Ronald Reagan quote

[ultraranger]

Quotes of Thomas Jefferson;

"I predict future happiness for Americans, if they can prevent the government from wasting the labors of the people under the pretense of taking care of them."

"I sincerely believe that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies, and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale."

"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

"And to preserve their independence, we must not let our rulers load us with perpetual debt. We must make our election between economy and liberty, or profusion and servitude. If we run into such debts, as that we must be taxed in our meat and in our drink, in our necessaries and our comforts, in our labors and our amusements, for our callings and our creeds, as the people of England are, our people, like them, must come to labor sixteen hours in the twenty-four, give the earnings of fifteen of these to the government for their debts and daily expenses; and the sixteenth being insufficient to afford us bread, we must live, as they now do, on oatmeal and potatoes; have no time to think, no means of calling the mismanagers to account; but be glad to obtain subsistence by hiring ourselves to rivet their chains on the necks of our fellow-sufferers."


And from Benjamin Franklin;

”Those who give up their liberty for more security neither deserve liberty nor security.”

[chad67]

I was watching a show a while back and it was talking about Thomas Jefferson. At one point in his career, he defended a religious organization in a free speech case. He told his client that he did not agree with what they said, but he would defend their right to say it. Our government needs to realize that they can't legislate their version of morality into people. I believe wholehearedly in personal freedom, and it seems to be coming under attack more every day. If my neighbor can complain that I have a car on my property (for which I worked hard to pay for and pay taxes on every year) which is not licenced and it is considered a "public nuicance", how long until they can legislate what flowers we can grow or what colors of siding are "acceptable"? They may not like how my unlicenced truck looks as they look at MY property, what if I am nauseated by their Snobmobile? I say, "They have the right to buy what they want" (which I truly believe) while they can call the city to rid their town of my "eyesore." Free speech, and personal freedom in general, should not be limited by what others don't want us to say or do as long as they don't infringe on the freedom of others.

[68RGR]

My solution on an unlicensed truck was to spend $100 and about a day to build a privacy fence so my neighbors could no longer see my parts truck. Out of sight, out of mind.

It was alreadt pretty hidden behind the house but it could still be seen by a couple of neighbors. No one complained or even mentioned it. But, I felt like I'd be better off if they couldn't see it. Sort of like this: If they couldn't see it, I didn't have to worry if they would see it and complain. But, even more, THEY wouldn't have to worry about seeing it! Now, for all they know, it might not even be there. You know, the old reality/perception thing. Now, instead of thinking of me as the guy "with that old ugly truck" in his yard, they might even be thinking, "How considerate, he built a fence just for me." Or, they could be wondering 'just what's going on behind that fence . . .?'

Sort of like the seat belt thing, I do it for me and for them.

Of course, WAY back in the 70s, my employer required seat belt use. Sent us to multiple defensive driving courses (every 3 years, I think) which emphasized many good habits. For a while, I wore them at work and not otherwise. Sort of my own little protest. After a while, not having a seat belt on felt weird. So, it became a habit.

Helmets are another thing - Back when I had a bike, I wore a full face helmet. I never liked the taste of bugs or being debilitated when one got in my eye from back when Honda and Suzuki were selling 80/90 cc models and helmets were for girls. That thing was hot as you know what even when it was 70 degrees. It limited my riding because it was hot. So, I sold the v-twins and kept the helmet for tornadoes!

And, NO! I won't wear it while driving for me or you or anyone! Well, unless there's a tornado . . .

[motzingg]

yeah, i think most of you got the point, i don't listen to much rap and if i do its not audible to others... i also don't burn tires but its interesting that all of you seem to object to the rap over the tires! my neighbor thinks she has the RIGHT to look out her window without seeing my eyesore of a truck!

the seat belt thing is a good example... when you don't wear a motorcycle helmet or a seatbelt, and your kids grow up with out a father or mother, they are probably a lot more likely to steal radios or get pregnant before they can afford it. who cares, you'll be dead and wont have to deal with the consequences!

