Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» Allstocks.com's Bulletin Board » Off-Topic Post, Non Stock Talk » Short Bio's on Founding Fathers or conservative role models (Page 2)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   
Author Topic: Short Bio's on Founding Fathers or conservative role models
jordanreed
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for jordanreed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
quote:
Originally posted by jordanreed:
in money, how much they own, personal liberty to screw anyone who doesnt believe as they do, infringing controlling laws(government) to keep in line the less fortunate, screw the planet, f the environment, keep vices illegal for their self-interest cronies...you want more?

Yes, please. And if you manage this time with any degree of serious dialogue I'd be much obliged.
entirely serious,my friend...you see..I like to see things as they are..you, on the other hand, like to believe the rhetoric......

you conservatives like to paint a rosy picture of yourselves, you see yourselves as some kind of little house on the prairie scenario..and its just so much b.s...holier than thou...hypocrites.liars and cheats..falling back on some a false religious belief, when in fact, you are so far strayed from any religious principles. not that I am religious in any way, but I dont pretend to be either.

--------------------
jordan

Posts: 5812 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
oh yeah Sam Adams was not a brewer either [Wink]

Born in Boston, Adams was brought up in a religious and politically active family. A graduate of Harvard College, he was an unsuccessful businessman and tax collector before concentrating on politics.

sounds like most politicians to me [Big Grin]

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jordanreed
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for jordanreed     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
...and when you talk about being serious?..you cant possibly mean that this is being serious..

"That is what the 'conservatives' look on with fondness. That instead of being bought off, cowered by fear or stagnated by apathy; normal men with normal personality flaws stood up and did what needed to be done"


and if so?..you have the typical conservative view of yourself..which, of course, is entirely false.

--------------------
jordan

Posts: 5812 | From: st paul,mn | Registered: Feb 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Since you still don't seem to get it, Jordan, let me spell it out.

You...are...generalizing...

Clear enough?

You are labeling ALL conservatives\conservatism as a whole by using some (well publicized) examples of those who claim the title yet don't 'walk the walk'.

I could do the same with Dems, liberals, Obama-ites, etc. It would not do any justice to the conversation to do so though so I haven't.

Conservatism(or any other way of thought\life) should be judged by the effect on those that DO live by it, rather than by those that fail to do so.

Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
what's your point? the Navigation Acts were repealed long before the Revolution began... they began in the 1600's and were ended in 1849.

so toss that one. the Writs of assistance were also primarily a function of enforcing the navigation act. They were basically blank warrants that allowed th eholder to do what he/she did int eh Name of the King... the Patriot Act was written by "conservatives" and does pretty much the same thing.

What was the date of the Revolutionary War? I'm pretty (really) sure that it was within that time frame... [Smile]


And I've never said...ever...that I support the Patriot act.

Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
i miswrote. i was getting different acts mixed up... ( i wasn't actually there [Big Grin] )

the nav actS were a group of laws, not just one, the Colonists rarely if ever had any of the navigation acts enforced on them. they were finally repealed due to lack of ability to enforce them anywhere due to smuggling.

it was the molasses act that was repealed before the revolution and replaced with the sugar act which was also repealed before the revolution...

the mantra still remained "no taxation without representation"... which they (rightly) deemed Tyranny...

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
The Bigfoot
Member


Member Rated:
4
Icon 1 posted      Profile for The Bigfoot     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
From what I am reading...returning to a gold standard would require either removing a full 50-60% of the current money supply in America or raising the price of gold 100-120% to cover the difference in gold supply versus current money supply which would drastically increase the cost of electronics and other goods that use gold as a medium.

That by itself tells me we would have to massively deflate our economy in order to return to the gold standard.

--------------------
No longer eligible for government service due to lack of tax issues.

Posts: 5178 | From: Up North | Registered: Dec 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
Since you still don't seem to get it, Jordan, let me spell it out.

You...are...generalizing...

Clear enough?

You are labeling ALL conservatives\conservatism as a whole by using some (well publicized) examples of those who claim the title yet don't 'walk the walk'.

I could do the same with Dems, liberals, Obama-ites, etc. It would not do any justice to the conversation to do so though so I haven't.

Conservatism(or any other way of thought\life) should be judged by the effect on those that DO live by it, rather than by those that fail to do so.

so, tell me who is a Real Conservative? and when was th elast one inoffice?

