|
Post by maxwell on Sept 4, 2014 14:04:40 GMT -5
Wrong again Mr. "Phony Conservative." There is simply no need to pursue this thread any further. Groping Modern Day Liberals can have as many last words as they please. L-O-L.
|
|
|
Post by maxwell on Sept 4, 2014 14:09:41 GMT -5
Perfectly stated psk836. Max? Ronald Reagan tore down the Wall. Ronald Reagan also wanted to see the reduction of nuclear weapons. Ronald Reagan also opened up relations with The Soviet Union & for a while, that cold war ended. For that he gets some respect, & I believe he'd be considered too moderate for today's "Republicans".
|
|
|
Post by maxwell on Sept 4, 2014 14:17:12 GMT -5
"It's wonderful that we have so many religious people in our party, ... They need to leave their theologies in their churches." — Barry Goldwater so you liked him too? cool Yes I did. How about that for a so called "liberal"?
|
|
|
Post by chuckygotlucky on Sept 4, 2014 14:21:35 GMT -5
Again an Arrogant and Condescending Modern Day Liberal believes people are too stupid to understand what was really meant by the posts. Such stellar emotion to; "Oh my how wrong you are." Give him an Emmey folks. LOL. Tell the class exactly what did Barry mean by this: Ban on Gays is Senseless Attempt to Stall the Inevitable By Barry M. Goldwater The following is a transcript of Barry Goldwater's commentary on the military gay ban that appeared this week in the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. After more than 50 years in the military and politics, I am still amazed to see how upset people can get over nothing. Lifting the ban on gays in the military isn't exactly nothing, but it's pretty damned close Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. They'll still be serving long after we're all dead and buried. That should not surprise anyone. But most Americans should be shocked to know that while the country's economy is going down the tubes, the military has wasted half a billion dollars over the past decade chasing down gays and running them out of the armed services. It's no great secret that military studies have proved again and again that there's no valid reason for keeping the ban on gays. Some thought gays were crasy, but then found that wasn't true. then they decided that gays were a security risk, but again the Department of Defense decided that wasn't so-in fact, one study by the Navy in 1956 that was never made public found gays to be good security risks. Even Larry Korb, President Reagan's man in charge of implementing the Pentagon ban on gays, now admits that it was a dumb idea. No wonder my friend Dick Cheney, secretary of defense under President Bush, called it "a bit of an old chestnut" When the facts lead to one conlusion, I say it's time to act, not to hide. The country and the military know that eventually the ban will be lifted. The only remaining questions are how much muck we will all be dragged through, and how many brave Americans like Tom Paniccia and Margarethe Cammermeyer will have their lives and careers destroyed in a senseless attempt to stall the inevitable. Some in congress think I'm wrong. They say we absolutely must continue to discriminate, or all hell will break loose. Who knows, they say, perhaps our soldiers may even take up arms against each other. Well, that's just stupid. Years ago, I was a lieutenant in charge of an all-black unit. Military leaders at the time believed that blacks lacked leadership potential - period. That seems ridiculous now, as it should. Now, each and every man and woman who serves this nation takes orders from a black man - our own Gen. Colin Powell. Nobody thought that blacks or women could ever be integrated into the military. Many thought that an all-volunteer force could never protect our national interest. Well, it has, and despite those who feared the worst - I among them - we are still the best and will continue to be. The point is that decisions are always a lot easier to make in hindsight. but we seldom have that luxury. That's why the future of our country depends on leadership, and that's what we need now. I served in the armed forces. I have flown more than 150 of the best fighter planes and bombers this country manufactured. I founded the Arizona National Guard. I chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee. And I think it's high time to pull the curtains on this charade of policy. What should undermine our readiness would be a compromise policy like "Don't ask, don't tell." That compromise doesn't deal with the issue - it tries to hide it. We have wasted enough precious time, money and talent trying to persecute and pretend. It's time to stop burying our heads in the sand and denying reality for the sake of politics. It's time to deal with this straight on and be done with it. It's time to get on with more important business. The conservative movement, to which I subscribe, has as one of its basic tenets the belief that government should stay out of people's private lives. Government governs best when it governs least - and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone's version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays. When you get down to it, no American able to serve should be allowed, much less given an excuse, not to serve his or her country. We need all our talent. If I were in the Senate today, I would rise on the Senate floor in support of our commander in chief. He may be a Democrat, but he happens to be right on this question. (Arizona Republican Barry M. Goldwater retired from the Senate in 1987) www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/scotts/bulgarians/barry-goldwater.htmlDo you think he would have had the guts to say that in 1964? I don't
