user ballots
Login
Register
Add One
FAQ/Contact
Popular Ballots
Recent Popular
Recent Votes
Best
Worst
Yes or No
Choices
What If
Prediction
Advice
Would You
Crime
Recommend
Quiz
TV & Movie
Music & Radio
Political
Science
Sports
Relationship
Techonology
Culture
Philosophy
Religion
Ethics
History
Food & Health
Fashion & Beauty
Crime
FanBase
Discussion
Bug Report
|
COMMENTS:
I enjoy his thoughts, and feel that they were pertinent to his period of history. That was a long time ago and the world has changed since then. I'm sure he would have changed with it. Some of his opinions are still on track, but he wasn't dealing with terrorists who don't follow the rules of engagement.
And the republican party today is trying to save social security-not dismantle it, even though it has turned into more than what it's creater wanted it to be.
No, Ike could never be nominated for President by today's Republicans, and perhaps even Democrats.
And that "tiny splinter group" of Texas oil men, that Ike references, has grown into a forest of very ugly trees.
When you read these remarks from a Republican President, you can see and understand where our country has gone. And it's not stopped slipping toward fascism. There's more to come, and it is scary.
My comments are not intended as polemics. Just compare today's political comments, with Ike's. Most of today's Democrats would flinch from this speech.
Great ballot, AM!
Hmmmm, Ceeejjj. So, things Ike implicitly encourages, like Social Security, farm subsidies, and the end of warfare, are what? Not relevant to our times? Probably true, because large portions of the U.S. Constitution are irrelevant these days.
Puzzles me that you think GWB and his cronies are trying to "fix Social Security" Hmmm. Who benefits most from this proposed "fix?" Equity holders, mutual funds, investment bankers, and other wealthy interests. Have you witnessed the huge companies in America defaulting on their pension funds? And you want to honestly tell me you want average Americans to trust Big Business to manage their money and make a profit? This doesn't seem like a solid position to be holding these days.
I especially liked Ike's remark that "only justice, fairness, consideration and cooperation can finally lead men to the dawn of eternal peace."
Damned fool! How dare he claim to be a Republican, and espouse such nonsense? Such humanity is obviously UnAmerican!
We have come a long way to get this far behind, wouldn't you say?
Enjoyed your remarks, however misguided.. :>)
Of course those things are relevent to our times, however, terrorists are not willing to eliminate warfare, I'm afraid and the only options are to fight or be eliminated.
Rather than hand over all my social security to the government to do with what they see fit, at least I'll be able to have partial control over a small portion of it as I do with my 401k. I have heard no other viable social security options coming from any other party, so until then I would say GWB's plan would be preferrable to the current one.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
EDIT/MAINTAIN BALLOT NO # 73351,
WHAT IF : NEWS RELATED : WHY :
WOULD TODAY'S REPUBLICANS VOTE FOR EISENHOWER?
by AMSearch
ACTIVE May 13, 2005 - May 13, 2006
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few quotes from a former Republican President:
"Should any political party attempt to abolish social security,
unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes that you can do these things. Among them are a few Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or businessman from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."
"Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired, signifies in the final sense a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed."
"I hate war as only a soldier who has lived it can, only as one who has seen its brutality, its futility, its stupidity."
"If the United Nations once admits that international disputes can be settled by using force, then we will have destroyed the foundation of the organization and our best hope of establishing a world order."
"You don't lead by hitting people over the head-that's assault, not leadership."
"Though force can protect in emergency, only justice, fairness, consideration and cooperation can finally lead men to the dawn of eternal peace."
- Dwight D. Eisenhower
Would Republicans vote for this weak-kneed liberal pansy who just happened to be one of the greatest generals in our history and one of the most popular Republican presidents?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No - the republican party has moved so far to the right, even Ike looks like a lefty
Yes - as long as he says he is a Republican, he is always right
Yes - he could show them the error of their party's ways
I like Ike
Yes-He sounds logical for his times
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ballot #73351 : SEE RESULTS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Comment:
Of course those things are relevent to our times, however, terrorists are not willing to eliminate warfare, I'm afraid and the only options are to fight or be eliminated.
Rather than hand over all my social security to the government to do with what they see fit, at least I'll be able to have partial control over a small portion of it as I do with my 401k. I have heard no other viable social security options coming from any other party, so until then I would say GWB's plan would be preferrable to the current one.
v 1.0 BESTANDWORST.COM
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I enjoy his thoughts, and feel that they were pertinent to his period of history. That was a long time ago and the world has changed since then. I'm sure he would have changed with it. Some of his opinions are still on track, but he wasn't dealing with terrorists who don't follow the rules of engagement.
