The Reagan V Obama Debate

Michelle Malkin has the Reagan/Obama Debate and more material straight from Reagan’s mouth.

Reagan on abortion:

We must all educate ourselves to the reality of the horrors taking place. Doctors today know that unborn children can feel a touch within the womb and that they respond to pain. But how many Americans are aware that abortion techniques are allowed today, in all 50 states, that burn the skin of a baby with a salt solution, in an agonizing death that can last for hours?

Another example: two years ago, the Philadelphia Inquirer ran a Sunday special supplement on “The Dreaded Complication.” The “dreaded complication” referred to in the article-the complication feared by doctors who perform abortions-is the survival of the child despite all the painful attacks during the abortion procedure. Some unborn children do survive the late-term abortions the Supreme Court has made legal. Is there any question that these victims of abortion deserve our attention and protection? Is there any question that those who don’t survive were living human beings before they were killed?

Late-term abortions, especially when the baby survives, but is then killed by starvation, neglect, or suffocation, show once again the link between abortion and infanticide. The time to stop both is now. As my administration acts to stop infanticide, we will be fully aware of the real issue that underlies the death of babies before and soon after birth.

Obama on abortion: If the baby survives the abortion, throw it on a shelf and let it die.

Reagan on liberty:

No nation in history has ever survived a tax burden that reached a third of its national income. Today, 37 cents out of every dollar earned in this country is the tax collector’s share, and yet our government continues to spend 17 million dollars a day more than the government takes in.

Not too long ago, two friends of mine were talking to a Cuban refugee, a businessman who had escaped from Castro, and in the midst of his story one of my friends turned to the other and said, “We don’t know how lucky we are.” And the Cuban stopped and said, “How lucky you are? I had someplace to escape to.” And in that sentence he told us the entire story. If we lose freedom here, there’s no place to escape to. This is the last stand on earth.

And this idea that government is beholden to the people, that it has no other source of power except the sovereign people, is still the newest and the most unique idea in all the long history of man’s relation to man.

This is the issue of this election: Whether we believe in our capacity for self-government or whether we abandon the American revolution and confess that a little intellectual elite in a far-distant capitol can plan our lives for us better than we can plan them ourselves.

Obama on liberty: Mandatory requirement to purchase a product, Government knows best, explode the size of government, violate federal bankruptcy laws to take over control of business, astronomically explode the debt and deficit, increase taxes, draconian regulations.

Reagan on the pursuit of happiness, growth, and achievement:

[P]rogress is not foreordained. The key is freedom — freedom of thought, freedom of information, freedom of communication. The renowned scientist, scholar, and founding father of this university, Mikhail Lomonosov, knew that. “It is common knowledge,” he said, “that the achievements of science are considerable and rapid, particularly once the yoke of slavery is cast off and replaced by the freedom of philosophy.” You know, one of the first contacts between your country and mine took place between Russian and American explorers. The Americans were members of Cook’s last voyage on an expedition searching for an Arctic passage; on the island of Unalaska, they came upon the Russians, who took them in, and together with the native inhabitants, held a prayer service on the ice.

The explorers of the modern era are the entrepreneurs, men with vision, with the courage to take risks and faith enough to brave the unknown. These entrepreneurs and their small enterprises are responsible for almost all the economic growth in the United States. They are the prime movers of the technological revolution. In fact, one of the largest personal computer firms in the United States was started by two college students, no older than you, in the garage behind their home. Some people, even in my own country, look at the riot of experiment that is the free market and see only waste. What of all the entrepreneurs that fail? Well, many do, particularly the successful ones; often several times. And if you ask them the secret of their success, they’ll tell you it’s all that they learned in their struggles along the way; yes, it’s what they learned from failing. Like an athlete in competition or a scholar in pursuit of the truth, experience is the greatest teacher.

Obama: They’re being selfish. Big government micro-managing everything is where it’s at.

Ronald Wilson Reagan was the greatest President we’ve had in at least 120 years.
Barack Hussein Obama is the worst, most dangerous, most anti-Founding Father President we have ever had.

