Posted on 11/15/2007 11:38:10 AM PST by curiosity
Your words, not mine. I doubt if you know what you think, much less what the rest of us do.
But then you have a problem interjecting your version of what you think someone else thinks. At least you’re consistent.
And if Fred likes the likes of you, that tells us all we need to know.
Nice post........
Oh please. I can't go a day without hearing Hunter supporter whine about how there is some media and/or RNC conspiracy to keep Hunter down, and now you follow that up with comments that FR is treating Hunter supporters unfairly. it's a pattern, and I'm calling you on it.
As for the rest, are you sore about my comments referring to your apparent inability to follow hyperlinks? If so, perhaps in the future you can avoid such comments by actually looking at linked material rather than accusing someone of "dodging" (see #32). It seems you delved into the realm of divining my thoughts before I started guessing yours.
How is my argument a straw man. To my knowledge Pissant was banned for posting a Ramesh Ponnuru article which criticised all four frontrunners including Thompson. National Review is a respected Conservative magazine and Ramesh Ponnuru is a longtime conservative columnist. You may not like what he had to say this time but should someone be banned for posting from him. I mean seriously, do we really want the thought police around here.
Personally I don't believe most American Sheeple even think.....
That was the last straw (pun intended). There have been warnings for months: build up your candidate, but tearing down another conservative (pissing on another conservative) is not going to work out for you.
You know no such thing. You merely suspect it, and therefore assume it to be true. None of us have been told the reason for the suspension (I hope) or banning, so presuming to know a "reason" for it in order to make an argument is indeed a "strawman".
Here’s Mark Levin’s excerpt about Ronald Reagan, and since he can explain it more eloquently that I can, here goes:
“Others have suggested that Reagan flip-flopped on abortion; this is also false. He advocated a health exception (for the life of the mother) which, as he explained later, was exploited to include virtually anything. But he wasn’t pro-abortion. Giuliani and Romney were. And they are struggling with it today. Reagan learned that the exception became the rule, and he would oppose abortion of any kind from then on. To compare this with those who emphatically defended abortion on demand (and federal funding no less, in Giuliani’s case) is nonsense.
Moreover, Reagan did all he could as president to follow through on his pro-life position. He instituted his Mexico City policy, preventing the use of federal funds for abortions abroad. His administration was directed to deny funds, wherever it could, for abortions. He was also part of an effort, led by Jesse Helms in the Senate, to amend the Constitution. There weren’t enough votes, but they tried.
Ignoring all of this, Krauthammer says Reagan gave us Justices O’Connor and Kennedy, which, of course, is true. But he had no idea where they stood on abortion, or how they would rule. Rightly or wrongly, he set no issue-specific litmus test for his judges. But we know he didn’t appoint them because he thought they would endorse abortion from the bench. On the contrary — they left the impression with those who vetted them that they were “originalists” and, as it turned out, they mislead everyone.”
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=M2JiMmZhZTQ5NzI5YzYyOGQ5MGNkYWY5M2YzMjYzZGI=
I know you are, but what am I?
But even if we put the abortion flip-flop asside, Reagan had plenty others, some of which I already listed.
OK, "always" may be a bit strong but they did for JFK, RR, & GWB and that is good enough for me.
Regards,
GtG
You didn’t read my excerpt too well. AGAIN from the excerpt “He advocated a health exception (for the life of the mother) ..”
You said “health.” It was not “health;” it was “LIFE.” Big difference, eh?
For instance, Romney said Reagan was “adamantly” pro-”choice,” and I just proved that Reagan was not.
Moderates need to stop exaggerating about Ronald Reagan.
You lose credibility when you do that.
Fred Thompson said he did not want to ‘criminalize’ a girl or woman who had chosen abortion-on-demand. Thompson is a lawyer and knows the difference between criminal violations, civil violations, municipal violations and so forth.
The question is how if abortion is illegal do violations get handled? This is the question that Fred Thompson was alluding to. But it is a stretch beyond reality to say he was prochoice because he felt criminal justice was not the forum for violations of abortion-on-demand.
Fred is so practical minded that he robs people of their habit to overcharge themselves into hysterical emotional fits.
Actually, the law Reagan signed said health, not just me.
'In 1967, the California Legislature enacted The Therapeutic Abortion Act, Health and Safety Code (sections 25950-25958), and Governor Reagan signed it. It was "sold" as a compassionate law that would be used to deal with the "hard cases." This statute allowed the termination of pregnancy by a physician, in an accredited hospital, when there was a specific finding that there was a substantial risk that its continuation would "gravely impair the physical or mental health of the mother," or when the pregnancy resulted from rape or incest.'