And the republican party today is trying to save social security-not dismantle it, even though it has turned into more than what it's creater wanted it to be.
by ceejjj on May 13, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No, Ike could never be nominated for President by today's Republicans, and perhaps even Democrats.
And that "tiny splinter group" of Texas oil men, that Ike references, has grown into a forest of very ugly trees.
When you read these remarks from a Republican President, you can see and understand where our country has gone. And it's not stopped slipping toward fascism. There's more to come, and it is scary.
My comments are not intended as polemics. Just compare today's political comments, with Ike's. Most of today's Democrats would flinch from this speech.
Great ballot, AM!
by griffon007 on May 13, 2005
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hmmmm, Ceeejjj. So, things Ike implicitly encourages, like Social Security, farm subsidies, and the end of warfare, are what? Not relevant to our times? Probably true, because large portions of the U.S. Constitution are irrelevant these days.
Puzzles me that you think GWB and his cronies are trying to "fix Social Security" Hmmm. Who benefits most from this proposed "fix?" Equity holders, mutual funds, investment bankers, and other wealthy interests. Have you witnessed the huge companies in America defaulting on their pension funds? And you want to honestly tell me you want average Americans to trust Big Business to manage their money and make a profit? This doesn't seem like a solid position to be holding these days.
I especially liked Ike's remark that "only justice, fairness, consideration and cooperation can finally lead men to the dawn of eternal peace."
A very nice thought, but unless everyone in the world agrees-it is not completely possible to follow those sentiments.
Yeah, ceejjj, I suppose keeping all the elderly out of poverty is an outdated idea, as are things like making sure all Americans are fed and clothed and embracing a leadership style that avoids ramming things down peoples' throats. George W. has shown that all that stuff is outdated - we need to invade countries that haven't threatened us and slash all those programs for the least fortunate!
And by the way, the President himself admitted that his privatization reform would not help with Social Security's solvency, it would just provide a better return for those who could afford to invest. And please open a history book - Social Security was not formed as an individual retirement account, it was a program for keeping the elderly out of poverty, which it has succeeded at in amazing and efficient fashion.
Excuse me AM, I believe you are completely taking my statements out of context and I am certainly aware of the origins of Social security. It was created to be a supplement to pension plans. Now uninformed people are using it as their entire retirement. And privatizing a tiny portion of what you already pay in has nothing to do with affording it-you pay into it anyway. And since it is apparently not obvious enough, my comments regarding being outdated were regarding warfare and the ever changing face of the world today and how our enemies perceive it, but I'm sure you knew what I meant and just decided to disregard that in favor of scorning me because I am of an opposite opinion of you.
and heaven forbid people actually get a better return on the money that is whisked away from their paychecks.
No, the party has been hijacked by extremists and moved to the Far Right. It is now controlled by that splinter group of stupid people. Eisenhower would be labelled a RINO and viciously attacked, just like Voinovich is about to be (you heard this prediction here, first).
ceejjj: SS is not, and was never meant to be, an investment plan. It was a safety net ... an insurance policy. One doesn't buy insurance for the ROI, but for the safety. Convert SS to an investment vehicle and you effectively remove the insurance safety net; meaning some people at some time *will* be burned in the periodic down markets we all endure.
I understand there are risks involved, however, the invested amount will be very small and left alone people will most certainly get burned when it goes bankrupt. Maybe the reform as it stands isn't perfect, but my point is no one has come up with any other ideas besides the usual increase of already too high taxes.
Eisenhower, the best President we've ever had. A shame we can't clone HIM.
Ceeejjj: After all these broadsides, I note that your ship is still a-sail and fighting back. So, I guess it's time for another sally.:>)
Here is the remark to which I am responding: "A very nice thought, but unless everyone in the world agrees-it is not completely possible to follow those sentiments."
Hmmmm. So, this is utopian nonsense, eh? What kind of world would we live in if our forefathers had insisted on such agreement by the rest of the world before they adopted our Constitution? Or Bill of Rights? We are a great nation because we adopted and modeled beliefs, attitudes, values, and form of government that other nations wouldn't have tried without our leadership.
I hope we don't adopt your standard of behaving morally "only if everyone in the world agrees?" Dismal policy.
I suspect this comment was only a ball or two through your sails, but we ain't done with ye yet, lass. :>)
Thanks.
No, you misunderstand, at least I think. The reason I made that comment is because on 9-11 we found out that the terrorists were not going to let us live out those sentiments. I don't understand. If we are attacked we should turn the other cheek? That would result in certain death.