29 Comments

  1. And here is the long-term effect of Reaganism on teh American economy n chart form. Fee free to divide each cart into “prior to 1982″ and “post 1982″…

  2. It is just amazing how much revisionism has been perpetrated by Republicans

    Perry, you once again show you don’t know the definition of a basic English word. Since my quotes of Reagan were just that, quotes of things Reagan said, it cannot be revisionism. It’s histo-fact. Just as you proved you don’t know the definition of an “activist judge” since you declared focusing in on the actual Constitution to be “activist”, you proved you don’t know the definition of “revisionism” either.

  3. Perry, you once again show you don’t know the definition of a basic English word. Since my quotes of Reagan were just that, quotes of things Reagan said, it cannot be revisionism

    Hmmm:

    “Perry, you once again show you [...] know [...] English [...]. Since my quotes of Reagan were [...] revisionism. Just as you proved [...].”

    (the amusing thing about that is that PB won’t be able to understand the point being made…)

  4. Oh, and PB – in all your ranting about Obama’s “big government”?

    Teeny tiny minor fact…

    Actually, as a share of the nation’s economy, Uncle Sam’s take this year will be the lowest since 1950, when the Korean War was just getting under way.

    And for the third straight year, American families and businesses will pay less in federal taxes than they did under former President George W. Bush, thanks to a weak economy and a growing number of tax breaks for the wealthy and poor alike.

    Income tax payments this year will be nearly 13 percent lower than they were in 2008, the last full year of the Bush presidency. Corporate taxes will be lower by a third, according to projections by the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

    Such a liar, PB.

  5. the amusing thing about that is that PB won’t be able to understand the point being made

    The point you made was that you continue using the time-worn tactics of radical leftist idiots (such as yourself) to fully strip the actual meanings and context of the words and to add vulgarities. As you do practically every time you “quote” a conservative. But why let that stop you? You’ve never tried to be honest before.

  6. On national TV Sunday, the brain dead idiot, Andrea Mitchell, accused the GOP of attempting to appropriate Ronald Reagan for themselves.

  7. Most of the Faux News ensemble are blazing idiots compared to the knowledgeable and very intelligent Andrea Mitchell. Moreover, she is truthful, dependent on facts, and civil, in contrast to your heroes, ropelight.

  8. The point you made was that you continue using the time-worn tactics of radical leftist idiots (such as yourself) to fully strip the actual meanings and context of the words and to add vulgarities. As you do practically every time you “quote” a conservative. But why let that stop you? You’ve never tried to be honest before.

    Shorter Hitchcock: When I don’t have any facts for a counter, I’ll fall back on my usual ad homs!

    Weak!

  9. “the amusing thing about that is that PB won’t be able to understand the point being made”

    The point you made was that you continue using the time-worn tactics of radical leftist idiots (such as yourself) to fully strip the actual meanings and context of the words and to add vulgarities.

    And my comment is immediately demonstrated true. Can I call ‘em or what?

  10. Andrea Mitchell sat there scowling as fellow panel members pointed out that contrary to recent efforts by Democrats to co-opt the image of Ronald Reagan in order to prop-up the failed presidency of Barack Obama, that not only was Reagan actually a Republican but that during his presidency and even extending to his funeral Democrats did everything they could to smear that good man. Now Democrats want to wrap themselves in his mantel and pretend they don’t hate his guts and everything he stood for.

    The hypocrisy of Democrats is unlimited by facts, truth, or integrity. They have chosen their path and are indeed damned to live in darkness and condemned to wander in the wilderness, adrift on the wind, alone, and without a moral compass.

  11. No, Perry, I called NZT out for what NZT is and does. That is not ad hom. That is stating a well-known fact. NZT obliterated my statement, stripping it of all context and stripping the words of their meanings, as is what NZT does on a very regular basis, while I maintained the context and meanings of Reagan’s speeches. You, on the other hand, are a shill for the highly dishonest, highly inflammatory, highly repugnant, highly vulgar NZT, as you have been since the day you got here.

    You are a hypocrite, a buffoon, an idiot, and much further left than the Gulf Coast Democrats. You are further left than the majority of Democrats across our country. And you have shown that, as well, since the day you got here.

