11
   

Why I am a Republican - By Dwight D. Eisenhower

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 10:44 pm
@plainoldme,
plainoldme wrote:
Theoretically, middle of the road is not conservative.
Middle of the road should be a position obtained after the left and right
have laid out how they stand, making the middle neither.
That sounds reasonable to me; and accurate.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 10:52 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Oh my. I'd really thought that you, David, could read.
And there might have even been a chance that you'd know history.
Walter, if u think I can 't read,
then for what reason did u type that remark to me ?

If u don 't choose to contribute to the discussion
( as u say u don 't ) then that 's OK.
No one is forcing u against your will,
but your little snide, cutting impolite remarks that I can 't read
are not helpful to any better understanding of anything.

If u have a point,
your little, snide ad hominem remarks do not prove it;
thay only call into question whether u are polite or not.





David
0 Replies
 
farmerman
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 10:58 pm
David, Okie had started the snide remarks from the getgo. I responded with my BULLSHIT statement (which, by the way was referring to Okies STAQTEMENT, not Okie himself). The diff with some others has been to adopt adhominems. SO, Im not sure that WAlter wasnt correct in responding in the spirit that Okie had initiated.

VerstehenSie?
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 11:03 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
David, Okie had started the snide remarks from the getgo. I responded with my BULLSHIT statement (which, by the way was referring to Okies STAQTEMENT, not Okie himself). The diff with some others has been to adopt adhominems. SO, Im not sure that WAlter wasnt correct in responding in the spirit that Okie had initiated.

VerstehenSie?
U r telling me that Walter got mad at OKie
& that justifies an ad hominem attack against ME, right ?
farmerman
 
  4  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 11:14 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Id say that you should put yourself into the mind of a reader. When I see a thread , posted by one political leaning and supported by another (you), I would not be selective in my aim either. I just happen to like you and Okie is neither a friend nor foe. HEs just a name of a guy who used to work in my field and he has a quick temper. Im trying not to be engaging in adhominems anymore ever since my recent blowups at Ionus in which , when read objectively, neither party looks too smart, (even though I was drowning him in facts and evidence and all he could do was respond with his own ad hominems) Ive quit the name calling and Okie hasnt disturbed me enough to make me break my pledge.

However, since Walter does not have a history of ad hominem, whereas I do, I think Id cut Walter some slack and recall that he is in the middle of a discussion that I think he is waay more qualified by life experience to present an ducated response than any of the rest of us non-Germans.
No matter what we read, to have lived within a specific political age, is far more of an educational experience than mere second hand exposure.

You arent usually this touchy about others, Ive seen you dismiss insults with good humor, why start being touchy tonight?
Why is tonight different than any other night? Oy.
Walter Hinteler
 
  2  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 11:38 pm
@farmerman,
Sorry if it sounded ad hominem.

But I really don't want (and don't have the time just now since I have to prepare my mother's burial) to discuss these points again:
- the history of the NSDAP
- the background of SA personal, capitalists within the NSDAP, the NSDAP ideology etc

I just want to mention that I've read hundreds of original (! they are in German !) sources of a lot of leading Nazis in the past couple of months/years since I've co-worked on the largest encyclopaedia of Wehrmacht and SS generals.

I'm out here.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 11:44 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:
Id say that you should put yourself into the mind of a reader.
When I see a thread , posted by one political leaning and supported by another (you),
I would not be selective in my aim either.
As a scientist, as a logician, I think that u know
that precision of thought and of expression is significant.
U shud not shoot at the rong guy.






farmerman wrote:
I just happen to like you and Okie is neither a friend nor foe. HEs just a name of a guy who used to work in my field and he has a quick temper. Im trying not to be engaging in adhominems anymore ever since my recent blowups at Ionus in which , when read objectively, neither party looks too smart, (even though I was drowning him in facts and evidence and all he could do was respond with his own ad hominems) Ive quit the name calling and Okie hasnt disturbed me enough to make me break my pledge.
I was not a witness to those interchanges.



