Jump to content


Republican Party Platform of 1952


RudyTHEGANGSTER
 Share

Recommended Posts

"They claim prosperity but the appearance of economic health is created by war expenditures, waste and extravagance, planned emergencies, and war crises. They have debauched our money by cutting in half the purchasing power of our dollar."

 

"We shall always measure our foreign commitments so that they can be borne without endangering the economic health or sound finances of the United States. Stalin said that 'the moment for the decisive blow' would be when the free nations were isolated and were in a state of 'practical bankruptcy.' We shall not allow ourselves to be isolated and economically strangled, and we shall not let ourselves go bankrupt."

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25837

 

 

Ron Paul says that today and he's a "kook." The whole neo-con movement is kooky if you ask me. It is almost like thinking about any issue half-way intelligently is kooky...screw fiscal policy, let's spend ourselves into oblivion.

 

At least Jim Cramer on Mad Money is saying it ius about time Ron Paul forces us to intelligently begin discussing such matters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8teEHdCrFqE

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"They claim prosperity but the appearance of economic health is created by war expenditures, waste and extravagance, planned emergencies, and war crises. They have debauched our money by cutting in half the purchasing power of our dollar."

 

"We shall always measure our foreign commitments so that they can be borne without endangering the economic health or sound finances of the United States. Stalin said that 'the moment for the decisive blow' would be when the free nations were isolated and were in a state of 'practical bankruptcy.' We shall not allow ourselves to be isolated and economically strangled, and we shall not let ourselves go bankrupt."

http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25837

 

 

Ron Paul says that today and he's a "kook." The whole neo-con movement is kooky if you ask me. It is almost like thinking about any issue half-way intelligently is kooky...screw fiscal policy, let's spend ourselves into oblivion.

 

At least Jim Cramer on Mad Money is saying it ius about time Ron Paul forces us to intelligently begin discussing such matters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8teEHdCrFqE

 

Strom Thurmond, a Democratic senator in 1957, opposed the civil rights act. What's your point?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strom Thurmond, a Democratic senator in 1957, opposed the civil rights act. What's your point?

What is the point of posting that on a topic about Foreign and Economic policy?

 

Excellent, perhaps we should go back to segregation and poodle skirts too.

Segregation was ended by a correct ruling by the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution. Not by our legislative branch overstepping its authority. I know Ron Paul has said that he thinks Roe v. Wade was bad decision that ought to be nullified or overturned. Would you care to point out when he has expressed any disagreement with Brown v. Board of Education? If not, please stop suggesting that he supports racial segregation.

 

Now what does it say that no one here has anything to say on the actual topic - that being the changes in the platform of the GOP, to which only Ron Paul has remained consistent in supporting the principles of fiscal responsiblity and applying them to our foreign policy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know Ron Paul has said that he thinks Roe v. Wade was bad decision that ought to be nullified or overturned.

Very bad idea.

Why? Abortion is not a constitutional right. From the Anti-Abortion perspective, laws that protect life are done at the state level. From the Pro-Abortion viewpoint, the federal government still has no constitutional authority to regulate or provide (access to) any medical procedures. If you intend to obey the constitution, no matter which side you areon, you ought to agree that it should be handled by the states.

 

But then I guess if you knowingly support a candidate who has voted pro-infanticide for babies that survive abortions (that means heart pumping, lungs breathing outside the womb) then I guess you really can be so militantly pro-abortion. Source (I'm not saying that the source is impartial, but there is nothing untrue about the fact that Obama did vote to deny medical care to living babies that survived abortions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you ban abortion, it doesn't END abortion. It's just going to get more people killed in back alleys to have them from poor sanitation.

I never advocated banning abortion, entirely or in part. I said that the federal government has no authority to decide on it, whether you view it as murder(for which laws are passed at the state level) or you view it as simply a medical procedure (which the federal government has no authority to regulate).

 

But if you wish, banning abortion might also *gasp* reduce abortions. It might also eliminate the notion that abortions are an acceptable form of birth control.

 

And Hell, there is that little issue of protecting lives. If we recognize that life begins before birth (and I am not suggesting at conception), than abortions, at least past a certain point, are murder. So when you talk about more people getting killed in back alleys, remember that people are getting killed right now in hospitals. Babies that have even come out of the womb after failed abortions are left to die.

 

And just since I always hear this same tired argument for legalizing all abortion, would you care to give me some kind of statistics on the amount of women dying from "back alley" abortions before Roe v Wade? I'm not saying I will flip-flop if you give me them, but I am just curious if you really have this well thought out.

 

And hey, just for the Hell of it, anyone want to address the original post? Maybe postulate a theory as to why the GOP stopped caring about the value of the US dollar or endorsing this crazy notion that the government shouldn't spend more money than it has.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you ban abortion, it doesn't END abortion. It's just going to get more people killed in back alleys to have them from poor sanitation.

 

And hey, just for the Hell of it, anyone want to address the original post? Maybe postulate a theory as to why the GOP stopped caring about the value of the US dollar or endorsing this crazy notion that the government shouldn't spend more money than it has.

 

 

It isn't that far of a stretch to say times and situations have changed since 1952. I get what you are trying to say, but I don't think this is a good way to pose it.

 

BTW: should be fun to watch how much money he raises in four hours. :thumbup

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was trying to remind people what conservatism used to be. Even Bush espoused it 8 years ago:

That's what conservatism was before 911 f***ed our minds.