Don't hand me Reagan either cuz he was pretty liberal compared to the "Conservative standards" most often offered up today ...

he increased federal spending deficits and he was for progressive taxation:

In 1980, the last year of Jimmy Carter’s presidency, government outlays were running at 21.7% of GDP and the budget deficit was 2.7% of GDP. (The economy was also a basket case, which is when you would expect budget deficits to be at their worse.) In 1988, Reagan’s last year in office, outlays as a percent of GDP were running at 21.3% with a deficit of 3.1% of GDP. The budget deficit over Reagan’s eight years averaged 4.2% and ran as high as 6.0% in 1983.

Bush entered office with an economy that was booming: in 2000 government outlays ran at 18.4% of GDP with a budget surplus of 2.4%. But the stock market implosion, 9/11 and the war quickly changed the budget dynamics and the surplus switched to a deficit of 3.5% in 2003 and 3.6% in 2004. In 2005, the budget deficit came in at 2.6%, with government outlays running at 20.1% of GDP


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_17_06_JM.html

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
i recomend reading that whole article i linked,
from:

February 17, 2006
Reagan vs. Bush: Federal Spending and Budget Deficits
By John McIntyre

Ryan Sager reports that at last week's 33rd annual Conservative Political Action Conference in Washington, on the issue of federal spending many were pushing for a return to Reagan policies versus those of this President Bush. Rep. Mike Spence told the audience:

Whether it's called 'compassionate conservatism' or 'big government Republicanism,' after years of record increases in federal spending, more government is now the accepted Republican philosophy in Washington.

What is not fully appreciated in analyzing the Bush legacy is that the combination of the stock market implosion (Nasdaq: 5,000 – 1100, S&P: 1500 - 800 ) and the economic impact of 9/11 created a perfect storm of forces that came perilously close to tipping the economy into a deflationary depression. The tandem of the Bush tax cuts (and deficits) coupled with the FED’s fire hose of money led by a 1% FED Funds rate saved the economy from a real disaster. Given the circumstances Bush inherited in his first 18 months in office, the economic growth we have sustained over the last 4 years is nothing short of miraculous. And when it comes to talking about spending and deficits, growth is the most important factor – something critics of the President seem quick to overlook.

It wasn’t Bill Clinton or the GOP Congress that ultimately balanced the budget in the late 90’s, it was the growth of the US economy and the corresponding tidal wave of additional revenue. Conservatives may harp on President Bush for increasing government outlays from 18½% to 20%, but the increase is almost exclusively spending on defense, homeland security and the war - all of which is a response to 9/11. The growth in non-security discretionary spending has been cut every year of the Bush presidency.


http://www.realclearpolitics.com/Commentary/com-2_17_06_JM.html

sheesh...

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
SeekingFreedom
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for SeekingFreedom     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks for the link, Glass. Good read.

As far as the last 'True Conservative' in office...I really can't say. As I think over the last 6 or seven presidents I don't think any of them qualify in every area. The problem I see at that level is our system is such that you have to compromise, even within your own party, to get anything done. Even though that is a good thing in general, it does not lend itself to philisophical purity. (shrug)

quote:
the mantra still remained "no taxation without representation"... which they (rightly) deemed Tyranny...
And how far off from that situation are we today? No matter how you spin the poll numbers, it is generally agreed upon that Congress is HATED for the fact that they are not doing the people's will. Add that to a President that is only representing at best 51% of the population (as of election numbers). Many of those votes were from moderates that don't agree with many of the current pushes so that number is less than that.

So how is this representation if the will of the people is not being enacted?

Posts: 1802 | From: Utah | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
raybond
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for raybond     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
well who do you consider a real conservative? Palin perhaps, Glen Beck,Hannity,or Rush they all say the same thing that there is no Real Conservatives out there. Every time you people loose you start throwing all your loud mouth leaders under the buss and accuse them of not being of pure blood. To me you sound like a convention of druggies who supply has been cut off. I thought I have heard it all but Regan and Bush are really liberals. Well I am going to my favorite liberal bar now and share this with my buddies just to get there comments.

--------------------
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.

Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
raybond
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for raybond     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Who was the last real conservation president we have had?

Why don't you take a look at Hoover fits the profile Fat,Stupid and Lazy.

--------------------
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.

Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by SeekingFreedom:
Thanks for the link, Glass. Good read.

