HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » General Discussion (Forum) » DU may have to TS me - I ...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 07:29 PM

DU may have to TS me - I agree 100% with this Republican talking point

103 replies, 18253 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 103 replies Author Time Post
Reply DU may have to TS me - I agree 100% with this Republican talking point (Original post)
OmahaBlueDog Aug 2012 OP
hlthe2b Aug 2012 #1
Gothmog Aug 2012 #11
NNN0LHI Aug 2012 #28
rockingirl Aug 2012 #56
bornskeptic Aug 2012 #95
Jackpine Radical Aug 2012 #100
Art_from_Ark Aug 2012 #33
NNN0LHI Aug 2012 #34
amandabeech Aug 2012 #55
Blanks Aug 2012 #84
cascadiance Aug 2012 #85
Art_from_Ark Aug 2012 #103
Jakes Progress Aug 2012 #89
Booster Aug 2012 #25
FailureToCommunicate Aug 2012 #38
nightscanner59 Aug 2012 #53
xxqqqzme Aug 2012 #72
a2liberal Aug 2012 #68
FailureToCommunicate Aug 2012 #77
Booster Aug 2012 #71
FailureToCommunicate Aug 2012 #78
Jakes Progress Aug 2012 #90
A Simple Game Aug 2012 #64
Javaman Aug 2012 #79
INdemo Aug 2012 #83
SemperEadem Aug 2012 #96
Glaisne Aug 2012 #98
Tennessee Gal Aug 2012 #2
spartan61 Aug 2012 #3
xtraxritical Aug 2012 #63
rbrnmw Aug 2012 #4
LeftofObama Aug 2012 #5
Zorra Aug 2012 #87
Barry2012 Aug 2012 #6
Major Hogwash Aug 2012 #7
irisblue Aug 2012 #97
datasuspect Aug 2012 #8
YellaDog1950 Aug 2012 #60
heaven05 Aug 2012 #9
baldguy Aug 2012 #10
calimary Aug 2012 #18
dsteve01 Aug 2012 #12
Raine1967 Aug 2012 #13
KG Aug 2012 #14
riverbendviewgal Aug 2012 #15
90-percent Aug 2012 #23
OmahaBlueDog Aug 2012 #48
Moostache Aug 2012 #91
whatchamacallit Aug 2012 #16
get the red out Aug 2012 #17
FiveGoodMen Aug 2012 #19
a2liberal Aug 2012 #69
russspeakeasy Aug 2012 #20
Jeff In Milwaukee Aug 2012 #21
jsr Aug 2012 #22
Vidar Aug 2012 #24
MADem Aug 2012 #26
Wednesdays Aug 2012 #57
orpupilofnature57 Aug 2012 #27
Hoyt Aug 2012 #29
Turbineguy Aug 2012 #30
patrice Aug 2012 #31
AnotherMcIntosh Aug 2012 #32
snappyturtle Aug 2012 #44
rbrnmw Aug 2012 #50
aquart Aug 2012 #35
Vogon_Glory Aug 2012 #36
Vogon_Glory Aug 2012 #36
snappyturtle Aug 2012 #42
bigbrother05 Aug 2012 #39
Wednesdays Aug 2012 #58
BrainMann1 Aug 2012 #40
Texasgal Aug 2012 #41
WhoIsNumberNone Aug 2012 #43
hay rick Aug 2012 #45
a2liberal Aug 2012 #70
Lydia Leftcoast Aug 2012 #46
indepat Aug 2012 #47
Rosa Luxemburg Aug 2012 #49
orpupilofnature57 Aug 2012 #51
Odin2005 Aug 2012 #52
AtomicKitten Aug 2012 #54
FreeBC Aug 2012 #74
elleng Aug 2012 #59
B Calm Aug 2012 #61
Laura PourMeADrink Aug 2012 #62
ronwelldobbs Aug 2012 #65
4lbs Aug 2012 #66
Chef Eric Aug 2012 #75
WhoIsNumberNone Aug 2012 #82
allan01 Aug 2012 #67
backscatter712 Aug 2012 #73
steve2470 Aug 2012 #76
Zorra Aug 2012 #88
greiner3 Aug 2012 #80
WhoIsNumberNone Aug 2012 #81
Panasonic Aug 2012 #86
Berlum Aug 2012 #92
Tommy_Carcetti Aug 2012 #93
DianaForRussFeingold Aug 2012 #94
WillyT Aug 2012 #99
bvar22 Aug 2012 #101
NorthCarolina Aug 2012 #102

Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 07:31 PM

1. There is no way Eisenhower would be accepted into the RETHUG party of today...

He clearly would have been a Democrat in today's world. One of the last Republicans that I could respect.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #1)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 07:47 PM

11. There is no way that Ronald Reagan would be accepted in today's Republican Party

Reagan could not get the GOP nomination in the current Republican party

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #11)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 08:16 PM

28. Yes he would be

He would just keep talking about the Cadillac driving woman using food stamps and crack jokes about people dying from AIDS and the Teabaggers would swoon.

Reagan is the original Teabagger.

Don

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNN0LHI (Reply #28)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 09:51 PM

56. yes exactly

real truth here once again! nice job!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNN0LHI (Reply #28)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:52 AM

95. Nope. Raised taxes. Socialist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bornskeptic (Reply #95)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 03:31 PM

100. Reagan dd no such thing--

unless you accept that the policies promulgated in his name were actually his creations.

The reality is that he just went along with the likes of Stockman & signed what he was told to. He would be just as much a sockpuppet of the teabaggers as he was of the nasty "advisers" who were using him as a front man back in the 80's.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #11)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 08:26 PM

33. Are you kidding? Reagan would fit in nicely with today's GOP

After all, Reagan was a congenial, easily-manipulated airhead who:

despised labor unions (PATCO firings, etc.),

showed disdain for weaker members of society ("welfare mothers", mental patients, etc.),

made up nonsense and passed it off as fact ("Trees cause more air pollution than cars", etc.),

appointed members to his Cabinet who were the antithesis of the departments they headed (James Watt at Interior, Edwin Meese at Justice, etc.),

surrounded himself with corrupt people who abused their offices http://www.dailykos.com/story/2005/10/17/157477/-List-of-Reagan-administration-convictions

was itching to flex his military muscle (Beirut, Grenada, etc.), and greatly increased military spending at the expense of soclal programs while running up a huge deficit in the process

got the ball rolling on outsourcing

sneered at the unemployed, telling them they needed to "pull themselves up by their bootstraps", and "vote with their feet" that is, move away from their homes to try to find a job

was a rabid proponent of deregulation

etc., etc.

As an added "bonus", Reagan, as governor of California, sicced the National Guard on students at Berkeley, an action which undoubtedly encouraged fellow Republican James Rhodes to do the same thing at Kent State a year later.

These are only some of the reasons why Ronald Reagan is still worshipped by today's Republicans, while Eisenhower barely gets a mention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #33)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 08:32 PM

34. Now that is the Reagan this old man remembers

He was the worst of the worst.

Don

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to NNN0LHI (Reply #34)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 09:51 PM

55. Don't forget that under Reagan, ketchup was counted as a vegetable for school lunch purposes.

Unbelievably.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #33)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:00 AM

84. Reagan would get the nomination today.

I agree with all of your points, but his biggest asset (and the reason Romney is failing) is that Reagan was an actor.

He didn't have to actually believe anything he said; he just had to say it so that it was believable. That's what he was trained to do.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Art_from_Ark (Reply #33)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:08 AM

85. I guess today's Republicans would love having their capital gains tax rate raised to "normal" rates?

NOT!

Which is what Reagan did in his term and publicly spoke about wanting to make sure his tax rates were "fair" when talking about it.

Methinks Grover Norquist of today would have a fit with Reagan then!