No, you misunderstand, at least I think. The reason I made that comment is because on 9-11 we found out that the terrorists were not going to let us live out those sentiments. I don't understand. If we are attacked we should turn the other cheek? That would result in certain death. He does state that "while force can protect in an emergency..." in his comments, which is what I believe I was saying all along. I feel the way the terrorists feel about the destruction of this country is an emergency.
Besides, this is the first time I got hammered for being agreeable, or so I though I was being. I said I would vote for him and that I enjoy his thoughts. I just think he would consider terrorism today an emergency worth using force to stop. Is that bad, what did I say wrong?
>
Actually, that's called democracy. We authorize the government to do things on our behalf, and then we fund them in those efforts. Sometimes we like what they do with our money, sometimes we don't. I don't particularly like my money being spent invading the wrong country and killing innocent people, so what I do about that is try to change it. You go ahead and fight to keep our government from getting checks to old people, and I'll fight to get them to stop killing people.
>
Again, Social Security was not formed as a "supplement" - it was meant to keep people who didn't have a retirement account from falling into poverty.
>
Apparently that's because you haven't been listening. Members of all parties (even the ones that don't win) have floated ideas about what to do with social security. Maybe they'll work and maybe they won't but the idea that this is the only idea out there is intellectual laziness.
>
Again, this is about values. You value yourself and want to have lots of stuff when you retire. Whether this program remains solvent into the future doesn't seem to matter to you. Others value community and don't want old people to starve. Even the president has said that his plan won't help with solvency, he just wants that "higher return on investment" so Republican retirees can golf regularly when they retire.
>
I guess GENERAL Eisenhower was uninformed about the occasional need to fight or be eliminated. Crazy pacifist probably believed that everyone was willing to eliminate warfare. Do you think about these things before you say them or just repeat word for word what you hear from the President? Of course he wasn't some peacenik - he was a soldier all his life! But, unlike our current president, he saw the horrors of war first-hand, not on TV from his mansion in Kennebunkport. He understood that war is something to avoid at all costs, not to jump into and celebrate whether you were right or wrong just because you're a cowboy.
"Rather than hand over all my social security to the government to do with what they see fit"
Actually, that's called democracy. We authorize the government to do things on our behalf, and then we fund them in those efforts. Sometimes we like what they do with our money, sometimes we don't. I don't particularly like my money being spent invading the wrong country and killing innocent people, so what I do about that is try to change it. You go ahead and fight to keep our government from getting checks to old people, and I'll fight to get them to stop killing people.
"at least I'll be able to have partial control over a small portion of it as I do with my 401k."
Again, Social Security was not formed as a "supplement" - it was meant to keep people who didn't have a retirement account from falling into poverty.
"I have heard no other viable social security options coming from any other party, so until then I would say GWB's plan would be preferrable to the current one."
Apparently that's because you haven't been listening. Members of all parties (even the ones that don't win) have floated ideas about what to do with social security. Maybe they'll work and maybe they won't but the idea that this is the only idea out there is intellectual laziness.
"and heaven forbid people actually get a better return on the money that is whisked away from their paychecks"
Again, this is about values. You value yourself and want to have lots of stuff when you retire. Whether this program remains solvent into the future doesn't seem to matter to you. Others value community and don't want old people to starve. Even the president has said that his plan won't help with solvency, he just wants that "higher return on investment" so Republican retirees can golf regularly when they retire.
Of course those things are relevent to our times, however, terrorists are not willing to eliminate warfare, I'm afraid and the only options are to fight or be eliminated."
I guess GENERAL Eisenhower was uninformed about the occasional need to fight or be eliminated. Crazy pacifist probably believed that everyone was willing to eliminate warfare. Do you think about these things before you say them or just repeat word for word what you hear from the President? Of course he wasn't some peacenik - he was a soldier all his life! But, unlike our current president, he saw the horrors of war first-hand, not on TV from his mansion in Kennebunkport. He understood that war is something to avoid at all costs, not to jump into and celebrate whether you were right or wrong just because you're a cowboy.
by AMSearch on May 14, 2005"
Inter-regnum, that's a great way to get in a jab without actually addressing any issues! Nicely done.
And by the way, you're right that Democrats ridiculed Eisenhower - up until they got a snoot full of Nixon (Watergate, Vietnam) and Reagan/Bush (Iran-Contra and massive debt), and finally George W. (invades wrong country, squanders surplus, divides country).
Ever since, Democrats have been quite openly wishing for more reasonable people like him on the other side of the isle. Ike's son even came out in favor of Kerry because he couldn't even recognize the Republican party through all the theocracy, leader-worship, and bashing of the poor.
