4 votes

Obama: Ronald Reagan a ‘wild-eyed, socialist, tax hiking class warrior’

President Barack Obama said the proposed “Buffet Rule” could be named the “Reagan Rule,” referring to former Republican President Ronald Reagan as a “wild-eyed, Socialist, tax hiking class warrior.”

Read more: http://thedc.com/HAR2Bd

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

I was disappointed in Reagan.

I was disappointed in Reagan. He started out (running for election) in what I thought was a good way. I threw all my support behind his campaign. Once elected however he failed to attack the crux of the matter/problem; i.e., the Federal Reserve. When I saw he had no intention of dealing with the fed I became disheartened with him and politics in general. It was a real let down.

Look who's talking, you gangster....

You & your few Democrat RINOs are the biggest socialists in the union!
http://www.commieblaster.com

Ron Paul beating Obama by 2 points
http://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/polls/221163-rasmussen-o...

Sure sure

Call someone else the “wild-eyed, Socialist, tax hiking class warrior.” It's sure to hide the fact that it's you who fits that description best.

Patriot Cell #345,168
I don't respond to emails or pm's.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&feature=endscreen&v=qo8CmO...
Those who make peaceful revolution impossible will make violent revolution, inevitable.

Well lets see now....

Reagan was exactly like Ron Paul when he started out.
He came over from the Democrats however, and did not stay true to his word of smaller government either.

Of course Goldwater, he is Paul & also Reagan.

Before Reagan got taken over by the same socialists Obama attacks so regularly lately..

Reagan and Lincoln

Republicans need to stop worshiping Reagan and Lincoln.

Reagan talked the talk but he never walked the walk, and Lincoln is arguably one of the most tyrannical presidents in US history.

These two men have been turned into two dimensional caricatures who can do no wrong.

To really understand them, you have to disregard their words, and examine their actions.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Andrew Napolitano On Lincoln

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4CwkG2C5sAc&feature=related
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EBnw-wIb-AM

___________________________________________________________________________
"Bipartisan: both parties acting in concert to put both of their hands in your pocket."-Rothbard

I think you are being unfair

I think you are being unfair to both those Presidents.

Reagan invested tons of government money into government research programs that have benefited us tremendously today. Your phone, your internet, your computer, etc. No doubt these policies played a huge part in the tech boom. His high-levels of defense spending were a lot more neccesitated back then...the Soviet Union was a real threat, and we had to be prepared.

Lincoln, though he was wishy-washy at times, is the President who ended slavery. He also DID win the war (surpress the rebellion) for the union. Since the vast majority of Americans think secession is a bad thing and that being one nation is a great thing, Lincoln gets a lot of credit for pulling through with the Union intact.

These guys weren't perfect, obviously. Lincoln took a hammer to federalism, the first amendment, freedom of the media, etc. Reagan was unprecedentingly corporatist. He also pretty much started the degregation of the current Republican party into social conservatives and neoconservatives..

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Um, no.

I'm inclined to give a little credit to Reagan, since later in life he lamented that he didn't do as much to shrink government as he'd hoped, so he at least had some integrity.

Lincoln, though? The man deserved to be hanged. He single-handedly caused the deaths of 600,000+ soldiers and 50,000 civilians, not to mention killing the Constitution.

No, killing is too light a term. He murdered it, chopped it up, set it on fire, and flushed its ashes down the toilet. He started the bloodiest war in US history, and didn't even wait for a declaration of war. He trampled all over the right of secession, and his famous emancipation proclamation freed nobody and specifically exempted Union states. He arrested Maryland's legislature through MILITARY FORCE, arrested 13,000 or more for purely political reasons, and utterly stifled opposition newspapers. To top it all off, he endorsed the Unholy Trinity's (that's Grant/Sherman/Sheridan) strategy of attacking/raping/looting/murdering civilians and burning entire cities to the ground, then had the gall to declare that he had "malice toward none."

The man was 98% pure evil, 1% genius politician, and 1% self-righteous tyrant who thought his evil actions were somehow good.

"Lincoln, though? The man

"Lincoln, though? The man deserved to be hanged. He single-handedly caused the deaths of 600,000+ soldiers and 50,000 civilians, not to mention killing the Constitution."

Single-handedly? So he was the guy who carried every gun and fired every shot that killed every man?

Secession occurred before Lincoln even took office! The Southerners were that afraid he would take away their free labor. And I guess we are just ignoring Fort Sumter?

The right of secession...this is such a silly thing. You have the right to secede; the US then has the right to conquer your territories.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Let me get this straight

You are saying that:

1. Reagan was great because he spent tax dollars to subsidize the tech industry?

2. Reagan was great because he spent so much money on "defense"?

3.Lincoln was great because he was responsible for the Civil War?

4. There is no right to secede?

5. The US has the right to conquer territory?

Are you sure you are at the right website?

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

...

"1. Reagan was great because he spent tax dollars to subsidize the tech industry?"

He didn't subsidize it. He strengthened government, PUBLIC-sector research to give America a strong background. America's strong academic core was bolstered by his actions. The competition that creates great pricing and innovation in the tech industry today is largely due to the fact that so much is in the public domain since the government invented/discovered it.

Results-wise, it has helped so much!

"Reagan was great because he spent so much money on "defense"?"

The situation in the 80s does not equal the situation today. Back then, there was a credible threat. The US had to be ready for a war with the SU; we had to surpass what they were doing on defense. That isn't the case today, where the US has no clear foe yet still spends more than rest of the world on its military.

"Lincoln was great because he was responsible for the Civil War?"

Pinning the Civil War on Lincoln is worse than pinning WW2 on Hitler. There were many complex reasons for the war.