Basically Republicans like Lincoln, Teddy Roosevelt, and Eisenhower would all be called "communists" today, and Reagan would be a party outsider (if he didn't have the hero worship "mythos" that doesn't look as much as what he did as he became more of a "god" figure to replace the more "liberal" Jesus with).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to cascadiance (Reply #85)

Fri Aug 17, 2012, 08:29 AM

103. Reagan might have marginally increased some capital gains rates

after reducing them in 1981, but...

"The primary effect of the tax changes over the course of Reagan's term in office was a change in the composition of tax revenue, towards payroll and new investment, and away from higher earners and capital gains on existing investments. Federal revenue share of GDP fell from 19.6% in fiscal 1981 to 17.3% in 1984, before rising back to 18.4% by fiscal year 1989. Personal income tax revenues fell during this period relative to GDP, while payroll tax revenues rose relative to GDP. President Ronald Reagan's 1981 cut in the top regular tax rate on unearned income reduced the maximum capital gains rate to only 20%its lowest level since the Hoover administration.

"In 1981, Reagan significantly reduced the maximum tax rate, which affected the highest income earners, and lowered the top marginal tax rate from 70% to 50%; in 1986 he further reduced the rate to 28%."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reaganomics

So Reagan cut capital gains to 20%, and even though he raised them to a maximum 28% of 1986, he slashed the highest rate of income taxes from 70% all the way down to 28%, which placated his rich buddies. His vision of "fair rates" was reducing his rich buddies' Federal income tax rate from 70% to 28% and raising payroll taxes. He would still fit in easily with today's GOP.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Gothmog (Reply #11)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:44 AM

89. Sure he would. He would have read whatever grover put in front of him.

Of course, what he pushed then could be a blueprint for the DLC platform.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #1)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 08:09 PM

25. He was a good man. I really don't think he would want in this Republican party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Booster (Reply #25)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 08:40 PM

38. Sorry, but I have to disagree: Genial maybe, but rotten thru and thru (see above)

It was the beginning of the right wings' takeover of the country...

<iframe width="560" height="315" src="" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FailureToCommunicate (Reply #38)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 09:48 PM

53. Agreed 100%. Here are three memorable quotes from the gipper:

"I don't see any homeless people"
"It's been said I favor the rich, I don't deny it"
and the infamous, when backed into a corner with a question he couldn't handle:
"Well... there you go again"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to nightscanner59 (Reply #53)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:44 AM

72. Don't forget -

'If you see one redwood, you've seen them all.'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FailureToCommunicate (Reply #38)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 01:02 AM

68. I think you got the threading confused

pretty sure he was referring to Eisenhower

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to a2liberal (Reply #68)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 09:07 AM

77. Yep, wrong place. Typing while drowsy.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FailureToCommunicate (Reply #38)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 01:16 AM

71. Are you talking about Ronnie or Ike? I was talking about Ike.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Booster (Reply #71)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 09:07 AM

78. Ronnie. Sorry 'bout that.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Booster (Reply #71)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:49 AM

90. Ike was genial too, but

check out his administration's African policies. He also set us up for what we are dealing with in the Middle East now.

My dad gave up on him when he didn't confront mccarthy when tailgunner joe accused George Marshall of being a communist. Ike hid when he knew Marshall and should have confronted that travesty.

A colonialist, a corporatist, and a coward. His picture was on the wall of almost all of my elementary school rooms. But by college I had learned a little about him.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Booster (Reply #25)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 11:58 PM

64. He even warned us about what was to come with the

Military Industrial Complex.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to A Simple Game (Reply #64)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 09:09 AM

79. Which he helped build.

all he was doing with that speach was trying to cleanse his soul.

he's as much to blame for the MIC as anyone.