farmerman wrote:
However, since Walter does not have a history of ad hominem, whereas I do, I think Id cut Walter some slack and recall that he is in the middle of a discussion that I think he is waay more qualified by life experience to present an ducated response than any of the rest of us non-Germans.
Note that I did not resort to COUNTERinsolence, nor to COUNTERcharacterization of Walter.
I limited myself to raising an objection to his rudeness.
I did not put him on Ignore, nor threaten to, nor consider it.




farmerman wrote:
No matter what we read, to have lived within a specific political age,
is far more of an educational experience than mere second hand exposure.
Note the exercise of his right not to discuss it.



farmerman wrote:
You arent usually this touchy about others, Ive seen you dismiss insults with good humor, why start being touchy tonight?
Why is tonight different than any other night? Oy.
Well, farmer, its not like I beat the hell out of him; I only objected.





David
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 25 Apr, 2010 11:51 pm
@Walter Hinteler,
Walter Hinteler wrote:
Sorry if it sounded ad hominem.

But I really don't want (and don't have the time just now since I have to prepare my mother's burial)
From that remark,
I infer and surmise that your mother has died.
Please accept my condolences, Walter.





0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 09:00 pm
@farmerman,
farmerman wrote:

Id say that you should put yourself into the mind of a reader. When I see a thread , posted by one political leaning and supported by another (you), I would not be selective in my aim either. I just happen to like you and Okie is neither a friend nor foe. HEs just a name of a guy who used to work in my field and he has a quick temper.

Family, friends and neighbors would say otherwise. If you interpret quick answers to rebut what I think is wrong, then you are mischaracterizing that as a quick temper. I will apologize for where I think I over-reacted or jumped to a conclusion, or was wrong, but I will not apologize for being quick to posting honest opinions and speaking out about things that I believe to be right.

Quote:
would Im trying not to be engaging in adhominems anymore ever since my recent blowups at Ionus in which , when read objectively, neither party looks too smart, (even though I was drowning him in facts and evidence and all he could do was respond with his own ad hominems) Ive quit the name calling and Okie hasnt disturbed me enough to make me break my pledge.

However, since Walter does not have a history of ad hominem, whereas I do, I think Id cut Walter some slack and recall that he is in the middle of a discussion that I think he is waay more qualified by life experience to present an ducated response than any of the rest of us non-Germans.
No matter what we read, to have lived within a specific political age, is far more of an educational experience than mere second hand exposure.

You arent usually this touchy about others, Ive seen you dismiss insults with good humor, why start being touchy tonight?
Why is tonight different than any other night? Oy.

You will note that I have in fact placed Walter on my ignore list, after a particular comment that I viewed to be way over the top, an accusation that I considered out of bounds and not deserving at all. I think this has come about after I have had the audacity to disagree with what he believes to be his superior knowledge of World War II era politics, including that of Hitler and so forth. Perhaps I will get into trouble yet more by saying this, but I have gotten the feeling that some Germans to this day, examples Walter Hinteler and old europe, are still a little thin skinned about any criticism of anything German, especially if they are of the liberal mindset which they are, and you accuse Hitler of being a leftist or ultra Socialist, they take this very very personal. But I am not going to sugarcoat what I believe history and the record says to us loud and clear.
OmSigDAVID
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 09:15 pm
@okie,
farmerman wrote:

Id say that you should put yourself into the mind of a reader. When I see a thread , posted by one political leaning and supported by another (you), I would not be selective in my aim either. I just happen to like you and Okie is neither a friend nor foe. HEs just a name of a guy who used to work in my field and he has a quick temper.

Family, friends and neighbors would say otherwise. If you interpret quick answers to rebut what I think is wrong, then you are mischaracterizing that as a quick temper. I will apologize for where I think I over-reacted or jumped to a conclusion, or was wrong, but I will not apologize for being quick to posting honest opinions and speaking out about things that I believe to be right.

Quote:
would Im trying not to be engaging in adhominems anymore ever since my recent blowups at Ionus in which , when read objectively, neither party looks too smart, (even though I was drowning him in facts and evidence and all he could do was respond with his own ad hominems) Ive quit the name calling and Okie hasnt disturbed me enough to make me break my pledge.

However, since Walter does not have a history of ad hominem, whereas I do, I think Id cut Walter some slack and recall that he is in the middle of a discussion that I think he is waay more qualified by life experience to present an ducated response than any of the rest of us non-Germans.
No matter what we read, to have lived within a specific political age, is far more of an educational experience than mere second hand exposure.

