Why I am a Republican - By Dwight D. Eisenhower

@old europe,

okie wrote:

No, it doesn't. Sorry to make the comment if it was off base.

old europe wrote:

I'm not overly worried about whatever someone on the internet insinuates my political positions are.
I'm more worried about this:

You seem to have at least noticed the discussion between David and me.
You saw that David happily agreed with a totalitarian terror regime,
that he eagerly approved of the regime's treatment of the political opposition.

Old Europe: u tell lies about me, DISTORTING my position by broadening it to "the political opposition"
when I endorsed that against COMMUNISTS.

If there were decent people, e.g. libertarians in "the political opposition" then I certainly woud oppose
any nazi action against them, but I have always favored torturing and killing communists, as thay so richly deserve!!!

(not on American territory, because of the 8th Amendment)

David

1 Reply

@OmSigDAVID,

This thread has lost its appeal. It has turned into something that was not envisioned up front. I think that the premises that Okie had presented have been shown to suffer from a politically induced nearsightedness. To continue some inane back and forth with a rising (and unnecessary) level of heat, is a bit looney, so Im outta here. I shall just disappear this thred feom my que and move on.
Bye.

2 Replies

@old europe,

old europe wrote:

Maybe you can explain this to me: in a discussion between a right-wing poster who expresses approval for the extermination of the political opponents by a totalitarian regime and a poster who, as you argue, "leans to the left pretty distinctly" and argues in favour of freedom of speech, and the rights to life, liberty and pursuit of happiness - why does your reaction seem to be an attack on the second poster?

To put what you just said into context, you are defending the rights to life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, more specifically the freedom of speech, for communists, which I would remind you are historically and practically very much against the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, including the freedom of speech. Therefore, oe, I had the feeling that your defense was a bit hypocritical.

To clarify the point that I am making here, I have long found it ironic that the freedoms that leftists claim in process of gaining their political power are the very same freedoms that they will ultimately remove from their opposition in order for them to retain power. This has been true with a number of leftist dictators in various places around the world.

So back to the subject of David's opinions, I think what I read into his opinions that I think you missed, is that perhaps David thinks the Communists and Nazis deserved each other, one was no better than the other. I do not read that as a justification of what the Nazis did to the Communists, but I read it as making the point that the Commies have been just as guilty in their own way. I am not David, I cannot interpret exactly what he thinks, and so my apologies to him if I am mis-interpreting his assessment of history, and I would not suggest that I always agree with his posts, I do not.

I am grateful, as our allied commanders were I am sure, that Russia was able to survive and beat Hitler back, but does that mean that I, or that Dwight D. Eisenhower are fans of Joseph Stalin and his policies, absolutely not, nothing could be more preposterous.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

This thread has lost its appeal. It has turned into something that was not envisioned up front. I think that the premises that Okie had presented have been shown to suffer from a politically induced nearsightedness. To continue some inane back and forth with a rising (and unnecessary) level of heat, is a bit looney, so Im outta here. I shall just disappear this thred feom my que and move on.
Bye.

If you can's stand the heat, get out of the kitchen, farmer. What I suspect is that the article written by Eisenhower has so totally blown your pre-conceived biased notions about Eisenhower, that you simply choose to walk away from facing the truth.

0 Replies

@farmerman,

farmerman wrote:

This thread has lost its appeal. It has turned into something that was not envisioned up front. I think that the premises that Okie had presented have been shown to suffer from a politically induced nearsightedness.

What this thread records is the indisputable fact that one of the greatest American generals and presidents in history was clearly a conservative, also a Republican, who plainly explained his political philosophy in the article herein contained. I, Okie, recorded this to dispell the erroneous notions by some on the left trying to consider the man a liberal on the Left.

1 Reply

@okie,

Do you really believe that getting in the last word wins the arguemant even though the facts are against you. HE RAN AS A REPUBLICAN BUT GOVERNED AS A MIDDLE OF THE ROADER. Today he would be considered a RINO!!!!