It was under his presidency that our nuclear stockpile increased.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #1)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 09:59 AM

83. Absolutely true.

And I too agree with this Republican 100% but this was before Citizens United and Voter Suppression.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #1)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 12:50 PM

96. not only that

but they would say he wasn't in Europe on D-Day and should not have been awarded honors for it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hlthe2b (Reply #1)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 01:04 PM

98. as they say today

welcome to the new normal where the Democrats are the Republicans, and the Republicans are batshit insane!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 07:32 PM

2. Back in those days at least some Republicans had some sense and

actually cared about the people of this country other than the wealthy elite.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 07:32 PM

3. President Eisenhower was a Republican

that I could truly respect. Too bad his party has disintegrated into what it has become today. He must be rolling in his grave in disgust.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to spartan61 (Reply #3)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 11:29 PM

63. It's not a political party anymore it's a cult of machismo.

 

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 07:32 PM

4. I like Ike now

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 07:36 PM

5. Although it was a republican who said it,

it's not one of today's republican talking points. They would eliminate social security, unemployment insurance, and labor laws in a heartbeat if you let them.

Eisenhower was one of the better republicans IMHO, He would probably be a Democrat if he were alive today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to LeftofObama (Reply #5)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:23 AM

87. You got it. NOT. A. REPUBLICAN. TALKING. POINT. AND. NEVER. WAS.

Not a republican talking of today's republican party, or the republican party of the 1950's either.

It has never been documented that Eisenhower ever spoke those words publicly, or that any republican ever spoke those words publicly.

He wrote them in a letter to his brother in 1954.

That said, and though it galls me to say this, I believe that Ike may have been a pretty decent, honest person, and he is probably the only republican that I have ever regarded as possibly being decent and honest.

I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its stupidity.
Eisenhower, 1946

Still, Ike was an exception to this hard, fast rule:

NEVER. EVER. TRUST. A. REPUBLICAN. OR. ANY. CONSERVATIVE.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 07:38 PM

6. New name

 

Todays republican party should have its name changed to the nazi party.their ideologies have become scary.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 07:39 PM

7. They ARE stupid.

They are zombies, they eat brains.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Major Hogwash (Reply #7)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 01:02 PM

97. ^^^true^^^ n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 07:40 PM

8. that splinter group has morphed into the modern teabagger movement

 

i don't know if he was referring to the John Birch Society, but republicans of the past did a lot to keep order in their own house to not let right wing extremists ever gain a foothold.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to datasuspect (Reply #8)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 10:49 PM

60. The quote is from a letter Eisenhower wrote to his brother......

The splinter group that Eisenhower refers to is in italics.....not unlike some of the nutballs the Repugnant Party is permeated with these days.

There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas.5 Their number is negligible and they are stupid.


http://www.eisenhowermemorial.org/presidential-papers/first-term/documents/1147.cfm

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 07:41 PM

9. whoa!

to the point.period

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 07:43 PM

10. Damn commie!

Eisenhower? What is that? That ain't an Amerkin name! Go back to commie-land, you stinken' commie!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to baldguy (Reply #10)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 07:54 PM

18. Obviously from "Old Europe."

(Insert arrogant sniff here).

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 07:48 PM

12. He was

a real cool guy.

I'd vote for a zombie-him!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 07:48 PM

13. I see what you did there!

Well played sir, well played.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 07:50 PM

14. the problem is so many working class yokels are saying 'a-yup' and voting repook

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 07:50 PM

15. He was a great president.

You could believe and trust him. and he knew and warned everyone about the military industrial complex.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to riverbendviewgal (Reply #15)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 08:04 PM

23. he did make some bad calls

from the vantage of history. i cant name them, but hes got a couple of bad decisions under his belt. Coulda done more about the Commie Witch Hunts and desegregation, I think?

By and large an honorable public servant who did a lot for the good of the commons.

Any modern Republican, if they were educated on his life, would consider him more of a commie pinko fag than Dennis Kuchinich. His MIC speech, the interstate hwy system, 50's middle class prosperity, and I remember as a kid he governed from the golf course. I wish we had an Eisenhower serving as President in the present. We need honorable not-possible-to-corrupt people in all our Institutions.