You arent usually this touchy about others, Ive seen you dismiss insults with good humor, why start being touchy tonight?
Why is tonight different than any other night? Oy.
okie wrote:
You will note that I have in fact placed Walter on my ignore list, after a particular comment that I viewed to be way over the top, an accusation that I considered out of bounds and not deserving at all. I think this has come about after I have had the audacity to disagree with what he believes to be his superior knowledge of World War II era politics, including that of Hitler and so forth. Perhaps I will get into trouble yet more by saying this, but I have gotten the feeling that some Germans to this day, examples Walter Hinteler and old europe, are still a little thin skinned about any criticism of anything German, especially if they are of the liberal mindset which they are, and you accuse Hitler of being a leftist or ultra Socialist, they take this very very personal. But I am not going to sugarcoat what I believe history and the record says to us loud and clear.
U have a natural right and a Constitutional right to be honest, candid and sincere.





David
0 Replies
 
DrewDad
 
  1  
Reply Mon 26 Apr, 2010 09:53 pm
@okie,
okie wrote:
I have gotten the feeling that some Germans to this day, examples Walter Hinteler and old europe, are still a little thin skinned about any criticism of anything German

Whereas you always respond to criticism of the United States with aplomb and dignity, right?

<snicker>
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 12:19 am
@DrewDad,
DrewDad wrote:

okie wrote:
I have gotten the feeling that some Germans to this day, examples Walter Hinteler and old europe, are still a little thin skinned about any criticism of anything German

Whereas you always respond to criticism of the United States with aplomb and dignity, right?

<snicker>

I think I have more reason to defend the U.S. If not for the United States and Great Britain, much of Europe might still be living in tyranny this very day. I do admit to being more defensive of this country than many are, including our current president.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 07:11 am
@okie,
okie wrote:
My decision, formed over a long period of study and contemplation,

long period of study? I don't know of any conservative to follow that course. Can you name one okie? Do you know what it even means?


Quote:
Helping with your vote to guide our country in the right decision is a privilege and a duty which outweighs the self-interest of any economic, regional or racial group. It is more important to the nation's welfare than the fate of any candidate - no matter how personable he may be on TV - or of any political party.
Your vote is more important than which party you vote for? That doesn't sound very conservative to me at all.


Now, I am a Republican. But I am not, I hope in all sincerity, a blind Republican who puts party above all else. First and foremost, I am a citizen of the United States. My basic allegiance is to those unchanging principles of self-government laid down in th founding documents of our nation. The more we see of the world and of the struggle of people for freedom and human dignity, the more clearly I understand the inspired, specific purpose of the noble phrases of those documents. It is not mere Fourth of July flag-waving to remind ourselves that "....all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their creator with certain unalienable Rights," as proclaimed in our Declaration of Independence.It's funny you should hightlight that one okie since 'flag waving' seems to be all that conservatives do. Can you imagine Eisenhower accusing someone of not being patriotic because they don't wear a flag pin? I can't. I think he would be appalled by those that wear those pins and proclaim they are patriots because they do so. He would also be appalled by the Tea party people that pull the same crap.
Quote:
And we should continually refresh our knowledge of our Constitution which, with its Bill of Rights," spells out in detail the letter and the spirit of the rights to which each of us is entitled. These principles and the continued exercise of these rights have directed the United States to its place as the most powerful, most prosperous and, above all, most free nation on the face of the earth. We want to keep it that way.
Refresh our knowledge of the constitution? You mean it's a living document since he is only concerned with the spirit and not the exact words? WOW.. Do you really believe that okie?


Quote:
I assure you that I am not being alarmist for partisan purposes. I do not fear that the United States faces any immediate threat of moral or financial bankruptcy or a political tyranny
. How unlike the current partisan hacks who have been crying about how the US is bankrupt after they spent years overspending.

Quote:
We are headed away from hardheaded common sense which applies our traditional principles to the solutions of our national problems, whatever they may be . . . toward flashy public relations publicity which seek to persuade us that mere labels are themselves solutions.
Flashy public labels like "Obama is a socialist"?