|
|
|
Post by maxwell on Sept 4, 2014 14:32:05 GMT -5
LOL. Tell the class exactly what did Barry mean by this: Ban on Gays is Senseless Attempt to Stall the Inevitable By Barry M. Goldwater The following is a transcript of Barry Goldwater's commentary on the military gay ban that appeared this week in the Washington Post and the Los Angeles Times. After more than 50 years in the military and politics, I am still amazed to see how upset people can get over nothing. Lifting the ban on gays in the military isn't exactly nothing, but it's pretty damned close Everyone knows that gays have served honorably in the military since at least the time of Julius Caesar. They'll still be serving long after we're all dead and buried. That should not surprise anyone. But most Americans should be shocked to know that while the country's economy is going down the tubes, the military has wasted half a billion dollars over the past decade chasing down gays and running them out of the armed services. It's no great secret that military studies have proved again and again that there's no valid reason for keeping the ban on gays. Some thought gays were crasy, but then found that wasn't true. then they decided that gays were a security risk, but again the Department of Defense decided that wasn't so-in fact, one study by the Navy in 1956 that was never made public found gays to be good security risks. Even Larry Korb, President Reagan's man in charge of implementing the Pentagon ban on gays, now admits that it was a dumb idea. No wonder my friend Dick Cheney, secretary of defense under President Bush, called it "a bit of an old chestnut" When the facts lead to one conlusion, I say it's time to act, not to hide. The country and the military know that eventually the ban will be lifted. The only remaining questions are how much muck we will all be dragged through, and how many brave Americans like Tom Paniccia and Margarethe Cammermeyer will have their lives and careers destroyed in a senseless attempt to stall the inevitable. Some in congress think I'm wrong. They say we absolutely must continue to discriminate, or all hell will break loose. Who knows, they say, perhaps our soldiers may even take up arms against each other. Well, that's just stupid. Years ago, I was a lieutenant in charge of an all-black unit. Military leaders at the time believed that blacks lacked leadership potential - period. That seems ridiculous now, as it should. Now, each and every man and woman who serves this nation takes orders from a black man - our own Gen. Colin Powell. Nobody thought that blacks or women could ever be integrated into the military. Many thought that an all-volunteer force could never protect our national interest. Well, it has, and despite those who feared the worst - I among them - we are still the best and will continue to be. The point is that decisions are always a lot easier to make in hindsight. but we seldom have that luxury. That's why the future of our country depends on leadership, and that's what we need now. I served in the armed forces. I have flown more than 150 of the best fighter planes and bombers this country manufactured. I founded the Arizona National Guard. I chaired the Senate Armed Services Committee. And I think it's high time to pull the curtains on this charade of policy. What should undermine our readiness would be a compromise policy like "Don't ask, don't tell." That compromise doesn't deal with the issue - it tries to hide it. We have wasted enough precious time, money and talent trying to persecute and pretend. It's time to stop burying our heads in the sand and denying reality for the sake of politics. It's time to deal with this straight on and be done with it. It's time to get on with more important business. The conservative movement, to which I subscribe, has as one of its basic tenets the belief that government should stay out of people's private lives. Government governs best when it governs least - and stays out of the impossible task of legislating morality. But legislating someone's version of morality is exactly what we do by perpetuating discrimination against gays. When you get down to it, no American able to serve should be allowed, much less given an excuse, not to serve his or her country. We need all our talent. If I were in the Senate today, I would rise on the Senate floor in support of our commander in chief. He may be a Democrat, but he happens to be right on this question. (Arizona Republican Barry M. Goldwater retired from the Senate in 1987) www.cs.cmu.edu/afs/cs/usr/scotts/bulgarians/barry-goldwater.htmlDo you think he would have had the guts to say that in 1964? I don't That really doesn't matter does it? The fact that he was "Mr. Conservative" AND believed in the rights of gays does.