"There is no right to secede?"

Sure there is. Just as much there is a right for someone to conquer you.

If the South attacked the North, what should DC have done? "Oh well, they have the right to secede. We can't defense ourselves!"

The secession was an obvious prelude to the war.

"5. The US has the right to conquer territory?"

If you don't believe in this, then I guess the US should cede all its terrority back to the Native Americans (on behalf of the Brits as well).

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

Your entire argument is fallacies stacked on fallacies

If you can't already see the blatant and glaring problems in your own arguments, then its not even worth my time to get into it.

So, I'll leave you with this:

Non-Aggression Principle, look it up.

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Forcing others to accept the

Forcing others to accept the non-aggression principle is in itself a violation of the non-aggression principle.

Moreover, "non-aggression" can be defined very loosely or very tightly.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

NAP is forceful? Thats a laugh and a half!

I don't think you fully understand what the Non-Aggression Principle is, or how it works.

There is absolutely no coercion involved.

You have a lot to learn my friend, get back to reading.

"No one may threaten or commit violence ('aggress') against another man's person or property. Violence may be employed only against the man who commits such violence; that is, only defensively against the aggressive violence of another. In short, no violence may be employed against a nonaggressor. Here is the fundamental rule from which can be deduced the entire corpus of libertarian theory." - Murray Rothbard

"Rightful liberty is unobstructed action according to our will within limits drawn around us by the equal rights of others. I do not add 'within the limits of the law', because law is often but the tyrant's will, and always so when it violates the rights of the individual." and "No man has a natural right to commit aggression on the equal rights of another, and this is all from which the laws ought to restrain him." - Thomas Jefferson

I truly want to help you out, but you have to be willing to learn.

Here are some more resources:

Visit these youtube channels, LearnLiberty especially, it will require a bit of your time, but if you are willing to learn its all there.

http://www.youtube.com/user/LearnLiberty?ob=0&feature=result...

http://www.youtube.com/user/misesmedia?ob=4&feature=results_...

http://www.youtube.com/user/TomWoodsTV?ob=0&feature=results_...

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Using government law to

Using government law to enforce NAP is itself a use of force, no?

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

You are still not getting it.

Saying you are forcing the NAP on someone is like saying you coerced a robber not to rob you when you defended yourself.

Are you violating the robbers rights? No, you are defending yourself and your rights.

Force is only justified in defense of person or property.

It is the initiation of force that is wrong, self-defense is a justified response to it.

With or without government the NAP still applies(government is the biggest violator of the Non-Aggression Principle)

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Property is itself a

Property is itself a state-created idea. In nature, you have no "right" to any kind of property.

Even applying the NAP to everyone else is a use of force. Why should they have to live by your rules?

If you don't have government, and you act against someone on the belief of the NAP, you are forcing that person to answer to your morality. If you do have government, and you use government force to enforce NAP, you are doing the same thing.

Plan for eliminating the national debt in 10-20 years:

Overview: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2010/09/12/my-plan-for-reducin...

Specific cuts; defense spending: http://rolexian.wordpress.com/2011/01/03/more-detailed-look-a

LOL

"Property is itself a state-created idea. In nature, you have no "right" to any kind of property."

Excuse me for a second 'komrade',I need a moment to contain my laughter!

Are you serious?

How do you live in constant contradiction, and cognitive dissonance?

Now, I am really convinced that trying to reason with you is totally futile.

You believe the government has a right to conquer people, you don't see anything inherently wrong with government spending, and now you don't believe in Natural Rights!

ARE YOU SURE YOU ARE ON THE RIGHT WEBSITE?

Check out the Laissez-Faire Journal at LFJournal.com


"The State is a gang of thieves writ large." - Murray Rothbard

Let me see...

Even though his advisors warned him that it would start war, he sent ships to resupply Fort Sumter. You do realize that Sumter at that point was property of the Confederacy, right? There was NOT a supply issue at the Fort. Lincoln's supply ships had men and weapons. He KNEW the Confederacy would be forced to either,

1) Fire on the Fort, giving him the opportunity to unilaterally start a war, or

2) Let the ships in, undermining the Confederacy's attempt to be recognized as a nation.

A letter of his after the firing made it very clear that forcing the Confederacy to fire was his objective. Then, he unilaterally called for an invasion of the Confederacy.

All of this he did without Congress's approval. So yes, he SINGLE-HANDEDLY caused 650,000+ deaths.

As for being afraid he'd take away their "free labor," you are ignoring facts AGAIN, like every other worshipper of the false god known as Lincoln. He supported an amendment that would make slavery PERMANENT! Even better, my own state, the Old Dominion, Tennessee, and Arkansas all seceded AFTER Lincoln unilaterally began his war.

I also love how you ignore all of his other crimes. The man made the worst slaveowner in the South look like a paragon of morality and justice.

That war was entirely Lincoln's doing, and every single death is on his head.

Now that I think about it, I guess Hitler shouldn't be held accountable for the six million Jews who died - after all, he didn't personally force them into the gas chambers, did he? What about Stalin and all those who died under him?

Slavery, shmavery.

I of course grew up hearing all about the guy whose face graces the penny, and what a great president he was, but since I've come to States' rights and understand the Constitution, whenever I think of him all I can think of is that he's the only president (so far) that has ACTUALLY DECLARED WAR on HIS OWN COUNTRY! How does that make him different than other dictators that have slaughtered their own citizens? Whatever his reasons might have been, this is an absolutely inexcusable act. Imagine the untold number of Americans that were slaughtered because of his acts, and preserving something that can only be preserved with so much bloodshed (especially of our own citizens) is just not worth preserving, in my opinion.