He also did a great job in WW2, where your abilities to lead can tilt the future of the entire free world and hundreds of thousands of lives are your responsibility. Romney in WW2 would have probably spent it as an obscure Milo Minderbinder scamming money from both sides. I'd fight for Ike. I wouldn't bother using my turn signal for Rmoney.

-90% Jimmy

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 90-percent (Reply #23)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 08:59 PM

48. re: Ike & Desegregation

On September 20, Judge Ronald N. Davies granted NAACP lawyers Thurgood Marshall and Wiley Branton an injunction that prevented Governor Faubus from using the National Guard to deny the nine black students admittance to Central High. Faubus announced that he would comply with the court order but suggested that the nine stay away for their own safety. President Eisenhower sent the 101st Airborne Division to Little Rock to protect the nine students. Each student had their own guard. The students did enter Central High and were protected somewhat, but they were the subject of persecution. Students spat at them, beat them, and yelled insults. White mothers pulled their children out of school, and even blacks told the nine to give up. Why did they stay under such hostile situations? Ernest Green says "We kids did it mainly because we didn't know any better, but our parents were willing to put their careers, and their homes on the line."


http://littlerock.about.com/cs/centralhigh/a/Integration.htm

Ike sent the 101st to Arkansas, and imposed the Warren Court's will at the point of a gun. Can you picture how FAUX would portray Barack Obama if he did such a thing today?

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 90-percent (Reply #23)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:49 AM

91. I agree nearly 100%...

My only quibble is the turn signal...I don't think I could be bothered to step off of the accelerator for Romney...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 07:51 PM

16. K&R! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 07:54 PM

17. That "RINO"?

It's ok, they'd hate him now.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 07:56 PM

19. "Should ANY political party..."

Yeah, but what if they BOTH (i.e. ALL) decided to take it away from us at the same time?

Biden says "no way", but Obama says "hey, we've been offering to"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to FiveGoodMen (Reply #19)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 01:06 AM

69. good point (n/t)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 07:56 PM

20. Naw, you only get tossed here if you say something "mean" about palin.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 07:58 PM

21. He's a Troll! A TROLL, I tells ya!!!

I recall reading once that before the 1952 election, it was unclear to everyone whether Ike was a Republican or a Democrat. By today's standards, he'd be one of us, for sure.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 08:03 PM

22. Hey, Nixon was a saint compared to the latter-day thugs:

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/stories/2009/september/03/nixon-proposal.aspx

President Richard Nixon's Special Message to the Congress Proposing a Comprehensive Health Insurance Plan
February 6, 1974

...Early last year, I directed the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare to prepare a new and improved plan for comprehensive health insurance. That plan, as I indicated in my State of the Union message, has been developed and I am presenting it to the Congress today. I urge its enactment as soon as possible.

The plan is organized around seven principles:

First, it offers every American an opportunity to obtain a balanced, comprehensive range of health insurance benefits;

Second, it will cost no American more than he can afford to pay...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to jsr (Reply #22)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 08:09 PM

24. Agreed.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 08:12 PM

26. That's back before the Party Flip.

The Northern Republicans, many of them, became Democrats, and the Southern Democrats became Republicans.

Even though DDE came from a racist state, his worldview was broadened by a career in military service.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to MADem (Reply #26)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 10:16 PM

57. He saw up close and personal what Nazism could do

And he didn't want anything resembling it anywhere near Washington.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 08:16 PM

27. I'm guilty of refering to this non-stop

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 08:17 PM

29. Back then, both parties had a sense of decency. Maybe not in South. Eom

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 08:19 PM

30. Their number is no longer negligible,

but they are stupid.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 08:23 PM

31. Good source cite to say "THEY ARE STUPID" now, 'cause President Eisenhower said they are.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 08:24 PM

32. He also said, with respect to Nixon's contributions, "If you give me a week, I might think of one."

 

"I don't remember."