'course the same thing is true about eating 3 big mac's every day and dying early from a heart attack. You could make an argument that driving a 10 mpg truck around that dumps out pollution is a socially irresponsible thing to do, funds radical islam due to oil imports, maybe even costs a couple folks in dearborn their job when you don't buy a new f-150 every 5 years.

its a pretty fine line and we've spent the better part of 230-odd years trying to figure out exactly where the line is drawn. heck we went to war with each other because some of us were trying to tell others that we didn't have the 'right' to own black people... if you want to talk about a divisive time in american politics!

I guess my point is, its a lot more nuanced than the gipper makes it sound. He's famous for those sound bites that make you feel all warm and down-homesy inside, but they don't really hold up to logic, especially the 'judge a man by what he does not what he says' thing. Not to mention the obvious hipocracy when you apply that to his drug policy!

[68RGR]

when you don't wear a motorcycle helmet or a seatbelt, and your kids grow up with out a father or mother, they are probably a lot more likely to steal radios or get pregnant before they can afford it. who cares, you'll be dead and wont have to deal with the consequences!

You left out 'get high while listening to (c)rap music' !!

Tell you what, clone Reagan and I'll vote for him 98 more times to make it an even hundred . . . OK, well, maybe 6 or 7 more times . . . Don't think I'll be voting in 2406!

[chad67]

I got a visit from the Nazis..er...code enforcement officials a few months ago. I bought a replacement cab for my '67 and apparently that was a bad thing. According to him (and verified by me requesting a copy of the ordinance), a person is only allowed to have 2 unlicenced vehicles or PARTS from 2 vehicles on their property at one time-anywhere-including inside a building. The tally was: #1-my truck #2-my cab #3-an orange tailgate I have. I told him I would build a fence-not good enough. He said he would stop by every 72 hours and write me a ticket, searching my property-getting a warrant if I refused to give them entry. Every part they could verify came from a different vehicle would earn me another ticket. I have alot of parts in my garage...but since he had only seen the 3, the tailgate disappeared... This has to be an infringement on my rights.. But the kicker is, these are the types of bogus programs that they keep raising our taxes to pay for. I think these people had to have been hall monitors in school..

[Petewrench]

heck we went to war with each other because some of us were trying to tell others that we didn't have the 'right' to own black people... if you want to talk about a divisive time in american politics!

The Emancipation Proclamation Happened During the war, and was done so because the Yanks were Gettin' Their Arse Kicked, and needed more troops. The War was actually over Taxation. The north taxed southern made goods, but refused to pay a Tariff the other way.

Any hoo, The town I lived in in RI, had an ordinance of 4 unregistered vehicles, in varying states of restoration so, I made sure I had that many Bumps in the yard at any given time! Drove the Constable, and the neighbors NUTS!
Love It where I live now, Some neighbors have more junk than me!

[ultraranger]

heck we went to war with each other because some of us were trying to tell others that we didn't have the 'right' to own black people... if you want to talk about a divisive time in american politics!

The Emancipation Proclamation Happened During the war, and was done so because the Yanks were Gettin' Their Arse Kicked, and needed more troops. The War was actually over Taxation. The north taxed southern made goods, but refused to pay a Tariff the other way.

Any hoo, The town I lived in in RI, had an ordinance of 4 unregistered vehicles, in varying states of restoration so, I made sure I had that many Bumps in the yard at any given time! Drove the Constable, and the neighbors NUTS!
Love It where I live now, Some neighbors have more junk than me!

This is historical fact. Only slaves in the rebellion states, outside the control of the Union, were declared 'free' halfway through the war (1863). The 4 Union states that still held slaves during the time of the Civil War [1861-1865]; Delaware, Kentucky, Maryland, and Missouri, did not free their slaves until after the wars end in 1865.

http://www.civilwarhome.com/slavery.html

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Border_s ... Civil_War)

For the first half of the war (1861-1863), the Confederate army was winning the majority of the battles. Midway through the war, 1863, Lincoln needed a 'cause' to rally Union enlistment to turn the tide. The cry for emancipation was the 'cause.' --Rather odd to declare halfway through the war you're going to 'free slaves' in non-Union states when their own (Union) territory had slave states too (?). If the declaration to free slaves (only in the rebellious states) didn't come about until the middle of the war, then, what was the reason for the Union army to invade the south during the first half of the war? (rhetorical question there).

