler, "commissioned by graft," went to the heavy artillery.

Training difficulties, the officers' account went on, were slight when compared with the lowering of the division's morale in France. Among other things, it was charged that the men were kept out of schools; leaves were prohibited; rather than training, the men spent their time at police duties; staff officers were changed constantly; white officers were transferred into the division and out again as soon as they had obtained desired promotions; Negro officers were "terrorized" by wholesale arrests and transfers; officers, untrained in the duties of those arms, were assigned to artillery and the engineers, then blamed for having failed; the division went into its sectors without the proper equipment and into the short Argonne engagement without proper briefing, artillery support, rifle grenades, wire cutters, or horses. The enthusiasm of the whole division was dampened by the restrictions placed upon the contacts of the men with French civilians. "The sole charge of the division staff was to make the life of the Negro soldier unendurable." The old Regular Army enlisted men, now officers, assisted in breaking the morale of the division in an effort to "curry favor." There were a few officers whom the men respected; as for the rest, "the division had no trust in them."Ulysses Lee, Employment of Negro Troops (http://www.army.mil/cmh/books/wwii/11-4/index.htm), United States Army in World War II: Special Studies, U.S. Army Center of Military History Pub. 11-4 (1966), 12-13, quoting William N. Colson and A. B. Nutt, "The Failure of the Ninety Second Division," The Messenger, II (September, 1919), 22-25.

NousDefionsDoc
06-11-2004, 17:19
Well thanks for giving him the answers - SIR!

I meant a posteriori, not a priori

Airbornelawyer
06-11-2004, 17:33
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
Well thanks for giving him the answers - SIR!

I meant a posteriori, not a priori IF you meant, what did he know about it, I suppose he could know those things factually, but he won't really know what they mean until he's been a soldier for a while - the remorse we may feel for the bad things our institution did, outweighed by the pride we take in it as the institution that has led the way in so many respects.

NousDefionsDoc
06-11-2004, 17:48
but he won't really know what they mean until he's been a soldier for a while

My point exactly in an attempt (gone awry) to extracate him from the...what was it?..."polluted trough".

LOL

Roguish Lawyer
06-11-2004, 17:59
Dave:

You of all people should recognize the Socratic method when you see it.

LMAO

brownapple
06-11-2004, 20:21
Speaking of Ronald Reagan, by one who knew him well...

Eulogy (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=519&u=/ap/20040611/ap_on_re_us/reagan_thatcher_1&printer=1)

Jack Moroney (RIP)
06-12-2004, 08:20
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
How do you know there has been racial injustice in the military?

Why do you think the military advanced much more quickly than the rest of society?

I can only talk from personal experience here so please take this only from my limited perspective. Let me start with the 60s. I can remember mass payday formations in the auditoriums where race relations was always the topic of the day. Basically it was mandated from the top down that we were all OD and there really was not going to be any discussion about it. I will tell you however that the folks that screamed the loudest and longest about individuality were the troops of color and as we entered the 70s the "I" generation came along with us. This was not a smooth transistion and black power symbols and undertones were not uncommon as where other symbols of latin american hertiage. The military bent over backwards to allow a lot of individuality and we all went thru the proper afro hair cuts that could be worn, the psuedofoliculities episodes, the ethnic nights in the mess halls (they were not dinning facilities at that time)etc. Somewhere in the 80s the me/I thing changed over to "us" and the team concept really took hold again and all this individuality crap died, or at least went into hibernation. Some of you may recall we had postions filled that were called race relations/equal opportunity, mandatory training sessions concerning RR/EO, and racial programs adnauseum and the legal power to enforce/reinforce all of it. The long and the short of it was that if you crossed the line you got hammered. So, in a nutshell, it happened more quickly in the military not because folks in the military saw everything OD but they saw everything from a military justice point of view backed up with leadership and education. It did not happen because of democractic principles and freedom of expression it happened because the chain of command made it happen there was nothing democratic about it.

Now for your first question. In my time, if the military was guilty of anything it was quilty of reverse discrimination under the cover of affirmative action. Now I know that this is not going to sit well with some of you but this happened more often than not and if you are really interested in personal examples feel free to PM me and I will related those that I know of to you including a personal example.

This is the way that I saw it, right or wrong, and I am not taking a stand one way or another in this forum. You have to remember when folks come into the military they have already formed their opinions about most things and nothing that the military can do is going to modify beliefs. All folks, like it or not, have baggage and they bring it with them. Whether or not they get to unpack it and air it out becomes a leadership issue. In my limited experience , if the military has done anything right concerning the race issue, it has done its best to treat everyone as equal as possible based on performance and potential, allowed everyone the opportunity within that individual demonstrated potential to fairly compete to realize their goals, but have been limited mainly by congressional pressures and ingnorance foisted upon it by pressures to which the civilian leadership has caved to curry the favor of constituents for political gain. Other than that, I really have not strong opinions about this issue.

Jack Moroney:D

brownapple
06-12-2004, 22:15
Originally posted by Jack Moroney
In my time, if the military was guilty of anything it was quilty of reverse discrimination under the cover of affirmative action. Now I know that this is not going to sit well with some of you but this happened more often than not and if you are really interested in personal examples feel free to PM me and I will related those that I know of to you including a personal example.

Reading this spurred a reminder of events in the early 80s. I was assigned a new Platoon Sergeant who was transferred over from another company. He replaced the SSG (P) that had been doing the job. And fairly quickly, he proved to be incompetent. When called into the CO's Office for counselling, he tried to use the race card (which he later admitted he had successfully used in other units while a SGT and SSG). Only problem was that both of the other PSGs in the Company were also men of color (and superb Platoon Sergeants) as was the 1SG. As one might guess, the race card didn't work. However, he was transferred somewhere else to be someone else's problem.

Guy
06-12-2004, 22:41
Originally posted by NousDefionsDoc
How do you know there has been racial injustice in the military?

Why do you think the military advanced much more quickly than the rest of society?

And I will answer your questions with total honesty!

I'm swamped right now with taking care of families and attending funerals!

NousDefionsDoc
06-13-2004, 08:53
Originally posted by Roguish Lawyer
Dave:

You of all people should recognize the Socratic method when you see it.

LMAO

Thank you. As for the rest of you, please don't take my questions to tache to mean I do not believe their is or was rascism in the US military. I want to know how tache knows what he is claiming.

tache18x
06-14-2004, 21:19
I understand where all of you are coming from. I just get the impression that it makes you uncomfortable for someone to tell the truth about the history of blacks in this country. This does not mean that YOU have personally done anything wrong, or that I walk around with a chip on my shoulder. I have no problem with anyone, until they give me a reason to.

What the movie "A Soldier's Story", it's a great account of black and white regiments interacting in the 40's.

Roguish Lawyer
06-14-2004, 21:22
Originally posted by tache18x
I just get the impression that it makes you uncomfortable for someone to tell the truth about the history of blacks in this country.

:munchin

The Reaper
06-14-2004, 21:44
Originally posted by tache18x
I understand where all of you are coming from. I just get the impression that it makes you uncomfortable for someone to tell the truth about the history of blacks in this country. This does not mean that YOU have personally done anything wrong, or that I walk around with a chip on my shoulder. I have no problem with anyone, until they give me a reason to.

What the movie "A Soldier's Story", it's a great account of black and white regiments interacting in the 40's.

You cannot understand where I am coming from unless you have walked a mile in my shoes, either. I lived through the integration of the school system, and remember segregation as a personal experience, not as an interesting but abstract lesson from a history book.

I also believe that you have a version of "the truth about the history of blacks in this country" that you believe is correct, whether it is or not, based on your few years of life in this country. Don't try to sell it to me as "the truth" unless you have incontrovertible evidence of your position, and then I want to see it cited.

Your contributions here seem to almost invariably turn to race. There are a number of other minority members on this board, some Black, some Hispanic, some Asian, some Native American, some are SF qualified. None of them seem to have ever brought race up in their entire history here as often as you have in your brief tenure. You may not even be aware of the minority status of the person you are arguing with.

You are more than welcome to participate in the discussions, but seem to be throwing the race card every other hand. Is that your raison de etre? If not, you might want to give it a rest, as it appears to be wearing a bit thin.

SF isn't about race, but it is about being a Team Player.

Just my .02, you do whatever you think is right.

TR

brownapple
06-15-2004, 13:00
Originally posted by tache18x
I understand where all of you are coming from. I just get the impression that it makes you uncomfortable for someone to tell the truth about the history of blacks in this country. This does not mean that YOU have personally done anything wrong, or that I walk around with a chip on my shoulder. I have no problem with anyone, until they give me a reason to.

What the movie "A Soldier's Story", it's a great account of black and white regiments interacting in the 40's.

What exactly is the "truth" when it comes to history? Is it the story you have chosen to believe? Or is it the one that has the most accounts that sort of agree on it? Or is it the one with the documentation to go with it?

As a historian, I am curious to find out what you think the "truth" is from a historical perspective.

CPTAUSRET
06-21-2004, 04:14
Originally posted by tache18x
I just get the impression that it makes you uncomfortable for someone to tell the truth about the history of blacks in this country.

BULLSHIT!!

Terry

Sigaba
05-17-2011, 02:59
I think this thread has cooled down enough for me to bump it.

IMO, President Reagan was the third best president during the Cold War (behind Truman and Eisenhower) and middle of the pack over all.

My issue with Reagan is that he did not couple his regeneration of America's sense of self to a commensurate level of widespread public intellectual engagement with the three big issues of his day--(1) America's purpose in global affairs, (2) the utility of war in the nuclear age, and (3) the role of sea power in fulfilling America's mission. As a consequence, one of the most significant discussions in American history (i.e. the maritime strategy debate) took place with minimal civilian participation.*

My $0.02.

As a postscript, I'd like to throw out a rhetorical question in response to tache18x's criticisms of Reagan's domestic policies. Should a president be assessed for what he "should" have done (based upon one's own viewpoint), or for how well he balanced what he said he'd do with what he could have done?


_________________________________________________
* Fragmentary evidence suggests that the Reagan Administration may have intended to split those three issues among the White House, the secretary of defense, and the secretary of the navy. See John Lehman letter to Caspar Weinberger, 7 March 1983, John F. Lehman, Jr. Papers, Operational Archives, Naval Historical Center, Washington Navy Yard, Washington, D.C., Box 3, folder 4. [Yeah, I know, not Chicago Manual of Style, 16th ed. compliant.]

Pete
05-17-2011, 05:19
..... However, if you would have read, you would have seen that I said I idolize, Dinesh D'Souza, perhaps the current ideological leader of the conservative movement, and I agree with him on practically everything........

Sometimes it's funny to go back and read old threads. Dinesh D'Souza? Current leader of the conservative movement? Fads come and go with college kids. Anyone hear of Dinesh D'Souza lately?

Granted D'Souza is a conservative, writes books and rattled a cage or two but "ideological leader" of the conservative movement?

bluebb
05-17-2011, 05:30
Washington - He stepped up then he stepped down.
Lincoln - He keep the country as one.
Truman - He dropped the bomb plus he was the last regular guy to be President.
Reagan - Drug us out of the Carter B/S, won the cold war.
Bush (the younger) - Made the hard decisions.

Bottom 5
Carter - what is there to say
Nixon - He had it going on till Watergate, I am torn cause I like him for all he did before that.
Wilson - The league of Nations WTF?
LBJ - Great Society my a@@
Obama - look around.

Blue

Dusty
05-17-2011, 06:30
Ach, Ronnie-we hardly knew ye.

1stindoor
05-17-2011, 07:47
I think this thread has cooled down enough for me to bump it.

Should a president be assessed for what he "should" have done (based upon one's own viewpoint), or for how well he balanced what he said he'd do with what he could have done?


This was a great read, and a thread I had long forgotten about. As to your question I think a leader will always be assessed for what they "should" have done. The problem with that line of thinking though is that generally we have more information long after the fact than the leader had at the time. Additionally, the future armchair quarterbacks have the advantage of looking at an issue from a distance, without emotion, and able to take in all of the second and third order effects as they happened.

A leader acts.

rubberneck
05-17-2011, 08:52
I wonder if the young man ever followed through with his enlistment.