|
|
|
Post by maxwell on Sept 4, 2014 14:36:38 GMT -5
I think the important thing to note is that Goldwater was a true conservative, one who stood on principal and not on politics. And 50 years later his guiding principals are still valid. I think modern day conservatives should take note and that they should not be afraid to stand firm on their principals. The spirit of compromise brought us Bob Dole, the Bushes and Mitt Romney. Standing on principal brought us Ronald Reagan, and that gave the country a 30 year respite from its decline. Frankly I think it is time for another principaled conservative to step up, and if one does then the country will rally around him or her. Good appraisal of Goldwater PSK. He was a very good man and would have been a wonderful President. I worked on his campaign and also worked for the family in their Department Store. Conservatives have never been very popular as they generally look to the people of this country to carry their own weight and that just isn't a very popular concept among Liberals.And Liberals generally believe that religion should stay out of politics & in the houses of worship where it really belongs unlike most of today's "conservatives".
|
|
|
Post by maxwell on Sept 4, 2014 14:38:46 GMT -5
Good appraisal of Goldwater PSK. He was a very good man and would have been a wonderful President. I worked on his campaign and also worked for the family in their Department Store. Conservatives have never been very popular as they generally look to the people of this country to carry their own weight and that just isn't a very popular concept among Liberals. Wow very cool! And also an accurate assessment. Sarah Palin & today's "TEA Party" would completely disagree with the separation of "church & state" like how Goldwater thought they should be.
|
|
|
Post by nolaxride on Sept 4, 2014 14:41:03 GMT -5
Written 50 years ago and still holds true today.
"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ ‘interests,’ I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."
Barry Goldwater, the original Tea Partier. Barry Goldwater is rolling in his grave over the current state of conservatism. Goldwater wasn't conservative enough for today's GOP. They would not nominate him, or Reagan, for that matter.
|
|
|
Post by thelion on Sept 4, 2014 14:44:41 GMT -5
Goldwater was basically a libertarian, with exceptions to the general libertarian credo. He believed in a strong national defense, for instance, but tempered that heresy by showing reluctance to use the military hammer.
He would never make it in today's GOP.
|
|
|
Post by numarymag on Sept 4, 2014 15:00:50 GMT -5
Written 50 years ago and still holds true today.
"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ ‘interests,’ I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."
Barry Goldwater, the original Tea Partier. Barry Goldwater is rolling in his grave over the current state of conservatism. Goldwater wasn't conservative enough for today's GOP. They would not nominate him, or Reagan, for that matter. It is amusing to see so many who know absolutely what Goldwater would have done, said, believed with today's circumstances and of course he would be agreeing with whoever it is posting the opinion whether they be Liberal or Conservative. LOL
|
|
|
Post by chuckygotlucky on Sept 4, 2014 15:07:55 GMT -5
Do you think he would have had the guts to say that in 1964? I don't That really doesn't matter does it? The fact that he was "Mr. Conservative" AND believed in the rights of gays does. I think it matters . Saying it in 1964 when he was running for president would have shown real courage. Saying it in 87 after he retired from politics not so much.
|
|
|
Post by maxwell on Sept 4, 2014 15:09:08 GMT -5
Barry Goldwater is rolling in his grave over the current state of conservatism. Goldwater wasn't conservative enough for today's GOP. They would not nominate him, or Reagan, for that matter. It is amusing to see so many who know absolutely what Goldwater would have done, said, believed with today's circumstances and of course he would be agreeing with whoever it is posting the opinion whether they be Liberal or Conservative. LOL Given his positions on gays in the military before it was a mainstream idea, & his stance against mixing religion & politics because of the potential for the insane extremism it can create (& has come to fruition) it's quite doubtful he would change those views so drastically as to be on the other side of the fence. I hear conversations with his granddaughter CeCe on the radio almost weekly & she pretty much says the same thing that nolaxride just did. I think she knows more than anybody here including you.