Quote:
Republican aims are positive.
No longer. THey have now turned into the party of "No" as they even opposed financial reform of the banks that almost brought this country to it's knees.
Quote:

they have been positive and forward-looking since the party was formed 110 years ago to preserve the Union
I guess that ended with Eisenhower.

Starting with the Civil War and the dedication of Abraham Lincoln to the ideal of national unity, Republican doctrines always have sought to guide our nation away from federal domination on one hand and perilous division on the other. To me the key items of political faith that should always continue to be an inspiring guide to sound political action for any thoughtful citizen are:
1. Abiding faith in the individual. To believe that the essential unit in our democracy is the individual, not any group or class, and that the preservation of our form of government depends in the final analysis on respect o the individual's rights, initiative, judgement and opportunities. Like when the "individuals" elect a President perhaps? Or should we NOT have faith in those individuals okie?

Quote:
2. Limited powers of government. To believe that the people themselves should retain all powers and responsibilities not specifically delegated to the Government. As Abraham Lincoln defined it, "The legitimate object of government is to do for a community of people whatever they need to have done, but cannot do at all, or cannot so well do, for themselves in their separate and individual capacities. In all the people can individually do as well for themselves, the government ought not to interfere."
Ah... like when the individuals can't all get health insurance because insurance companies price them out of the market or refuse to even cover them.


Quote:
4. National Unity. Since its beginnings the Republican Party has stoutly resisted any and all forces which might divide our nation by class, region, racial ancestry or economic interest. we are not for or against any minority of any kind. We are for every individual, whatever his ethnic, social or economic background, who enjoys the priceless privilege of United States citizenship.
Except for Latinos, eh Okie?

Quote:

It must be emphasized that a tax cut alone is only half of the equation. Without a commensurate curtailment of federal expenditures a tax reduction by itself is a cruel illusion: What is given to the taxpayer in one hand is more than taken away from the other by cheapening his money and increasing his burden of public debt.
hmmm... I guess Eisenhower would have been opposed to Bush's tax cut as being nothing more than a "cruel illusion."


Quote:
We must continue to support the efforts of the United Nations to bring quarrels betwenn nations to the conference table instead of the battlefield.
I guess Eisenhower was.. uh.. "a socialist"?


Quote:
It is our duty to point out where we believe foreign-policy programs have gone wrong and how we believe they can be righted, so long as our comment is informed, reasonable and seeks only the good of the United States.
LOL.. yeah.. calling Obama "a socialist" is "informed and resonable" eh okie?

Quote:
For the administration of our Government is not a political game but a serious human business, the highest purpose of which is to "secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity."

No, it's much more reasonable to call health care "Obama's Waterloo" and oppose everything he does. After all it is just a game that doesn't affect anyone's life but the goal is to win, isn't it okie?
djjd62
 
  0  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 07:19 am
i like mike & ike's

http://www.bulkecandy.com/images/mike_and_ike_bulk_candy.jpg
0 Replies
 
okie
 
  1  
Reply Tue 27 Apr, 2010 08:00 pm
@parados,
parados wrote:
Quote:
And we should continually refresh our knowledge of our Constitution which, with its Bill of Rights," spells out in detail the letter and the spirit of the rights to which each of us is entitled. These principles and the continued exercise of these rights have directed the United States to its place as the most powerful, most prosperous and, above all, most free nation on the face of the earth. We want to keep it that way.
Refresh our knowledge of the constitution? You mean it's a living document since he is only concerned with the spirit and not the exact words? WOW.. Do you really believe that okie?

I am not going to dignify all of your twisted logic, but will cite the above as an example of it. I find it hard to believe how twisted the liberal mind must be, but this is a good example of it, apparently an attempt to justify in parados mind that the constitution is a living breathing document as libs want to believe, so that they can bend it to anything they want it to say. Here, parados uses what Dwight D. Eisenhower's quote about the need to continually refresh our knowledge of the letter and spirit of the constitution to somehow try to make that case, which is about as bizarre of reasoning as anyone could imagine.