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #32)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 08:54 PM

44. This video is a gem! nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AnotherMcIntosh (Reply #32)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 09:02 PM

50. lol I bet Ike would hate these guys running his party now

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 08:35 PM

35. Oh, that leftwing stooge!

Probably learned his evil ways in that socialist organization, the army.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 08:37 PM

36. I Concur, And To Touch On An Earlier Republican Talking-Point

I concur with Ike's comment, but it looks like the party reactionaries were biding their time.

And to touch on an earlier Republican (Theodore Roosevelt) talking-point: we are again facing malefactors of great wealth.


Let no one kid you. This election is about class war, waged by a privileged, arrogant, and wealthy few against the rest of us.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Vogon_Glory (Reply #36)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 08:52 PM

42. +1 It most definitely is a class war. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 08:42 PM

39. This was before the Dixiecrats defected to the Republicans

Even Barry Goldwater and Bill Buckley would be ashamed of where their party has moved. They were the prototypical Conservatives, but they believed in the ability of both sides working for the common good. They might disagree on the degree of changes, but both saw progress as a basic strength of the US.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to bigbrother05 (Reply #39)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 10:27 PM

58. Indeed, I think Goldwater had some nasty words

about the latter day GOP and some of its members before he passed on.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 08:43 PM

40. Old Old School

No we will not TS you ., I agree; but the fact is your talking about the old Rep's of days gone. Stay focus with today.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 08:44 PM

41. This isn't your Fathers

Republican Party.

Todays GOP is nasty and HATEFUL. Nothing like they were in 1954.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 08:52 PM

43. Unfortunately after 30 years of propaganda

They're still stupid, but their numbers are no longer negligible

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 08:57 PM

45. Eisenhower and Social Security.

The Social Security Online History has a page devoted to Eisenhower's statements on Social Security. Link: http://www.ssa.gov/history///ikestmts.html

Excerpts:

1. SPECIAL MESSAGE TO THE CONGRESS TRANSMITTING PROPOSED CHANGES IN THE SOCIAL SECURITY PROGRAM--AUGUST 1, 1953

In my message to the Congress on the State of the Union, I pointed out that there is urgent need for making our social security programs more effective.

I stated that the provisions of the Old Age and Survivor's Insurance law should cover millions of our citizens who thus far have been excluded from participation in the social security program.
...

Under the attached plan, approximately 10 1/2 million individuals would be offered social security protection for the first time. About 6 1/2 million of these would be brought into the system; the remaining 4 million would be eligible for coverage under voluntary group arrangements. New groups to be covered would include self-employed farmers; many more farm workers and domestic workers than are now covered; doctors, dentists, lawyers, architects, accounts and other professional people; members of many state and local retirement systems on a voluntary group basis; clergymen on a voluntary group basis and several other smaller groups.
...

There are two points about these proposals which I cannot stress too strongly. One is my belief that they would add immeasurably to the peace of mind and security of the individual citizens who would be covered for the first time under this plan; the second is my belief that they would add greatly to the national sense of domestic security.


4. STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT UPON SIGNING THE SOCIAL SECURITY AMENDMENTS OF 1954. SEPTEMBER 1, 1954

I am very happy to sign the Social Security Amendments of 1954.

By enabling some 10,000,000 more Americans to participate in the Old-Age and Survivors Insurance Program, it gives them an opportunity to establish a solid foundation of economic security for themselves and their families.

Beyond broadening the coverage of this program, this new law contains four other important provisions:

First, it raises payments to all retired workers by at least five dollars a month. It also raises--by $13.50 a month for retired workers and by $31.25 a month for families--the ceiling on payments to people now receiving monthly checks. People becoming eligible in the future will also receive higher payments, including increases that result from raising from $3,600 to $4,200 the maximum wage base from which the amount of their benefit checks is determined.

Second, the law eliminates the four or five lowest years of earnings from the computation of the OASI checks of workers who retire in the future. This provision is of great importance to many people whose years of unusually low earnings--for reasons of unemployment, illness, or otherwise--would sharply reduce their benefits.