It's not abortion on demand, but there's no requirement that the abortion save the mother's life. "Health" is good enough. It's also inconsistent with the pro-life position. Here's my source:
http://www.cacatholic.org/respect4life/abortionlaw.html
For instance, Romney said Reagan was “adamantly” pro-”choice,” and I just proved that Reagan was not.
True enough. Romney exaggerated. He's a politician; that's what they do.
Still, it doesn't change the fact that Reagan flip-flopped on abortion and many other things. His flip flop on abortion wasn't nearly as big as Romney's, that's true. But his flip flops on other issues, such as taxes and Lebanon, were much more serious.
People really need to come to terms with the reality that flip flops are a political necessity. Unfortunately, too many Freepers here are in denial about that.
I'm not an expert on Thompson's past on abortion. My impression is that he hasn't been entirely consistent on the topic, but I don't much care.
I know he hasn't been consistent on other issues either, like Amnesty (he has supported it). But I also don't much care about that either. He read the mood of the country, saw that it was a political loser, and changed. I don't fault him for that.
My only point is simply that all successful politicians flip flop because it is a political necessity. "Loser" is the name of any politician whose says 100% consistent on everything.
In point of fact, cuts in tax rates usually lead to decreases in revenues. They only lead to increases when the starting tax rate is extremely high.
That certainly was the case under JFK, when the top marginal rate exceeded 90%.
However, that was not the case with RR or GWB. Both tax cuts resulted in lower revenues, and neither RR nor GWB claimed otherwise. The cuts were still good ideas, though.
The Laffer curve is just that, a curve. At low tax rates it slopes up, reaches a maximum point, and then starts to slope down.
It's very rare that a society finds itself on the downward sloping portion.
He has been consistent but the punditry is trying to impress people that he is inconsistent. They are doing this because they refuse to talk about his federalist principles.
Federalism in a nutshell if the philsophy that the Federal Government needs to be small and efficient, keeping their noses out of the lives of citizens to the maximum extent possible.
That means not voting for say a ‘federal’ law that makes schools ‘Gun Free Zones’ because federalism would assert that this is not the role of the federal government unless a lawsuit brought it into federal court based on second amendment arguments.
It means not passing a ‘federal’ law that bans gay marriage because this is not the role of the federal government, rather it is up to the states.
It means voting for provisions that give states back their tax money such as voting for Title IX funding, and not setting conditions to how the money must be spent within the scope of that Title.
Basically it means doing everything possible to restrict federal ‘creep’ and giving the states as much of the pie as possible and as much of the power as possible.
We have seen Fred Thompson’s stands on what the role of the federal government is such as rebuilding and expanding the military, border and immigration enforcement, trade policies that benefit Americans, tax reform that stops outsourcing and unburdens American enterprise. And for those things the federal government is presently involved in that it should never have been involved in such as Social Security, Fred Thompson wants to reform it by keeping it solvent for those that have paid into it and encourage others to go private as much as allowed.
Fred Thompson’s brand of federalism has been known well by previous generations and he is right to bring it back because for the past 40 years, the federal government has grown to the point that they are now stunting economic growth and innovation. When we look back that in 1979, the social security payroll tax was about 3% (6% with employer matching contribution) and today is about 7.65% (15.3%) we see what the federal government is doing, it is ‘creeping’ up what it takes from everyone. And then it does not set it aside in a trust fund but rather dumps this payroll tax into the general fund to spend however it wishes. Then our representatives tell us the GAO and CBO say it will be bankrupt in a generation and will start going broke in the next few years. This is only one example of federal ‘creep’.
Federal income taxes do not pay for roads, schools, Social Security, Medicare, education or the military. Federal inome taxes pay for interest on the national debt and for wasteful bureacracy such as the Department of Education or the Department of Housing and Urban Affairs.
So to anyone with enough years under them to see what has happened with out of control federal growth, the philosophy of federalism is exactly what the doctor ordered, and Fred Thompson is just the person to administer the medicine because he understands all the legal roadblocks that will be thrown in the way of his campaign to decentralize back to the states those issues that were theirs historically.
I would like to see some reference links to your claims that revenues were not increased under the tax cuts of Reagan or GW Bush.
And please don’t give figures that are in the year of the tax cut. Tax cuts take a few years to have an effect.
Tax receipts were lower in the fiscal years in which they went into effect than in the previous fiscal years. Go to the OMB office for the data.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.