    Andrea Mitchell sat there scowling as fellow panel members pointed out that contrary to recent efforts by Democrats to co-opt the image of Ronald Reagan in order to prop-up the failed presidency of Barack Obama, that not only was Reagan actually a Republican but that during his presidency and even extending to his funeral Democrats did everything they could to smear that good man. Now Democrats want to wrap themselves in his mantel and pretend they don’t hate his guts and everything he stood for.

    The hypocrisy of Democrats is unlimited by facts, truth, or integrity. They have chosen their path and are indeed damned to live in darkness and condemned to wander in the wilderness, adrift on the wind, alone, and without a moral compass.

    You are spot on, ropelight. Leftists, especially the ones on the national stage and the ones who comment here, are incapable of facing the facts head on, continually trying to change the subject and deliver personal attacks as a way to hide from the truth and hide from their own statements and actions.

  12. You are a hypocrite, a buffoon, an idiot, and much further left than the Gulf Coast Democrats. You are further left than the majority of Democrats across our country. And you have shown that, as well, since the day you got here.

    John, is this your best? Where are your facts to support your allegations? Ropelight has none either! Weak and meaningless this is!!!

  13. Perry, you don’t see the facts when they’re laid out before you. You never have; you never will, not even when Dana writes an article explicitly showing portions of facts and when that article is on Page 1. I cannot help the fact you are arrogantly ignorant, adamantly blind, hyper-partisan, overtly hypocritical and foolish beyond what is expected from a 12-year-old. That you are incapable of logic or reason is so well-known that multiple people call you on it on a regular basis.

    You really should sue all the schools you ever attended. They obviously failed at giving you even the basics of an education.

  14. Most of the Faux News ensemble are blazing idiots compared to the knowledgeable and very intelligent Andrea Mitchell.

    Wait — what’s this? Two ad hominems from he who constantly claims to despise such??

    Read this, Perry.

  15. Hube, I think you misunderstand the meaning of ‘ad hominem’, literally, to the man: marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.

    My attack on FoxNews was not focused on any individual, therefore was not “to the man”.

    As an aside, but connected, did you happen to see O’Reilly’s interview of Obama? The man did not let Obama finish one thought, interrupting him an average of once every 19 seconds, something over 80 times in the interview. Such disrespect is outrageous, and well worth the strongest ad hominem that one can drum up. Bill O’Reilly, to me, typifies the disgusting/disrespectful FoxNews/Murdoch mantra, exhibited on a daily basis to their wingnut base. Should we not complain about this behavior in the strongest terms, by calling them “blazing idiots”? I think so!

  16. Perry, you don’t see the facts when they’re laid out before you. You never have; you never will, not even when Dana writes an article explicitly showing portions of facts and when that article is on Page 1. I cannot help the fact you are arrogantly ignorant, adamantly blind, hyper-partisan, overtly hypocritical and foolish beyond what is expected from a 12-year-old. That you are incapable of logic or reason is so well-known that multiple people call you on it on a regular basis.

    You really should sue all the schools you ever attended. They obviously failed at giving you even the basics of an education.

    Now Hube, here is a perfect demonstration of the superlative ad hominem-er on the CSPT blog, and most famous hypocrit-er as well. John Hitchcock dishes this garbage out all the time, then gets critical when someone uses one against him. When are you going to call him out, Hube?

  17. Try again, Perry, and this time do your homework. Your comment addressed to Hube is a textbook example of disingenuous construction and self-serving pronouncements. You flunk the test.

  18. Try again, Perry, and this time do your homework. Your comment addressed to Hube is a textbook example of disingenuous construction and self-serving pronouncements. You flunk the test.

    Ropelight, I, nor anyone else probably, have any idea what you are talking about. Would you please be more specific?

  19. Hube, I think you misunderstand the meaning of ‘ad hominem’, literally, to the man: marked by or being an attack on an opponent’s character rather than by an answer to the contentions made.

    That’s your “defense?” You’re resorting to going back to the term’s Latin roots? LOL! Oh, please. Look, read this:

    Ad hominem abuse (also called personal abuse or personal attacks) usually involves insulting or belittling one’s opponent in order to invalidate his or her argument, but can also involve pointing out factual but ostensible character flaws or actions which are irrelevant to the opponent’s argument. This tactic is logically fallacious because insults and even true negative facts about the opponent’s personal character have nothing to do with the logical merits of the opponent’s arguments or assertions.