Third, all retired workers under the program are permitted to earn more without forfeiting OASI checks. The amount of exempt earnings is increased to $1,200 a year, and this annual exemption is applied equally to wage earners and self-employed workers.

Fourth, the Act preserves the benefits rights, under Old-Age and Survivors Insurance, of those workers regularly covered under the program who become totally disabled for long and indefinite periods.

This new law is an important part of the broad program of the Administration and the 83d Congress to improve the well-being of our people. In the past month I have signed into law a number of other Acts directly affecting the human problems of each family in the land. These include:

1. More hospitals and nursing homes for persons who are chronically ill, special medical facilities for people not requiring hospitalization, and rehabilitation facilities for disabled people.

2. A start toward increasing from 60,000 to 200,000 by 1959, the number of disabled people rehabilitated each year.

3. Three Acts helping the States and local communities meet the nation's educational problems.

4. Help to provide and improved housing, to prevent and eliminate slums, and to conserve and develop urban communities.

5. Extension of the unemployment insurance program to almost 4,000,000 more workers.

These Acts and the Social Security amendments I have approved today will bolster the health and economic Security of the American people. They represent one of the cornerstones of our program to build a better and stronger America.


5. SPECIAL MESSAGE TO THE CONGRESS ON OLD AGE AND SURVIVORS INSURANCE AND ON FEDERAL GRANTS-IN-AID FOR PUBLIC ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS. JANUARY 14, 1954

3. OASI Benefits Should Be Increased.

Today, thousands of OASI beneficiaries receive the minimum benefit of twenty-five dollars a month. The average individual benefit for retired workers approximates fifty dollars a month. The maximum benefit for an individual is $85 a month. For OASI to fulfill its purpose of helping to combat destitution, these benefits are too low.

I recommend, therefore, that benefits now being received by retired workers be increased on the basis of a new formula to be submitted to the appropriate Committees by the Secretary of Health, Education, and Welfare. This formula should also provide increases for workers retiring in the future, raising both the minimum and the maximum benefits. These increases will further the objectives of the program and will strengthen the foundation on which its participants may build their own security.
...

6. The Benefit Rights of the Disabled Should Be Protected. One of the injustices in the present law is its failure to make secure the benefit rights of the worker who his a substantial work record in covered employment and who becomes totally disabled. If his disability lasts four years or less, my preceding recommendation will alleviate this hardship. But if a worker's earnings and contributions cease for a longer period, his retirement rights, and the survivor rights of his widow and children may be reduced or even lost altogether. Equity dictates that this defect be remedied. I recommend, therefore, that the benefits of a worker who has a substantial work record in covered employment and who becomes totally disabled for an extended period be maintained at the amount he would have received had he become 65 and retired on the date his disability began.


6. STATEMENT BY THE PRESIDENT UPON SIGNING THE SOCIAL SECURITY AMENDMENTS OF 1956. AUGUST 1, 1956

The new law also contains certain major provisions which were recommended by the Administration. It extends social security coverage to about 600,000 additional farm owners or operators and about 225,000 self-employed lawyers, dentists, and others.


Eisenhower's Presidency included the establishment of the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan and the establishment and extension of disability benefits through the Social Security Administration.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to hay rick (Reply #45)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 01:12 AM

70. Sounds like a commie :-P

to the left of many DC "Democrats"...

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 08:58 PM

46. To see how much the Republicans have changed, watch the Katherine Hepburn-Spencer Tracy movie

State of the Union.