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Rabel, all you need to do to understand this is to read what Ike himself wrote in his own words. There is no possible way that can be disputed, unless you do not or will not read with comprehension.

I realize there may be opinions concerning how he governed, but there are always those factors, even with Reagan or Obama for examples.. I believe one of thebiggest issues left us by Ike was his warning about the "Military Industrial complex," which liberals love to cite, but conservatives also recognize it as a problem of big government. Ike was very pro-defense and anti-Communist, but primarily he believed in smaller government, capitalism with freedom to the people to produce without the overburden of a bloated over-powerful government.

1 Reply

@okie,

So, you think we should go back to the Eisenhower tax rates?

1 Reply

@parados,

Will there be a response to your post from Okie??????

1 Reply

@RABEL222,

Probably not. Otherwise he would have to admit that conservatives support tax rates as high as 91% on high income earners.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

Probably not. Otherwise he would have to admit that conservatives support tax rates as high as 91% on high income earners.

I am one conservative on record here on A2K as supporting higher marginal tax rates upon individuals, but only provided that corporate and business income tax rates be drastically reduced or totally eliminated. My reasoning is that we need bold tax reform to fix the economy.I would prefer the Fair Tax AS THE BEST fix, but failing that,yes, I could favor higher marginal rates,which is merely collecting revenue at a different point in the economic stream.

1 Reply

@okie,

Quote:

I am one conservative on record here on A2K as supporting higher marginal tax rates upon individuals, but only provided that corporate and business income tax rates be drastically reduced or totally eliminated.

So, any and all conservatives would be in favor of reducing corporate taxes?

1 Reply

@parados,

I did not say any and all. Do not twist what I wrote, parados, as you seem to commonly try to do.. Conservatives do not group think. We vary in our opinions.

Without rewriting all of what I have written, I could favor higher marginal tax rates on individuals, if combined with other tax reforms affecting corporate and business income. I view this as simply collecting tax revenue at a different point in the income stream. My primary goal would be to enhance American business's ability to compete in the world market.

1 Reply

@okie,

So do you think any conservative would favor a 91% tax on individuals and a 52% tax on corporations?

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

So do you think any conservative would favor a 91% tax on individuals and a 52% tax on corporations?

Obviously no. Did you even read my previous posts? Conservatives differ in their endorsement of specific opolicies, even though we generally agree on overall philosophy and approach to general political policy.

1 Reply

@okie,

I see the election of 52 as the point where the demoKKKrat party basically lost touch with reality i.e. they actually ran a little left-wing schlamozzle whose own mother might or might not have recognized him against the man who had just won WW-II and saved the world from Nazism and they (the libtard dems) thought they were going to win.

The closest thing I can come up with for an analogy to that would be something like some bantomweight fighter like Little Wee-Wee Jones wanting to get into the ring with Joe Louis or Larry Holmes...

0 Replies

@plainoldme,

Quote:

Some advice: If you want people to read this, get rid of the red highlighting.

He probably figured the red highlighting would encourage commies like yourself to read it...

1 Reply

@gungasnake,

gungasnake wrote:

Quote:
Some advice: If you want people to read this, get rid of the red highlighting.

He probably figured the red highlighting would encourage commies like yourself to read it...

I highlighted in red to help the liberals here to icomprehend what Eisenhower wrote that was conservative. Otherwise, their reading comprehension might be less likely to comprehend it.

0 Replies

@okie,

Well that's odd . . . those were the tax rates in the mid-50s when Eisenhower was president.

2 Replies

@Setanta,

Not only were they the rates in the mid 50s. They were the rates set in the 1954 tax bill which included a provision to up the corporate tax rate 5%.
And which President signed that bill? Oh.. that's right. A conservative one. Or perhaps he wasn't a conservative until he wrote about it later.

52% corporate tax starting at $25,000 and above.

0 Replies

Why I am a Republican - By Dwight D. Eisenhower

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know