Slavery was not a southern institution only thing. The north was guilty as well. It just hasn't been portrayed that way because the victors in any war are the ones who write the history books. The north has been portrayed as being the 'good guys' while the terrible south has been made out to be the villains. Wrong is wrong no matter what side it comes from.

Another thing that's not taught in American History class is the fact that there were American Indians that owned black slaves, or the fact that there were blacks who owned black slaves.

The first person in the U.S. to ever be granted the legal right to own a black slave was Anthony Johnson in 1655. Johnson had formerly been a slave himself. (Whites could not legally hold slaves until 1670). Anthony Johnson was a black man who in 1655 was given legal right to own John Casor (a black man).

http://topconservativenews.com/2012/03/ ... black-man/

http://www.blackpast.org/aah/johnson-anthony-1670


However, before there were black slaves in America, there were white slaves who received just as brutal treatment and in some cases far worse than that of black slaves. It's the history of America that's either forgotten or purposely not mentioned in history classes, possibly because it doesn't fit the narrative of what they want students to be taught.

The word 'slave' comes from the word 'Slav.' The Slavs weren't black people. They were white Europeans abducted (or 'kid nabbed' at it was called, for the purpose of slavery.

http://www.saveyourheritage.com/white_slavery.htm

http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-irish- ... aves/31076

[67mann]

However, before there were black slaves in America, there were white slaves who received just as brutal treatment and in some cases far worse than that of black slaves. It's the history of America that's either forgotten or purposely not mentioned in history classes, possibly because it doesn't fit the narrative of what they want students to be taught.

The New Slave is called the Middle Class and the rich and political are buying us up in droves. Free to think we are free...that's it

[motzingg]

ah, at the risk of adding to the fray... history is pretty subjective, i don't mean to put words in your forefather's mouths (as a yank) but Vice President Alexander Stephens said in 1861, regarding the constitution of the CSA:

The new Constitution has put at rest forever all the agitating questions relating to our peculiar institutions—African slavery as it exists among us—the proper status of the negro in our form of civilization. This was the immediate cause of the late rupture and present revolution. Jefferson, in his forecast, had anticipated this, as the "rock upon which the old Union would split." He was right. What was conjecture with him, is now a realized fact. But whether he fully comprehended the great truth upon which that rock stood and stands, may be doubted. The prevailing ideas entertained by him and most of the leading statesmen at the time of the formation of the old Constitution were, that the enslavement of the African was in violation of the laws of nature; that it was wrong in principle, socially, morally and politically. It was an evil they knew not well how to deal with; but the general opinion of the men of that day was, that, somehow or other, in the order of Providence, the institution would be evanescent and pass away... Those ideas, however, were fundamentally wrong. They rested upon the assumption of the equality of races. This was an error. It was a sandy foundation, and the idea of a Government built upon it—when the "storm came and the wind blew, it fell."

Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and moral condition.

. . . look with confidence to the ultimate universal acknowledgement of the truths upon which our system rests? It is the first government ever instituted upon the principles in strict conformity to nature, and the ordination of Providence, in furnishing the materials of human society. Many governments have been founded upon the principle of the subordination and serfdom of certain classes of the same race; such were and are in violation of the laws of nature. Our system commits no such violation of nature's laws."

So you can see where that could be a little confusing...ha ha! I don't think the CSA seceded after Lincoln's election due to fears of him raising taxes! It was a combination of factors, both moral and economic, but its impossible to argue that one demographic, believed it was their constitutional right to own slaves, the same way we still fight about our rights when they encroach on each others' rights.

Personally I'm a libertarian, I believe in states rights as defined in the constitution. It would have been interesting to see what would have happened had Lincoln said 'good to know ya' and let the south do its own thing. That debate is really well outside the original topic. The point i'm trying to make about hipocracy and 'freedom' is that almost any choice you make has a larger impact on society.. unless you live alone in a cabin in the woods. Even a 'personal' decision like wearing your seatbelt or burning a pile of tires or listening to music impacts the people around them and impinges on their perceived rights.