In it, Spencer Tracy plays a Republican candidate for president, but when he gives his speeches, he is FAR to the left of today's Blue Dog Democrats, not to mention the current Republicanites.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 08:59 PM

47. The cancer of that tiny splinter group has metastasized to the entire GOP/RW/conservative

political apparatus: their present mantra is anathema to every principle that guided Ike, Teddy, Abe, and our founders.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 09:00 PM

49. When one compares Eisenhower with the likes of Romney and Ryan 'splinters'

Romney and Ryan are amateurs.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Rosa Luxemburg (Reply #49)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 09:03 PM

51. Or when Dumb ass Dan Quack evoked JFK ,

in the same sentence with himself.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 09:35 PM

52. Ike would be considered a Liberal today.

The only reason he ran as a Republican was because he was afraid that they would nominate an anti-UN isolationist.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 09:50 PM

54. That would make a provocative ad. A quite good one I think.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AtomicKitten (Reply #54)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 07:21 AM

74. I concur

 

I'd love to see it on billboards in the south.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 10:44 PM

59. This is not 'a Republican talking point,'

this is a particular Republican saying something correct! Happens sometimes, or 'did!'

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 10:55 PM

61. Amazing how much the republican party

has changed. Now it's solely the party of the top 1%.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Wed Aug 15, 2012, 10:56 PM

62. what's the deal. tweeted this 4 times and the tweet total didn't go up nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 12:00 AM

65. This "Republican talking point" died with Ike.

 

Nowadays, the GOP/TP would consider Ike no different from Ho Chi Minh.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 12:17 AM

66. Eisenhower was the last great Republican President.

How the GOP has devolved since then.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to 4lbs (Reply #66)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 07:33 AM

75. I don't think Eisenhower was a great President.

We are still suffering the consequences of the 1953 coup in Iran, which brought down the democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh.

Imagine what things could have been like if Eisenhower had not authorized that coup. Iran would not have grown to despise us, and would not have taken 52 American hostages in 1979, thereby bringing down Carter's Presidency and ensuring the election of Ronald Reagan.

I don't think Eisenhower was a great President. Great Presidents don't authorize coups of democratically elected governments.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Chef Eric (Reply #75)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 09:36 AM

82. Even then big oil was calling the shots

It was because Mosaddegh wouldn't play ball by BP and Aramco's rules that he was overthrown.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 12:41 AM

67. re:DU may have to TS me - I agree 100% with this Republican talking point

r.r as governer once said that taxes are a privelige not a right , before it was found that he had not payed any taxes for several years . sound familiar ? this was whilst r.r was a democrat. a friend related that to me as she told some right wingers at a local fair

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:58 AM

73. The teabaggers would be calling Ike a lefty commie today. n/t

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink



Response to steve2470 (Reply #76)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:27 AM

88. Exactly. It never was a republican talking point. It's a quote from a letter that he wrote

to his brother.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 09:21 AM

80. And Preston Bush;

Was in the background, FUNDING a lot of the noise from these people!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to greiner3 (Reply #80)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 09:29 AM

81. Prescott Bush

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 10:16 AM

86. Me too.

 

Eisenhower also warned us not to let the MIC grow too big.. and his own party let it get too big for its own hitches.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:13 AM

92. the ugly 1% Splinter group pulls the strings of the RepubliProles

with their endless assault of Crapaganda..and now Ike rolls in his grave to see how they shame his party.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:19 AM

93. You know how they had a hologram of Tupac perform at an awards show?

I would love for someone to have a hologram of Eisenhower giving that speech show up at the GOP convention.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 11:44 AM

94. K&R "Embarrassed Republicans Admit They've Been Thinking Of Eisenhower

"Embarrassed Republicans Admit They've Been Thinking Of
Eisenhower Whole Time They've Been Praising Reagan"

http://www.theonion.com/articles/embarrassed-republicans-admit-theyve-been-thinking,19248/

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 02:19 PM

99. I Like Ike !!!





& Rec !!!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 03:48 PM

101. Rachel Maddow did a good piece on this last year.



http://www.alternet.org/news/149700




You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their rhetoric, promises, or excuses.
Solidarity99!
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to OmahaBlueDog (Original post)

Thu Aug 16, 2012, 06:40 PM

102. I wish I could believe that today's Dems would never move to cut SS or Medicare,

but I think we've been given enough information to see that Dems are more than willing to put these programs on the bargaining table.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread