Sean Hannity is on my list

[humguitar]

I'm a conservative, and I can no longer watch Hannity and Colmes. Colmes is not the one that I have a problem with, either. Hannity shows no respect and is very rude to Presidential candidate (and Ronald Reagan conservative, I might add) Ron Paul, whenever he gets a chance. Look up the definition of Neo-Con, and you will see Sean Hannity's picture next to it.

[WeaponOfMassInstruction]

hum-

Please do not sully the name of Ronald Reagan by comparing him to Ron Paul.

While there are similarities in their domestic viewpoints (though I do not think Reagan would legalize all drugs the way Dr. Paul would), the fact that Dr. Paul shows no inclination to defend this country from the Jihadists while Reagain brought down the Soviet Union and ended the Cold War precisely BECAUSE he showed willingness to defend this country from what was then the greatest threat it faced makes any similarities inconsequential.

[humguitar]

Well, I did type a nice, long reply to you, WMI, but when I clicked submit, lo and behold, I'd been logged off by this forum. Is there a time limit or something? Talk about being a little bit ticked off, that is an understatement. I am not going to try to reproduce my initial reply to you, but let me tell you, it was a work of art. I will try to summarize it for you.

The Soviet Union had THOUSANDS of ICBMs with nuclear warheads ready to launch at the USA. Yet, Reagan did NOT do any pre-emptive airstrikes on nuclear facilities, and he did NOT invade them.

Islamic terrorists bombed our troups in Lebanon. Reagan re-thought his foreign policy and pulled our troups out of there. He wrote in his memoirs that he didn't realize how irrational those people were over there. Because of this, I do not think that Reagan would have supported the invasion of Iraq. The different tribes of people over there have been fighting since the beginning of time. WE are not going to get them to stop.
Ron Paul correctly states that we are over there illegally because Congress never declared war.

The money and lives that we are losing over in Iraq and Afghanistan could be used here at home securing our borders, which I believe is our greatest security and safety threat to our country. We could have built a wall on our southern border already with the money that we are spending in the middle east.

Ron Paul wants to reduce the size of the Federal Government. Our founding fathers did not intend for our government to be the "solver of all problems". Please refer to the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

[ScottT]

Oh, God!!!!!

Comparing Ron Paul to Ronald Reagan is like comparing Barney Fife to Jack Bauer.

Ron Paul's idea of national security would be to build a fence around his house, hide in a bomb shelter......and then bribe the terrorists from beheading him if he's found.

[steve1633]

ou manage to avoid that he makes a couple valid comparisons between ron paul and reagans foreign policy.

[ScottT]

Negative, steve1633.

It's virtually UNANIMOUS amongst conservatives that of the very few big mistakes Reagan DID make as president, pulling out of Lebanon in 1983 after 250 of our military men were blown up was one of them. Even Ed Meese has said that, were it to be done all over again, failing to respond would have been a no-no.

And comparing the circumstances of the cold war to our current conflict is comparing apples to oranges. We are fighting a non-uniformed Islamic terrorist reign, and while it is prevalent in many OTHER parts of the world (Africa, Europe, and elsewhere).......the bottom line is that we NEED a war footing in the Middle East that acts as a demented "bug lamp" of sorts to attract & kill many of these scumbags. Right now, that "bug lamp" is Iraq......and it's right smack between two other Islamic terror states.

GOOOOD!

[WeaponOfMassInstruction]

Well, I did type a nice, long reply to you, WMI, but when I clicked submit, lo and behold, I'd been logged off by this forum. Is there a time limit or something? Talk about being a little bit ticked off, that is an understatement. I am not going to try to reproduce my initial reply to you, but let me tell you, it was a work of art. I will try to summarize it for you.

Been there and done that myself on more than one occasion.

I honestly do not know if there's a time limit. Some of my posts have been pretty verbose and time-consuming to enter but I've never been logged off remotely. Mr. S might be able to shed some light on that.

Th

e Soviet Union had THOUSANDS of ICBMs with nuclear warheads ready to launch at the USA. Yet, Reagan did NOT do any pre-emptive airstrikes on nuclear facilities, and he did NOT invade them.