By the way, I would remind you he said "the letter and the spirit," he in no way said he was only concerned with the "spirit" of the constitution. Can you even read with comprehension. parados, is it a reading problem, or are you purposely trying to twist and misrepresent, which is it?
farmerman
 
  2  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 12:43 am
AGAIN, From J Bendersky's History of NAzi Germany. (2000).

Quote:
National Socialism) was the ideology and practice of the Nazi Party and of Nazi Germany It was a unique variety of fascism that involved biological racism and anti-Semitism. Nazism presented itself as politically syncretic, incorporating policies, tactics and philosophies from right- and left-wing ideologies; in practice, Nazism was a far right form of politics.
Nazi racial ideology is an important component of Nazism, that stresses the belief in the supremacy of an Aryan master race. The Nazis claimed that the German nation represents the most racially pure Aryan people. The Nazis deemed the greatest threat to the Aryan race and the German nation as the Jewish race, which the Nazis described as being a parasitic race that has attached itself to various ideologies and movements to secure its self-preservation, such as the Enlightenment, liberalism, democracy, parliamentary politics, capitalism, industrialization, Marxism, and trade unions

The Nazis claimed that the traditional conception of the European nation-state had become obsolete with the imperialism of great powers with vast territory like the British Empire, Russia, and the United States.The Nazis claimed that Germany's survival as a modern great nation required it to create an empire in Europe that would give the German nation the necessary land mass, resources, and expansion of population needed to be able to economically and militarily compete with other powers.

The Nazis denounced both capitalism and communism, accusing both of being associated with Jewish influences and interests. They claimed that capitalism damages nations due to international finance, the economic dominance of big business, and Jewish influences within it. They claimed that communism was dangerous to the well-being of nations because of its intention to dissolve private property, its support of class conflict and its aggression against the middle class, its hostility to small businessmen, and its atheism In response, Nazis declared support for a form of socialism that is to provide for the nation: economic security, social welfare programs for workers, a just wage, honour for workers' importance to the nation, and protection from capitalist exploitation Nazism, however, rejected class conflict-based socialism and economic egalitarianism, favouring instead a stratified economy with classes based on merit and talent, retaining private property, and the creation of national solidarity that transcends class distinction.



parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 06:56 am
@okie,
Quote:
By the way, I would remind you he said "the letter and the spirit," he in no way said he was only concerned with the "spirit" of the constitution.


He at no time said he was concerned with only the "letter" of the constitution. Your argument is what okie? That Eisenhower never said "spirit"?
okie
 
  -1  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 08:30 am
@farmerman,
Nice to see you are coming around to see the light, that Nazism was in fact a brand of leftist idealogy.
okie
 
  2  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 08:34 am
@parados,
parados wrote:

Quote:
By the way, I would remind you he said "the letter and the spirit," he in no way said he was only concerned with the "spirit" of the constitution.


He at no time said he was concerned with only the "letter" of the constitution. Your argument is what okie? That Eisenhower never said "spirit"?

No, how come you continually try to twist what I said, just as you attempt to twist what Eisenhower said? Eisenhower believed in both the letter and the spirit. I believe as I think Eisenhower surely believed as well that the spirit of the constitution is contained within the letter of the constitution. You cannot and should not try to twist what the letter of the constitution was written to mean. The meaning of the letter cannot and should not be altered from the way it was written. There was a spirit to the letter that should not be changed.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Wed 28 Apr, 2010 08:55 am
@okie,
Quote:
I believe as I think Eisenhower surely believed as well that the spirit of the constitution is contained within the letter of the constitution.

So, now you know what Eisenhower meant and you are changing his words to make it mean that? Wait.. aren't conservatives supposed deal ONLY with the words and not what was "meant" if the words don't quite match what you want it to say?

Eisenhower said the "letter AND the spirit". This and that. one and two. Something AND something else. He clearly mentions 2 things.

Quote:
You cannot and should not try to twist what the letter of the constitution was written to mean. The meaning of the letter cannot and should not be altered from the way it was written. There was a spirit to the letter that should not be changed.
Interesting argument. There is a spirit but we can't look beyond the letters for that spirit? Then there would be no spirit since it is all in the letters. The spirit clearly goes beyond the letters themselves. Even you have to recognize that.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.09 seconds on 09/27/2021 at 08:27:14