 

 

The Cold War and the Korean Conflict parallels the War on Terrorism and the Iraq Conflict...both cost billions upon billions and seem endless. We are still in Korea. So, yeah, this is 60 years ago, but look how many mistakes we have made in the last 60 yyears by not standing by true conservative principles.

 

There is only so long the US can afford its foreign policy. If you want to be in Iraq for 50 years (or leave 6 years from now in disgrace), then don't vote for Paul.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And hey, just for the Hell of it, anyone want to address the original post? Maybe postulate a theory as to why the GOP stopped caring about the value of the US dollar or endorsing this crazy notion that the government shouldn't spend more money than it has.

 

 

It isn't that far of a stretch to say times and situations have changed since 1952. I get what you are trying to say, but I don't think this is a good way to pose it.

 

BTW: should be fun to watch how much money he raises in four hours. :thumbup

Thanks for at least engaging the discussion. And yes it should be fun.

 

While I think one can argue that foreign policy wise, things have changed (9/11!!), on the monetary side of it, the dollar went from having lost 50% of its value to having lost 96% of its value. There is not that much left, and you would figure that would make it more of an issue, not less.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I know Ron Paul has said that he thinks Roe v. Wade was bad decision that ought to be nullified or overturned.

Very bad idea.

Overturning Roe v. Wade will not instantly ban abortion nationwide. Plenty of states made abortions legal before Roe. It will permit states to ban it again, but it won't mean an instant nationwide all-situation ban.

 

Roe v. Wade was about a woman who wasn't allowed to get an abortion in the case of rape, and they instead decided that any restriction of abortion was unconstitutional.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you ban abortion, it doesn't END abortion. It's just going to get more people killed in back alleys to have them from poor sanitation.

 

Your opinion is based more on rhetoric than fact . As other posters have indicated if Roe vs Wade were overturned states would determine what abortion laws would be enacted . The issue should like have been debated and decided by the public not super imposed by the judicial branch which is why we often have judicial decisions that are in direct conflict with previous rulings . The notion of a back alley abortion would only apply to a retarded person who wouldnt realize that a trip across the stateline wouild get the job done . Even in South Dakota a conservative state I believe in 06 an ballot measure that stated should roe vs wade be overturned the state would ban abortion . That measured failed so it more than likely that most states would allow some form of abortion, and if your state band abortion you are have the freedom to move to a different state

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unfortunately for you guys, our core constitutional rights aren't contingent on where we live. If a state banned any extra-marital relationships, we would all be just as much in arms because it violates the fundamental principles of due process.

That's quite a bit different from legalizing the killing of a viable unborn child that could survive outside the womb before they get there. It is not a core-constitutional right.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strom Thurmond, a Democratic senator in 1957, opposed the civil rights act. What's your point?

What is the point of posting that on a topic about Foreign and Economic policy?

 

Excellent, perhaps we should go back to segregation and poodle skirts too.

Segregation was ended by a correct ruling by the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution. Not by our legislative branch overstepping its authority. I know Ron Paul has said that he thinks Roe v. Wade was bad decision that ought to be nullified or overturned. Would you care to point out when he has expressed any disagreement with Brown v. Board of Education? If not, please stop suggesting that he supports racial segregation.

 

Now what does it say that no one here has anything to say on the actual topic - that being the changes in the platform of the GOP, to which only Ron Paul has remained consistent in supporting the principles of fiscal responsiblity and applying them to our foreign policy.

 

Don't forget poodle skirts....

 

The only point is that times change. Toss on another 12 years and you can add isolationism to the GOP platform, and Ron Paul hearkens back to the 1930 GOP in more ways than one.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strom Thurmond, a Democratic senator in 1957, opposed the civil rights act. What's your point?

What is the point of posting that on a topic about Foreign and Economic policy?

 

Excellent, perhaps we should go back to segregation and poodle skirts too.

Segregation was ended by a correct ruling by the Supreme Court interpreting the Constitution. Not by our legislative branch overstepping its authority. I know Ron Paul has said that he thinks Roe v. Wade was bad decision that ought to be nullified or overturned. Would you care to point out when he has expressed any disagreement with Brown v. Board of Education? If not, please stop suggesting that he supports racial segregation.

 

Now what does it say that no one here has anything to say on the actual topic - that being the changes in the platform of the GOP, to which only Ron Paul has remained consistent in supporting the principles of fiscal responsiblity and applying them to our foreign policy.

 

Don't forget poodle skirts....

 

The only point is that times change. Toss on another 12 years and you can add isolationism to the GOP platform, and Ron Paul hearkens back to the 1930 GOP in more ways than one.

Or if you listen to George Bush's debates in 2000, Paul harkens vback to a daunting 7 years ago! :o

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Or if you listen to George Bush's debates in 2000, Paul harkens vback to a daunting 7 years ago! :o

 

The world has not changed in 7 years, nor has it changed in 55 years.

So, one terrorist attack means we should not revisit a fairly popular and arguably better approach to foreign policy? That's silly. The "blow sh*t up around the world and make more enemies" approach to foreign policy has not been paying enough dividends so that I would be so uncritical of it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well, I certainly agree that our current foreign policy is having the opposite effect it was intended to have (at least I think so...).

 

It's crucial for the country to re-establish its international alliances that we have abandoned, and deal with as many enemies as possible at the negotiating table. It's doubtful that there are that many countries we can't negotiate with, if we can manage to convince North Korea to shut down their nuke program.

 

We have to do something about China's stranglehold over our debt. They have the ability to crash our economy if they wanted, although it would also hurt theirs significantly. That could change in the future.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...