The difference is that, at their core, the Soviets were rational human beings. I don't think you can make that claim for the Islamofascist leaders in Syria, in Iran, in Afghanistan and other places where they hold sway.

The Soviets never thought that they could "win"- as much as anyone could- a nuclear Armageddon against the West. They were never confident that they could destroy enough of the West's retaliatory capability in a pre-emptive first strike so that they could survive at least more intact than the West would. Toss in the fact that, in a massive nuclear exchange, all the "winners" would be able to take from the "losers" would be samples of radioactive glass and the Soviets were fairly content to share the world (if not 50/50) with the West.

But in the death-cult that is Islamofascism, such rational thinking is starly absent. They >DO< think they could win a nuclear Armageddon with the West, either by killing us or by dying so they can go to their heaven and enjoy 72 virgins once there. How do you negotiate with someone whose position is that they want to see you- ALL of you- dead (or converted or slaves) and are willing to die (maybe not their leaders but the grunts have to be) in the process?

Islamic terrorists bombed our troups in Lebanon. Reagan re-thought his foreign policy and pulled our troups out of there. He wrote in his memoirs that he didn't realize how irrational those people were over there. Because of this, I do not think that Reagan would have supported the invasion of Iraq. The different tribes of people over there have been fighting since the beginning of time. WE are not going to get them to stop.
Ron Paul correctly states that we are over there illegally because Congress never declared war.

Scott states what I would have said very well, so I need not repeat it.

As for a formal declaration of war, that's been hashed out at length here too. My stance is that, as al Qeida is not a nation-state unto themselves, is not located wholly within nor emanating from any single nation-state and is not the official military arm of any nation-state, our laws do not permit us to declare a state of formal war against them. The closest historical parallel to AQ is the Barbary Pirates of the early 19th century...but they were, in fact, the official naval arm of several North African sultanates and so presented a legal target against which war could be declared.

The money and lives that we are losing over in Iraq and Afghanistan could be used here at home securing our borders, which I believe is our greatest security and safety threat to our country. We could have built a wall on our southern border already with the money that we are spending in the middle east.

I prefer to think that we can 'walk and chew gum at the same time'- meaning that we can do both, if the political will is there to do so.

The failure to secure our borders is the single greatest beef I have with President Bush.

Ron Paul wants to reduce the size of the Federal Government. Our founding fathers did not intend for our government to be the "solver of all problems". Please refer to the 10th Amendment to the Constitution.

You are correct, but we Conservatives can get a reduction in Federal power in someone that is willing to defend this country as well. Paul does not seem willing to defend us under any circumstance short of an actual armed invasion. While that is, I suppose, commedable (one wonders if Democrats would defend us even then or if they'd ask the United Nations to intervene), there are otehr circumstances which demand- DEMAND- a pro-active and pre-emptive military effort, and Paul does not seen to recognize that. His is a viewpoint common to those living in the world of September 10th, 2001.

[ScottT]

I'll go one step further with regard to the our failure to secure the borders:

President Bush isn't the first to fail us on this-----he's simply the LATEST.

If failing to respond to the 1983 attack against our military in Lebanon was one of Reagan's biggest mistakes........nominating Sandra Day O'Conner to the Supreme Court was another.

But his biggest mistake of all, IMO, was signing the Simpson-Mizzoli bill in 1986 that gave unconditional amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens. The borders were left unprotected, minimalist laws against employers were put into law (which were never enforced).......and the floodgates opened.

To this day, Reagan gets a pass for this. So does the 1994 Republican congress, led by Newt Gingrich, which swept into the house majority. The "contract with America" had a lot of good stuff in it...........but it NEVER addressed the burgeoning illegal alien problem. So whenever Newt bashes the Bush administration about border failure today without raising his OWN hand to take some of the responsibility for allowing the problem to spread while he was second in line to be president, I cringe.

President Bush has failed to address what nobody else would. Because of that, he deserves much of the criticism he is getting. It's HIS problem to deal with right now, and he hasn't done so.

But he didn't create the problem, either. For the last quarter decade, every executive branch and congress has been playing "kick the can" with illegal immigration. But criticism has been selective, to say the least.