    This is what you were doing — you belittled Fox News in order to invalidate what they do, as well its employees. Those with common sense know that ad hominem means just what it says above, that is denigrating your opponent instead of factually dismantling him/her/them. Relying on the original Latin meaning is as silly as saying “anti-Semitism” doesn’t just mean “being against Jews” because many Arabs are Semitic people too. (Hey! You’ve done precisely that! Go figure!)

    Such disrespect is outrageous, and well worth the strongest ad hominem that one can drum up.

    Again, I suggest you read the link I previously provided. To say this about O’Reilly, yet laud someone like Keith Olbermann (not to mention the entire MSNBC network) as you’ve done in the past, makes you look more than foolish. Indeed, it makes you “worth the strongest ad hominem that one can drum up.”

  20. When are you going to call him out, Hube?

    Please. Maybe the same time you call Phoeny, Nang, Mike G. and Whistler out. But that’ll be when a blizzard hits Hades, so freakin’ spare me, huh? Again, read my previous link. It clearly states:

    Definition of HYPOCRITE: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

    How often will you engage in blatantly hypocritical behavior today, Perry? There’s at least two instances already in this thread alone.

  21. This is what you were doing — you belittled Fox News in order to invalidate what they do, as well its employees.

    That is correct, and I plead guilty to your charge. However, take another look at the definition for ad hominem that you gave:

    Note “personal abuse or personal attack” in the definition you gave: This refers to individuals, not to organizations as an entity nor to employees as a group. Thus, the word “opponent”, which you highlighted throughout, refers to an individual opponent. Moreover, using the translation from the original Latin elucidates the core meaning, is used all the time in legal and medical documentation. Finally, if we were to assume the broad definition that you claim, this would nullify a large quantity of criticisms and critiques, which would be counterproductive in many debates and discussions.

    Call me out when I attack the character of one of our fellow bloggers. Nevertheless, I will continue to attack the likes of FoxNews when I think it is appropriate.

    Incidentally, should I accuse you of the use of an ad hominem when you attack the character of President Obama, or me, when I attack the character of Rush Limbaugh? Thus, here is another distinction, such that we don’t generally consider these attacks to be ad hominems, even though they in fact are, but we don’t object to their use, though we might not agree with the criticism. We seem to confine ourselves to criticizing those who would use an ad hominem to attack the character of a private person, especially one whom we know personally.

  22. How often will you engage in blatantly hypocritical behavior today, Perry? There’s at least two instances already in this thread alone.

    Hube, according to the definition of hypocrite which you provided, I venture to say that every single contributor on here is a hypocrite, you included. If I might say so, hypocrisy is a human trait!

  23. Thus, the word “opponent”, which you highlighted throughout, refers to an individual opponent.

    Really. Yeah, I guess you’re right — the Packers’ “opponent” wasn’t the team of the Pittsburgh Steelers, it was just one person. Mike Tomlin, maybe?

    Your “defense,” such that it is, is pathetic, and only serves to further to incredible magnitudes your ever-present double standards and hypocrisy here.

  24. Your “defense,” such that it is, is pathetic, and only serves to further to incredible magnitudes your ever-present double standards and hypocrisy here.

    Hube, I was referring to the specific use of “opponent” in the context of the definition you gave, and you know that, so stop your obfuscation. Moreover, there is no hypocrisy here, and you know that too. As I said in my other post, you throw the ‘hypocrisy’ word around loosely to nullify an otherwise valid point with which you don’t agree.

    Could this be an example of your being hypocritical yourself, meaning that you apply different standard to others than those you apply to yourself?

  25. Oh, I see. So now, because people point out your more-than-obvious hypocrisy, it is “to nullify a valid point.” Well, yes, you may have a valid point, but that doesn’t mean you’re not a ridiculous hypocrite. And for one who so casually reprimands others for their online behavior, this too shows you to be a hypocrite! And it ain’t just righties who know this — back when you frequented the DE blogs even lefties pointed out your laughable blog behavior!

Comments are closed.