Why I am a Republican - By Dwight D. Eisenhower

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.

Oh my. I'd really thought that you, David, could read.
And there might have even been a chance that you'd know history.

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?

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.

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)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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>

My decision, formed over a long period of study and contemplation,

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.

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.

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

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.

Republican aims are positive.

they have been positive and forward-looking since the party was formed 110 years ago to preserve the Union

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."

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.

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.

We must continue to support the efforts of the United Nations to bring quarrels betwenn nations to the conference table instead of the battlefield.

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.

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."

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?

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.

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.

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"?

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.