So then, I should expect that all of a sudden Newt Gingrich will become the new darling of the left? I mean he stood on a stage with Hillary. So everything he stood for and that the Democrats so reviled is okay now?
Alright. That is the same thing that Dems/Libs are accusing Zell Miller of. So what?
And who cares who Ike's son backs? I mean David Eisenhower was doing what up until 04? Was he in a think tank somewhere? Was he influencing opinion in some other way? Was he a professor of history? Was the Dem/Libs quoting him before that?
I think that the answer is no to all of them!!
Hey Ronald Reagan's kid is supporting Democrats. That means that Ronald Reagan was wrong. Talk about specious logic. The idea that the spawn of someone is supposed to be listened to or respected for no other reason than he is spawn? YOU make me laugh. Ronald Reagan's other kid supported Bush. Should then that be taken more seriously? Or just the kid that supports your view? I mean that is what it is getting down to right? If that person supports your view and agrees with your position then he/she is righteous? I don't disagree, and both sides do it. But don't expecct me to listen to some old guy just because he is the son of a former president. That is his only accomplishment as far as I am aware.
Also what makes you think that anybody would agree with Ike now. And why should we? Didn't Ike run Europe after the War for awhile? Didn't known Nazi criminals leave under his nose and flee to Argentina? Didn't he deliberately shield Nazi scientists from the Nuremburg trials because he wanted the reasearch that they had done? Was that wrong? Didn't he let the war criminal Werner von Braun come to the US? Didn't ol' Werner help to establish American nuclear capability?
If you want to pick a couple of quotes out that is fine. Could someone who doesn't agree with Clinton or the other Dems do the same? Yes. How about Clinton saying that Social Security is the biggest problem of the day? No doesn't work for you.
Also, Eisenhower was an amazing administrator not one of the greatest generals in the military sense. Patton and MacArthur, Nimitz and many others including the British general whose name now escapes me were the military force of genius.
Ike's ability was that he brought them together and got them all to work together. In that sense he was a great general, but without the others he wouldn't have been much.
Also the great Ike was considered soft on Communism and that is why Kennedy won in 60. He constantly attacked Ike on his stupidity in policy. But you found a couple of quotes which temporarily allow you to turn Ike into a left hero. Congrats. And you can have him.
And one more thing. Don't you think that Republicans long for reasonable people like JFK not Teddy Kennedy? How about longing for Sam Nunn and not Charles Schmur? How about Senator Moynihan and not Patrick Leahy? You know that these people are extremists? For instance Schmur thinks being Catholic is an automatic disqualification for the Court...nice and reasonable I guess...a separation of the church and state I guess.
You know what? Being a conservative/Republican/rigtist on this site gives you insight in what it most of been like to be a homosexual prior to the time of the Stonewall Rebellion. Haha. You know you have to stay in the closet.
AM-you're damn right I value myself and my family! Are you saying you don't? I value myself and my family enough so that I am responsible enough to save for my retirement. I work multiple jobs to do it. How dare you spew your ridiculous and unfounded accusations. You don't even know me. By the way I SAID I WOULD VOTE FOR HIM. The only thing I pointed out was that the world is different today and I'm sure some of Eisenhower's comments would have evolved with it.
Also, if you actually accurately read my comments I said there were no other VIABLE ideas for Social Security in my OPINION. I am allowed to have one right-or is that just you?
I also NEVER said I wanted social security to stop-quit being utterly and completely ridiculous. You are trying to twist what I say. Can you stop arguing with things I don't even say and start actually debating the real points I am making. If not than just stop typing. I'm tired of your pompous and judgemental comments. They are completely off base.
ceejj, I apologize for being so shrill. bad week personally. I didn't mean to be so judgemental.
Still, my point wasn't that it was bad to value your family. I think that's great, I do to. But I also think that, in the wealthiest country in the history of the planet, valuing one's self to the point of diverting money from the actually impoverished so that a middle class retiree can get a bigger TV is a bit selfish. And since the president himself said that his reform will do nothing for solvency, he is basically saying "forget the poor elderly of future generations - grab all you can for yourself!"
I work my butt off for my family, too. And I worry about retirement. But as a matter of religious belief, I don't want to focus only on myself.
And just so we're clear, you did say
"my point is no one has come up with any other ideas besides the usual increase of already too high taxes." My point was that this is not the case - there have been plenty of proposals beyond raising taxes.
So, sorry for offending you. And sorry for the pompous tone. I'll work on it.
|
|