Some of the most prominent spokespersons on our side of the aisle need to finally come clean and quit protecting their "icons" and tell the WHOLE story about the illegal immigration mess.

[MrSinatra]

i actually think reagan did the right thing in lebanon... why were we there to begin with? we can't be the worlds policeman. what was our mission?

as to the illegals, remember, it was a WAY democrat house, he could only do so much. in order to get other things done, he had to give in on that. and remember, it was supposed to end any and all future amensties and start enforcement. it of course, did not. but that was what he thought it would do.

and o'connor wasn't that bad. i'd take her over 4 of the current judges.

[ScottT]

Reagan didn't have to sign Simpson-Mizzoli, Sinatra. But he did. And when someone like Laura Ingraham (who I like, by the way) goes on & on today about how opposition to any kind of amnesty bill whatsoever is a "fundamental no-brainer" (which I ALSO tend to agree with)----but REFUSES to place any blame on Reagan's involvement because of partiality reasons----that's not intellectually honest. That is my biggest gripe.

As for Simpson-Mizzoli supposedly being a "one-time thing" that was supposed to "end future amnesties"......that's ALWAYS supposed to be the case----even now.

The bottom line is, George W. Bush has gotten a LOT of criticism from the conservative side for running as a "compassionate conservative".

Fair enough. Now consider what Reagan said in his big speech when he gave amnesty to 3 million illegal aliens:

He said he supported amnesty because "I believe in solving this problem compassionately".

I loved Reagan. He was (and might possibly always be) the greatest president in my lifetime. But he DESERVES his share of the blame for our illegal immigration mess.

[MrSinatra]

if signing that bill got tax cuts, strong defense, deregulation, etc, then it was worth it.

politics is the art of compromise.

[ScottT]

You wouldn't be making that same argument now. The bottom line is, he not only started the amnesty mess.....the borders were left completely unprotected.

Even Bill O'Reilly, who is critical of the Bush administration for their immigration policy all day long, has made the point about Reagan's failures that go unmentioned by the right.

He had Ann Coulter on his show about two months ago & they were discussing the current problem. O'Reilly then pointed out that NOBODY has done anything to fix it, and pointed out that Reagan could've closed the borders at a time when it was easier to do, but caved to special interests & instead gave amnesty to millions.

Coulter responded with, "Um, well......yeah......but that was only three million".

To which O'Reilly incredulously replied, "ONLY THREE MILLION???!!"

He had her dead to rights. That kind of explanation is truly absurd.

Beyond Reagan, what are your thoughts about Newt Gingrich, MrSinatra? He was speaker of the house in the mid 90's nearly a decade later......and by then, the problem had doubled or tripled. Would you agree, at the very least, that he & his congress irrisponsibly passed on this issue?? The borders were still wide open, and millions more illegals were coming & going as they pleased. Gingrich did absolutely NOTHING.

Now, all he does is point fingers without taking any accountability of his own. It's a lot like O.J. Simpson or Scott Peterson finding out someone slapped their wife and lecturing them about spousal abuse.

Pathetic!

[MrSinatra]

of course everyone has been very irresponsible, no doubt.

and yes, you couldn't say that bush is doing that now.

but i DO BELIEVE that back then, reagan was making deals. he simply had to, dems controlled the house for 40+ years!

blaming reagan for this is stupid imo. he didn't like it, he only did it b/c he thought it would solve it, meaning, it was supposed to be strict on enforcement afterwards.

[ScottT]

I would be inclined to buy that if Reagan had at least done something about border enforcement. But it was never addressed. I suspect that was (just as it is today) because of the allure of cheap labor.

Republicans love cheap labor, Democrats love prospective voters. Some things never change.

[humguitar]

Bush and the rest of the neocons have gone on a "crusade" for the USA to be the policemen of the world and to build democratic regimes where ever they feel threatened. What better way to isolate the USA and to plant the seeds of terrorism? Look at history, look at Rome. We need to learn from the mistakes of the past. The USA should not be in the business of "Empire Building". Bush does not know the meaning of "sovereign", let alone how to spell it.