fish82 wrote: People do tend to pump up their party icons...Clinton being the other side of the coin.

I thought Clinton was pumped up by an ............................................ intern.

QuakerOats wrote:

fish82 wrote: People do tend to pump up their party icons...Clinton being the other side of the coin.

I thought Clinton was pumped up by an ............................................ intern.

Are you sure you didn't mean "blown" up?

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704113504575264940533857802.html

good read

fish82 wrote:

Footwedge wrote: Seriously...Reagan was a good man for the job. Sure he fucked some things up...but Americans felt really good about him running the show.

Precisely. He wasn't perfect, and the rightness/wrongness of his policies can be debated forever. Bottom line...he sacked up and led/inspired the nation, somehow managing to do do it with zero pissing & whining about what he "inherited from his predecessor."

That's the POTUS' #1 job IMO, and Reagan hit it out of the park.

just like his hero '
FDR

QuakerOats wrote: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704113504575264940533857802.html

good read

Saw this this morning and 2 things jumped out.
1. An example of how conservatives love to cite Reagan-WWRD (What would Reagan Do)
and
2. I knew Quaker would post it lol.

ptown_trojans_1 wrote: 2. I knew Quaker would post it lol.

Sowing the Oats of conservatism and liberty wherever and whenever possible.

It's funny that you're name is "QuakerOats" but if I'm correct you are in support of the current wars.

Doesn't seem very Quaker like.

Unless he just likes the hot cereal.

I think the "Quaker" has to do with the high school team he supports?

Possibly Salem?

BoatShoes wrote:In fact, BHO wants to at least have you pay for (I think producers is the word you like to use) the healthcare of "producers" who've been denied coverage by their employer or insurer. Reagan just made you pay more to non-producing retired seniors.

"Denied coverage"?

Until ObamaKare there was no requirement of employers to provide health care plans. The good employers offered it to attract good employees. It was a choice not a requirement.

Now producers and non-producers alike will be required to opt-in even if they really don't want it...or risk a hefty fine...or even jail time.

BHO is making us all pay...producers or not. Socialism at its worst.

cbus4life wrote: I think the "Quaker" has to do with the high school team he supports?

Possibly Salem?

Which they are the "Fighting Quakers" which is also silly.

Plus they suck.

/West Branch alum (Salem's rival)

BoatShoes wrote: This is false. All of those presidents did things either further to the "left" or tried to stretch gubment power at least as far as BHO.

I'll agree on FDR 100%. LBJ yes on his domestic policy, no for his policy and expansion of the Vietnam War. He himself saw the handwriting on the wall in 1968 and bowed out.

Truman and JFK, no way.

BoatShoes wrote: Maybe deep down in his heart BHO is further to the left than those guys, but his actual domestic policies largely are not more left than major domestic accomplishments by these presidents.

I personally believe this. Whether he will be able to ever govern in this manner remains to be seen. I doubt it. But he will be able to lay some foundations that can be built on by those on the left. They will be extremely difficult for those that espouse limited government to tear down.

FDR had 12yrs and unique circumstances to govern as he did. He amassed such power that after his death his own vice president favored, as well as a super majority of his party's democrat led congress, and 3/4 of the states ratified the 22nd amendment. Preventing presidents from serving more than two 4yr terms.

majorspark wrote:Truman and JFK, no way.

Truman was too midwestern/southern white conservative to be further left than BHO. In fact, if Truman were alive today and attempted to get his party's nomination, he'd have to switch parties to do it.

JFK's fiscal conservative/national defense policies would also make him more Republican by today's political standards than Democrat.

believer wrote:

majorspark wrote:Truman and JFK, no way.

Truman was too midwestern/southern white conservative to be further left than BHO. In fact, if Truman were alive today and attempted to get his party's nomination, he'd have to switch parties to do it.

JFK's fiscal conservative/national defense policies would also make him more Republican by today's political standards than Democrat.

Truman really? As President he opposed in the immediate post war he opposed tax cuts, llimitations on the power of the unions who were riding high after the New Deal Wagner Act, and ending price control system that was much more leftist than anything the Obama has put into effect. All these were pushed over his vetoes by a Republican Congress. He pushed for a governmnet run National Health Insurance Program, government funded housing, raising the minimum wage, civil rights laws, integrating the military,

believer wrote: Truman was too midwestern/southern white conservative to be further left than BHO. In fact, if Truman were alive today and attempted to get his party's nomination, he'd have to switch parties to do it.

JFK's fiscal conservative/national defense policies would also make him more Republican by today's political standards than Democrat.

I agree that both may be a little too conservative for today's Democrats...but neither is even close to today's Republicans. The Republicans have swung so far right that no president in recent history fits their ideals (as stated in the article). And the Democrats have swung so far left that Clinton looks like a conservative tight ass.

I Wear Pants wrote: Which they are the "Fighting Quakers" which is also silly.

Plus they suck.

/West Branch alum (Salem's rival)

I think you mean 'Mighty Quakers' ............. which they are ---- made the playoffs and whipped WB in the process.

I guess going to WB is the cause of your liberal mindset.

Hey now, I'm Salem born and raised and am somewhat liberal.


Salem is generally conservative.
Salem is fucked up beyond help, for the most part.
Coincidence?


(I kid, I know it's bullshit personal politics back home... party lines barely even exist at the city level there, it's all based on last names and who is friends with who)

QuakerOats wrote:

I Wear Pants wrote: Which they are the "Fighting Quakers" which is also silly.

Plus they suck.

/West Branch alum (Salem's rival)

I think you mean 'Mighty Quakers' ............. which they are ---- made the playoffs and whipped WB in the process.

I guess going to WB is the cause of your liberal mindset.

Football = Me not caring.

Wrestling = me caring.

And both the populations of Salem and West Branch are predominantly conservative although I'd think West Branch is more conservative on a whole.



Back to the topic.

Reagan was a regular commie.