|
|
|
Post by maxwell on Sept 4, 2014 15:11:34 GMT -5
That really doesn't matter does it? The fact that he was "Mr. Conservative" AND believed in the rights of gays does. I think it matters . Saying it in 1964 when he was running for president would have shown real courage. Saying it in 87 after he retired from politics not so much. Sure, it would have been courageous. It was just as courageous in 1987 when it was just as unpopular. I'm sure he publicly gave his endorsements to candidates which showed courage on their part too.
|
|
|
Post by evilconempire on Sept 4, 2014 15:15:43 GMT -5
That really doesn't matter does it? The fact that he was "Mr. Conservative" AND believed in the rights of gays does. I think it matters . Saying it in 1964 when he was running for president would have shown real courage. Saying it in 87 after he retired from politics not so much. I don't recall "guts" ever being an issue for him, but you may be right in that he wouldn't have said it back then. Tough to say for sure.
|
|
|
Post by numarymag on Sept 4, 2014 15:17:32 GMT -5
It is amusing to see so many who know absolutely what Goldwater would have done, said, believed with today's circumstances and of course he would be agreeing with whoever it is posting the opinion whether they be Liberal or Conservative. LOL Given his positions on gays in the military before it was a mainstream idea, & his stance against mixing religion & politics because of the potential for the insane extremism it can create (& has come to fruition) it's quite doubtful he would change those views so drastically as to be on the other side of the fence. I hear conversations with his granddaughter CeCe on the radio almost weekly & she pretty much says the same thing that nolaxride just did. I think she knows more than anybody here including you. First of all I didn't say I knew what he would think or say just found it amusing that you would. Ask me if I'm surprised that you would agree with NoLax over me. LOL
|
|
|
Post by chuckygotlucky on Sept 4, 2014 15:17:53 GMT -5
I think it matters . Saying it in 1964 when he was running for president would have shown real courage. Saying it in 87 after he retired from politics not so much. Sure, it would have been courageous. It was just as courageous in 1987 when it was just as unpopular. I'm sure he publicly gave his endorsements to candidates which showed courage on their part too. I think it was less looked down upon in 87 not even a liberal democrat would have said something like that in 64.
|
|
|
Post by chuckygotlucky on Sept 4, 2014 15:18:53 GMT -5
I think it matters . Saying it in 1964 when he was running for president would have shown real courage. Saying it in 87 after he retired from politics not so much. I don't recall "guts" ever being an issue for him, but you may be right in that he wouldn't have said it back then. Tough to say for sure. It wasn't politically feasable to say that in 1964.
|
|
|
Post by evilconempire on Sept 4, 2014 15:21:36 GMT -5
I don't recall "guts" ever being an issue for him, but you may be right in that he wouldn't have said it back then. Tough to say for sure. It wasn't politically feasable to say that in 1964. A lot of his positions were ahead of their time. I still don't think "guts" would have been an issue, but you may be right that he wouldn't have said it back then...in fact, you are right about that because he didn't say it back then.
|
|
|
Post by maxwell on Sept 4, 2014 15:30:50 GMT -5
Given his positions on gays in the military before it was a mainstream idea, & his stance against mixing religion & politics because of the potential for the insane extremism it can create (& has come to fruition) it's quite doubtful he would change those views so drastically as to be on the other side of the fence. I hear conversations with his granddaughter CeCe on the radio almost weekly & she pretty much says the same thing that nolaxride just did. I think she knows more than anybody here including you. First of all I didn't say I knew what he would think or say just found it amusing that you would. Ask me if I'm surprised that you would agree with NoLax over me. LOL I'm agreeing with nolaxride because it's logical to do so given the logical reasons I already posted. Ask me if I'm surprised that DESPITE those logical reasons to think he'd still hold the same beliefs & therefore turn over in his grave- given how much the "GOP" has changed, you would think otherwise; because well, you obviously like the way the direction the "GOP" has taken.
|
|
|
Post by maxwell on Sept 4, 2014 15:31:32 GMT -5
Sure, it would have been courageous. It was just as courageous in 1987 when it was just as unpopular. I'm sure he publicly gave his endorsements to candidates which showed courage on their part too. I think it was less looked down upon in 87 not even a liberal democrat would have said something like that in 64. Less, but not by much.
|
|
|
Post by numarymag on Sept 4, 2014 15:35:51 GMT -5
Did you know him personally Maxwell? I did and I wouldn't even begin to imagine what he might think today. Conditions are so different than they were back then. But then of course you think you know it all so have fun with it. Just makes you look silly.
|
|
|
Post by maxwell on Sept 4, 2014 15:37:06 GMT -5
Did you know him personally Maxwell? I did and I wouldn't even begin to imagine what he might think today. Conditions are so different than they were back then. But then of course you think you know it all so have fun with it. Just makes you look silly. I'll take CeCe's word over yours.
|
|
|
Post by chuckygotlucky on Sept 4, 2014 15:37:32 GMT -5
I think it was less looked down upon in 87 not even a liberal democrat would have said something like that in 64. Less, but not by much. Oh it was a lot more looked down upon in 64 than 87. It wasn't that bad a thing in places like NYC metro area by 87.
|
|
|
Post by maxwell on Sept 4, 2014 15:39:52 GMT -5
Oh it was a lot more looked down upon in 64 than 87. It wasn't that bad a thing in places like NYC metro area by 87. I'm strictly talking about politics. It was more "acceptable" to be gay friendly back then in the political arena?
|
|
|
Post by chuckygotlucky on Sept 4, 2014 15:40:58 GMT -5
Oh it was a lot more looked down upon in 64 than 87. It wasn't that bad a thing in places like NYC metro area by 87. I'm strictly talking about politics. It was more "acceptable" to be gay friendly back then in the political arena? No you are right about that.
|
|
|
Post by maxwell on Sept 4, 2014 15:47:02 GMT -5
I'm strictly talking about politics. It was more "acceptable" to be gay friendly back then in the political arena? No you are right about that. That's what I was talking about. I presume he endorsed candidates, so to speak out like that was risky both for his "popularity" & for anybody seeking him to speak at fundraisers.
|
|
|
Post by nolaxride on Sept 4, 2014 16:09:31 GMT -5
Written 50 years ago and still holds true today.
"I have little interest in streamlining government or in making it more efficient, for I mean to reduce its size. I do not undertake to promote welfare, for I propose to extend freedom. My aim is not to pass laws, but to repeal them. It is not to inaugurate new programs, but to cancel old ones that do violence to the Constitution, or that have failed in their purpose, or that impose on the people an unwarranted financial burden. I will not attempt to discover whether legislation is ‘needed’ before I have first determined whether it is constitutionally permissible. And if I should later be attacked for neglecting my constituents’ ‘interests,’ I shall reply that I was informed their main interest is liberty and that in that cause I am doing the very best I can."
Barry Goldwater, the original Tea Partier. Barry Goldwater was a good US Senator. Goldwater, like Reagan, was a big tent Republican. The Tea Party should take note.
|
|
|
Post by nolaxride on Sept 4, 2014 16:11:36 GMT -5
Again an Arrogant and Condescending Modern Day Liberal believes people are too stupid to understand what was really meant by the posts. Such stellar emotion to; "Oh my how wrong you are." Give him an Emmey folks. arrogant and condescending is someone who posts Goldwater's words tries to spin them into something they're not.
|
|
|
Post by nolaxride on Sept 4, 2014 17:55:21 GMT -5
Barry Goldwater is rolling in his grave over the current state of conservatism. Goldwater wasn't conservative enough for today's GOP. They would not nominate him, or Reagan, for that matter. It is amusing to see so many who know absolutely what Goldwater would have done, said, believed with today's circumstances and of course he would be agreeing with whoever it is posting the opinion whether they be Liberal or Conservative. LOL Is there part of 'big tent conservative' that you didn't understand, Mac? Goldwater was not an evangelical and he advocated for women's rights. Is there part of that with which you disagree?
|
|
|
Post by beauregarde on Sept 4, 2014 18:41:37 GMT -5
Did you know him personally Maxwell? I did and I wouldn't even begin to imagine what he might think today. Conditions are so different than they were back then. But then of course you think you know it all so have fun with it. Just makes you look silly. Yes Mac, how would Barry have felt about "transgendered" "parents" in the military?
|
|