Where Ronald Reagan and Ron Paul were philosphically aligned

I'm having a good laugh at your current quotes guerilla.

Just a few things.

#1 I highly doubt Ronald would be on a forum posting anything!
#2 Especially for those who think Ronald was such a great president, so great for the US I would think this very thread is 'positive' for the United States as it brings up quotes of this great man.
#3 Optimism is a great thing, it however is different than being blind. You can be optimistic while questioning how things are going, how the past was dealt with. Optimism does not mean following blindly like brain dead zombies.
#4 The person bringing up false information posts false information more than damn near anyone!

I could list a few more things but I'm seriously too busy laughing my ass off atm!

 

I'm saying exactly what Reagan was about. He was not about blaming America first, sitting around and self-loathing about our country. That you would insinuate that Reagan, was anything like RP is (a blame America first nutjob) is insulting to Reagan.

If RP had done anything close to what Reagan had done during his tenure, you and other RP nuts would not be trying to align RP's name with Reagan. Reagan earned his optimism and leadership. RP has never accomplished anything other than writing a racist newsletter.

Again, Reagan did not seek to tear our country down, blame it first, and isolate our country from the rest of the world. There is no comparison.

I've never seen one. Not one thread started, that wasn't in some way, blaming America for something. You fail the challenge because you know I'm correct.

No game. I don't have to play anything. That you would even remotely suggest RP and Reagan were similar is as dishonest as anything I've seen. You want it to be true, but in reality, you know your candidate is just like you are...always blaming America first for everything. Reagan wasn't about that.

Projectionism at it's finest. I'm proud to defend Reagan from the likes of people like you, who want to tarnish his name, by attempting to steal the good deeds Reagan did for our country and his never ending optimism, for a candidate whose never accomplished anything on his own.

You should be ashamed of yourself for trying to make a poor comparison of such. Reagan didn't want to tear our country down, dismantle the government, seek to blame America for the world's problems. Reagan wanted, and did, rebuild America with optimism and good deeds. Perhaps some day your candidate will figure that out. Perhaps one day, RP supporters will figure out that tearing our country down day in and day out, is not even remotely reflective of the ideas Reagan was about.

Talk about blind loyalty

 

I figured I'd get a good laugh if I chose to view this post, and sure enough I got a dandy!

He didn't want to 'tear down America' 'dismantle the government' yet he 'rebuilt America'

Usually for one to rebuild something, you would need to partially dismantle, or tear it down.

Wow so many ways this could be picked apart to death, Gtech done in again by his own words.

 

Hmm, actually, neither of them blame America for the world's problems. Both of them blamed government policy for America's problems.

Let's discuss the areas where Paul and Reagan are aligned.

Taxes. - Both agree that taxes are a theft of the wealth of the individual.

National Defense - Both agree that a strong national defense is very important.

War - Both agree that the United States should never be an aggressor.

Peace - Both believe that reluctance to war is not weakness.

Gold Standard - Both are for the Gold Standard.

Libertarian Principles - Both agree Libertarianism is the base of conservatism.

Government Largesse - Both are against big government programs, including entitlements and the welfare state.

Economy - Both are free marketers. Both believe that government subsidies destroy the natural economy.

And they both have employed Drew Ivers and Bruce Fein.

 

I have brought these examples up for gtech constantly. Asked him to talk to vietnam war vets that were at the gulf of tonkin, asked him to talk to knowledgable iranian students. He also doesnt want to hear their version of history. Colonel fletcher prouty said it himself when he stated that you cant get first hand information from a country by going to the government and media of the opposing country or the country that was hurt itself(iran). You have to go to the knowledgable masses of that country. These are the people who suffered most under the shah's tyranny. Its nice to change your views to fit your own opinion, but there is a basic truth and that basic truth is that we hurt ourselves when we destroyed democracy in iran, We also destroyed any hope for the common iran person for freedom and democracy they would have enjoyed under doctor mossadegh, the guy with the phd in fiance, time magazines man of the year and a former farmer. He is constantly trying to justify our government secretly plotting to overthrow the only democratically elected president that iran ever had by making him look like a communist that was trying to grab all the power by himself. This is rediculous. Ill give him this though, he has debating skills to be able to try to twist it around on mossadegh. I shudder to think what would happen if jesyus christ himself disagreed with our government on foreign policy lol.

 

Well here is another Ronold Reagan Quote

Unfortunately I don't see Ron Paul saying the same thing about China's investment in the US.

 

Paul's not a protectionist. He's a free trader. He wouldn't have an issue with this as long as the investors pass security checks. It was brought up in one of the debates.

 

I think a fundamental problem GTech has is this ad hominem he's created for Ron Paul as "blaming America first". Two thoughts there:

1. Whether it be Reagan, or Paul, or anyone else, you can't be optimistic and talk about change without first admitting that something is wrong to begin with. Why the hell do you think Reagan talked so much about change? He saw flaws with the system, and worked to change them. This is precisely what Paul is doing; the key difference is Paul is publicly identifying what is wrong to begin with, why it's wrong, and why his new plans will be better. For all the successes of Reagan, one flaw I see in his speeches is that he could have more closely and accurately identified the existing problems before presenting his plans. This is one area where I prefer Paul.

2. Again, you say they are nothing alike because Paul "blames America first". Read the quotes! They are saying the same exact things, but you are somehow trying to find a way to explain how these almost exact quotes are completely different solely because Paul is more vitriolic in his presentation. If you don't like his manner of speaking and the style he presents his ideas, that's well and good, but it's only style, not substance, in how Reagan and Paul differ.

 

Ron paul does blame America first. I've pointed these things out numerous times. Paul is not a protectionist, I agree with that. He seems to have no position on protecting America, other than outsourcing national defense. He's an isolationist, not to mention a nut job.

My offer is still open. I'll donate $50 to RP's campaign, if guerilla can produce one thread started, as noted above, showing America in a positive light. For as many RP supporters here, I'm sure they'd like to see that from ol' GTech

If you are getting tired of being called out for tearing down America, you have a choice. Either stop tearing our country down, or continue to be on the receiving end of the same you afford our country. The choice is yours to make.

 

GTech, care to challenge this post?

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=5357258&postcount=24