Author Topic: JOHN EISENHOWER commentary (Read 984 times)

AKIron · « **Reply #15 on:** October 11, 2004, 12:15:11 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Torque
Odd you'd bring up Reagan's name, the only American prez to be condemned by the World Court for sponsoring international terrorism.

If you're looking for someone embarrassed that Bush opposes subjecting ourselves to the World Court you'll need to look elsewhere. You may find what you're looking for among the Kerry supporters.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #16 on:** October 11, 2004, 12:21:16 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by Torque
Odd you'd bring up Reagan's name, the only American prez to be condemned by the World Court for sponsoring international terrorism.

The World Court..

One more time...

MRPLUTO · « **Reply #17 on:** October 11, 2004, 12:25:09 PM »

AKIron--

You wrote: "If you can bring up Eisenhower's name I guess it's only fair to let me bring in Reagan's"

I never said it wasn't fair, only irrelevant. The parrallel you bring up is so general, it's true of all wars...that they cost a lot. But let's look at your assertion about Eisenhower and see if it's true.

You wrote: "Sounds like Eisenhower isn't willing to pay the price to defeat terrorism", but where in his article did he say anything like that? He quoted his father, as he could have quoted many other great American leaders, as saying we must always guard our liberty above all. But.......................... .

.........when it comes to paying the price to defeat terrorism, it's Bush who doesn't seem to want to pay the price. He'd rather have a huge tax cut for his super-rich buddies and plunge the country into more debt than is necessary. Not a very conservative, Republican, responsible, or fair thing to do, Eisenhower says:

"The Republican Party I used to know placed heavy emphasis on fiscal responsibility...", and: "it [the Eisenhower administration] accomplished that difficult task (balancing the budget) three times during its eight years in office. It did not attain that remarkable achievement by cutting taxes for the rich." He goes onto say that "Republicans disliked taxes...but the party accepted them as a necessary means of keeping the nation's financial structure sound." He also criticized Bush's tax code that "heads us in the direction of a society of very rich and very poor."

It's Eisenhower who is willing to pay the price, including higher taxes for himself, rather than make future generations pay for it.

MRPLUTO

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #18 on:** October 11, 2004, 12:25:59 PM »

As for lsenhower I find it funny how he criticizes the Bush tax cuts for the "rich" in one sentance then states that somehow the Republican party tax policy is abandoing the small business community. Not onlty that but he ius clear in hisc support of Kerry, a man who promises to raise taxes on individuals of more than 200K income. Well since many small busines owners file thier business income as personal income this will be a disater to small buisness.

But hey ABB, no?

The Gulf War 1 analogy is cute but pointless. What if France, China or Russiia voted NON on the use of force - just like the majority of the Democratis in congress voted NON! on the gulf war! I guess that wouldnt have been as pretty..

But hey US national security must pass a "Global Test" NON?

AKIron · « **Reply #19 on:** October 11, 2004, 12:31:55 PM »

"America, though recognized as the leader of the community of nations, has always acted as a part of it, not as a maverick separate from that community and at times insulting towards it. Leadership involves setting a direction and building consensus, not viewing other countries as practically devoid of significance."

Eisenhower's statement simply isn't true.

"Once again, Reagan was forced to act without the support of others, in this case traditional US allies, and over the opposition of supporters of détente. Germany, France, Canada, Norway, Greece, Italy, and even Margaret Thatcher’s Great Britain, denounced the martial law in Poland, but refused to adhere to the US embargo."

http://www.aei.org/news/newsID.17999/news_detail.asp

MRPLUTO · « **Reply #20 on:** October 11, 2004, 01:14:08 PM »

AKIron--

In December, 1981, Margaret Thatcher actually encouraged other European nations to support US sanctions against the USSR. click me See the entry for the 31st. So, it seems that while countries were against the US embargo, there was support for sanctions against the USSR. Knowing that, it's clear that we were hardly going it alone in opposing the USSR in Afganistan or Eastern Europe.

Furthermore, I don't think Eisenhower is just talking about our Iraq policy. Our actions regarding the Kyoto environmental treaty, for example, have been considered uncooperative and dismissive of other countries.

MRPLUTO

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #21 on:** October 11, 2004, 01:17:02 PM »

What a crock, go jump in a lake John E.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #22 on:** October 11, 2004, 01:18:47 PM »

So the brits suporting Reagan is international uninanimity..

But Iraq is going it alone with the Brits, the Poles, the Italians, the Aussies, the Spanish (before 311)..

You know I dont put much weight in idiotic campaign slogans but Bush is right on ther money when he says that you Kerry folk will do a great job getting getting people on board by telling the coalition partners that they are nothing...

MRPLUTO · « **Reply #23 on:** October 11, 2004, 01:21:06 PM »

More thoughtful criticism!

If it's such a crock, it should be easy to refute with facts and not insults.

MRPLUTO

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #24 on:** October 11, 2004, 01:26:13 PM »

Kyoto is the one of the worst ideas ever, it would be suicide for any western economy to adopt it. Do you even know why pluto?

FUNKED1 · « **Reply #25 on:** October 11, 2004, 01:28:35 PM »

It's not just that it's suicide, what's worse is that even the people behind it know that it won't prevent global warning. There has been no cost-benefit analysis whatsoever.

Ripsnort · « **Reply #26 on:** October 11, 2004, 01:30:07 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MRPLUTO
[BHe also criticized Bush's tax code that "heads us in the direction of a society of very rich and very poor."

It's Eisenhower who is willing to pay the price, including higher taxes for himself, rather than make future generations pay for it.

MRPLUTO [/B]

Tax cut critics have argued that the cuts have only helped the wealthiest Americans. However, 7.8 million low and middle-income families had their entire income tax liabilities erased by the cuts

http://www.taxfoundation.org/ff/7million.html

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #27 on:** October 11, 2004, 01:30:47 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by FUNKED1
It's not just that it's suicide, what's worse is that even the people behind it know that it won't prevent global warning. There has been no cost-benefit analysis whatsoever.

Cost-benefit? I cannot find these terms in my UN dictionary, what do they mean?

NUKE · « **Reply #28 on:** October 11, 2004, 01:34:37 PM »

Quote

Originally posted by MRPLUTO
More of the same...no Bush defender will take on Eisenhower, some just insult him, but even then without any wit or imagination.

MRPLUTO

What did he say that needs to be "taken on"?

You cut and paste that without giving your view and expect someone to defend against someing he said.

Basically he said he didn't like the republican party and was voting for Kerry. Big deal.

GRUNHERZ · « **Reply #29 on:** October 11, 2004, 01:36:57 PM »

Also wehy all this supposed emphasis on the "son of eisenhower" as if we are we are supposed to belive that you libs have some special revernce for the sons of former republican presidents...