I guess what bothers me is when people make simplistic statements, sound bites, i.e. the quote, and the original topic of discussion. You say 'hey i agree with that' but it doesn't make any sense because if Reagan had actually believed that he would have let people make the choice to do drugs, just as an example. As our first hollywood liberal/professional actor president there is a lot of other stuff that he did that doesn't jive with the spirit of that sound bite. I'll play the devil's advocate with my liberal friends as well, because if they want to complain about gay marriage or something like that, they're probably all in favor of restricting someone else's freedom in another way.

Seems like the mentality is all too common in politics today. Folks that only watch/read/listen to media that reinforces what they already think, without considering how it impacts others, their morals, or strongly held beliefs. This might not be the right place for it, but whenever i encounter that mindset I like to challenge people to think about it from an alternative point of view. I'm pretty sure if i had made a comment on a 'gardening' forum about parking rusty trucks in your yard, those folks would be about as offended as y'all were about the rap thing.

[91Bear]

The president makes promises and, later, ignores or flat out lies about them. Where IS the shame?

You know, I don't want to get into a political discussion about this but I assume your comment refers to our current President. If you are trying to compare him (as a liar) to Ronald Reagan, please remember Reagan's "We did not -- repeat -- did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages. Nor will we." regarding the Iran-Contra scandal. That was a flat-out lie.

"I did not have sex with that woman - Miss Lewinsky." - Clinton

“The lie we told [about the U-2]. I didn’t realize how high a price we were going to pay for that lie.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower, U.S. president, 1953-1961

Nixon - all of Watergate

Kennedy - too numerous to list here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... ces-video/

[motzingg]

Merry Christmas, Hessians!

[ultraranger]

Merry Christmas, Hessians!

...actually, that's historically incorrect. In that December, during the battle of Trenton, the Hessian troops were singing, We Wish You a Merry Christmas, as Colonel Rall had a meeting with Commander Von Donop. The Hessian troops were singing. Washington didn't wish the Hessians a Merry Christmas.

[crazyhorse]

The president makes promises and, later, ignores or flat out lies about them. Where IS the shame?

You know, I don't want to get into a political discussion about this but I assume your comment refers to our current President. If you are trying to compare him (as a liar) to Ronald Reagan, please remember Reagan's "We did not -- repeat -- did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages. Nor will we." regarding the Iran-Contra scandal. That was a flat-out lie.

"I did not have sex with that woman - Miss Lewinsky." - Clinton

“The lie we told [about the U-2]. I didn’t realize how high a price we were going to pay for that lie.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower, U.S. president, 1953-1961

Nixon - all of Watergate

Kennedy - too numerous to list here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... ces-video/

Mr Bear, thanks for posting this and also the link.
I saved it for future use It may remind some folk of the truth which seems very scarce these days.

[68RGR]

The president makes promises and, later, ignores or flat out lies about them. Where IS the shame?

You know, I don't want to get into a political discussion about this but I assume your comment refers to our current President. If you are trying to compare him (as a liar) to Ronald Reagan, please remember Reagan's "We did not -- repeat -- did not trade weapons or anything else for hostages. Nor will we." regarding the Iran-Contra scandal. That was a flat-out lie.

"I did not have sex with that woman - Miss Lewinsky." - Clinton

“The lie we told [about the U-2]. I didn’t realize how high a price we were going to pay for that lie.” – Dwight D. Eisenhower, U.S. president, 1953-1961

Nixon - all of Watergate

Kennedy - too numerous to list here.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fac ... ces-video/

Perhaps, BUT . . . Reagan never made a promise to us and turned around and denied making it!

ALL politicians lie. Just like everyone of us. To me, politically and, even, diplomatically, strategically, etc., politicians are often forced to lie. It is the nature of the job.

The same cannot be said of a promise made to the electorate by a sitting president. In my opinion, there is no need to compare the current president to Reagan because there is none.