As far as the last 'True Conservative' in office...I really can't say. As I think over the last 6 or seven presidents I don't think any of them qualify in every area. The problem I see at that level is our system is such that you have to compromise, even within your own party, to get anything done. Even though that is a good thing in general, it does not lend itself to philisophical purity. (shrug)

quote:
the mantra still remained "no taxation without representation"... which they (rightly) deemed Tyranny...
And how far off from that situation are we today? No matter how you spin the poll numbers, it is generally agreed upon that Congress is HATED for the fact that they are not doing the people's will. Add that to a President that is only representing at best 51% of the population (as of election numbers). Many of those votes were from moderates that don't agree with many of the current pushes so that number is less than that.

So how is this representation if the will of the people is not being enacted?

i think you answered the last question in the first part of your answer..

i am not happy with the our elected officials. but each of them was elected by a majority vote (unlike someone else that's gone now)

Obama? he's better than the alternatives. I was most against Hillary. Mccain? I wanted him in 2000, not '08 and esp. not with Palin, that was just crazy picking her.

Obama is not going to be as good as some hoped, and not as bad as some hope.

Bush? what a nightmare. maybe if he had the smooth sailing Clinton had? he wouldna been so bad, but he also would never have had a chance to go into Iraq if he had the smooth sailing Clinton enjoyed, Iraq being the big moneyhole he threw our money into.

Bush and the bailouts? that's another perfect example of "conservatives" being clueless. I don't care how Conservative a person is, they would go down in history as a total moron if they had not bailed out the banks. The whole system would have collapsed. He had no choice.

The stimulus package? that was a choice made, it seems to be doing some good, but if they do it again? and it doesn't do alot more obvious things than this one did? people will begin to be annoyed.

If the Dems keep spending a trillion a year they don't have? they will be gone.

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
raybond
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for raybond     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Worst Presidents: Herbert Hoover (1929-1933)
By Jay Tolson
Posted February 16, 2007

Herbert Hoover, the 31st president, and Richard Nixon, the 37th, share the ninth spot for entirely different kinds of failings. And both had offsetting qualities and achievements that keep them off the 10-worst list of some major rankings.
Slideshow: Worst Presidents

Slideshow: Worst Presidents

Hoover, elected on the eve of the Great Depression, came to the office with the skills of a consummate technocrat and manager. The Iowa native and Stanford-educated engineer ran massive relief operations in Europe both during and after World War I. He was commerce secretary under Harding and Calvin Coolidge.

Once the Depression set in, he lowered taxes and started public works projects to create jobs, but he steadfastly resisted outright relief.

Hoover's rigid adherence to conservative principles may not have been his greatest problem. A poor communicator, he came across as mean-spirited and uncaring. The homeless dubbed their make-shift shanty towns Hoovervilles.

Perhaps his single greatest policy blunder was supporting and signing into law a a tariff act that fueled international trade wars and made the Depression even worse. But style points alone would have cost him the election against FDR.

For all his good qualities, it is fair to say that Hoover failed to rise to the greatest challenge of his time.


NOW THIS IS A REAL CONSERVATIVE [Were Down]

--------------------
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.

Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
glassman
Member


Icon 1 posted      Profile for glassman     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
yes, Ray, when all the debating about whether to do the bailouts was going on? i couldn't beleive some of what i was hearing. The great depression was ALLOWED to happen.

They allowed the failures to fester and spread.

Allowing GM to fail would cost the country more in unemployment than the bailout did.
Each unemployed GM worker would surely cost two others their jobs, those two lost jobs could (given enough time) cost 4 others and so on etc.


Never mind that all of our businesses operate on revolving credit accounts today. Those accounts were in deep peril. Our food supply? I've seen relatively small farmers put half a million dollars on their credit card for fertiliser and or seed. That's a credit card, i didn't bother to ask what their land mortgage was.

--------------------
Don't envy the happiness of those who live in a fool's paradise.

Posts: 36378 | From: USA | Registered: Sep 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
CashCowMoo
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for CashCowMoo     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Can't wait for the 2010 elections.

--------------------
It isn't so much that liberals are ignorant. It's just that they know so many things that aren't so.

Posts: 6949 | Registered: Apr 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
raybond
Member


Rate Member
Icon 1 posted      Profile for raybond     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
me to the dems need a bigger majority

--------------------
Wise men learn more from fools than fools from the wise.

Posts: 3827 | From: beautiful California | Registered: Sep 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 2 pages: 1  2   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.

Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Allstocks.com Message Board Home

© 1997 - 2021 Allstocks.com. All rights reserved.

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.2

Share