How much better would things be if he had won in '64?
>>74224374
A lot. He would've been the Rand Paul of the time. Would've also declassified all the UFO intel.
>>74224374
would have been a lot better if Nixon won in '60.
The Neocons and Rockefeller Republicans would have stayed Democrat and we wouldn't have to Make America Great Again.
A true American.
May history forget we were ever countrymen of the lot running things now.
>>74224787
We wouldn't have to undo fifty years of "civil rights legislation" and the welfare state.
He was a true American hero and the media destroyed him. Sound familiar?
>>74224540
I don't know much about him other than him getting BTFO in the general election.
Why does his name come up so often, what was so significant about him?
>>74224540
But for what? Releasing information/evidence about UFO's would do nothing more than have a negative effect on most Americans. Most of us simply are not ready for it.
Depends; would he have changed the immigration policy?
>>74224374
He's a Jew.
So no.
>>74225220
He was the proto-Reagan so people ride his dick and fantasize about what could have been.
>>74225319
This was before the immigration bill that "would not change demographics"
>>74225344
>He's a Jew.
Uh, no. He was Episcopalian.
>>74224997
>He was a true American hero and the media destroyed him.
What did the media do?
>>74225493
Ah. Fuck that bill, anyway, and fuck LBJ.
>>74224374
>>74225537
He voted against the civil rights bill because he felt it was uncomstitiutional. The media ripped him apart even though he was actually less racist than Johnson.
>>74225220
1. He was non-racist yet voted against popular 'civil rights' legislation on principle and constitution. He was one of the last legislators that had principles, though Ron Paul managed to stretch his own term out over several more decades.
2. He was the first anti-establishment, pro-American candidate that modern mass media crucified and kept out of the office.
>>74224540
That quote, damn
It took us 40 years of screwing around to break the jesus spell.
>>74224540
>"If you give a mouse a cookie" isn't a warning, it is how you should operate.
>>74224374
Jetson's would have become reality
>>74224374
We would have kept a lot of our freedoms. It's too bad he didn't win.
What happened to Barry Goldylocks? Was he really the ultimate redpilled Jew?
>>74224930
Damn that whole quote is great, I just wish those faggots that say they will leave when Trump becomes president actually do. But I know they won't
> "Hubert Humphrey talks so fast that listening to him is like trying to read Playboy magazine with your wife turning the pages."
BASED
A
S
E
D
>>74226273
I disagree on his stance on Abortion though, beyond a certain point. If someone loves life liberty and happiness, Once there is consciousness in the fetus then how can they argue abortion is anything other than murder. That is a life you are snuffing out in the name of convenience.
Only when the mother's life is at risk, or before that fetus becomes conscious (12 weeks they reckon is the ball park for consciousness) should there be an option for abortion.
This is now a Barry Goldwater quote thread.
- "You don't have to be straight to be in the military; you just have to be able to shoot straight."
- "The income tax created more criminals than any other single act of government."
- "Those who seek absolute power, even though they seek it to do what they regard as good, are simply demanding the right to enforce their own version of heaven on earth. And let me remind you, they are the very ones who always create the most hellish tyrannies. Absolute power does corrupt, and those who seek it must be suspect and must be opposed. Their mistaken course stems from false notions of equality, ladies and gentlemen. Equality, rightly understood, as our founding fathers understood it, leads to liberty and to the emancipation of creative differences. Wrongly understood, as it has been so tragically in our time, it leads first to conformity and then to despotism."
Holy fuck....
he would have revoked all the New Deal policies that ruined our country. We wouldn't have welfare, social security, and basically we would be a perfect country.
>>74225537
>"Goldwater rejected the legacy of the New Deal and fought through the conservative coalition against the New Deal coalition. He mobilized a large conservative constituency to win the hard-fought Republican primaries. He was the first candidate of Jewish heritage to be nominated for President by a major American party."
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barry_Goldwater
Uh, yes. He was a Jew.
>>74227577
>muh morals
Who cares; we're all better off with aborted blacks.
>>74227577
1. Even disagreeing with it, recognize that this was a politician saying what he believed up front, no bullshit, agree or disagree you knew where he stood.
2. You're actually dead wrong on Abortion. The powers of political correctness have been using this as a wedge issue relentlessly since before I was born, and I'm nearing 50. They love the issue because it cuts both ways - they pushed the Republicans to an extreme position on one side, this helps them herd their own supporters to the other, and that in turn helps make this a huge issue that we will argue about year after year while they pick our pockets without worry.
It's utter nonsense to claim that rights adhere to a human before that human can even breath for himself, or pump blood through his own veins. They love to convince you otherwise, because in the end this means you destroy the entire intellectual framework that supports individual rights. If a being who cannot yet even breath for himself has a right to life, how can you possibly refuse to feed the urban ghettos anon?
>>74227993
Yeah.
Conservative used to be about small govt, spending less, low immigration, nationalism.
Now it's about big govt, Christ fag shit, anti abortion activists, useless wars.
>>74228640
Goldwater was truly the original Paul
He knew all this was going to happen
>tfw Goldwater will never be our 36th president
>tfw Pat Buchanan will never be our 42nd president
He won my home state in '64. He wasn't racist, but opposed the Civil Rights Act of '64 on the grounds of traditional federalism and the rights of the states and local communities to govern themselves. This is hugely beside the point, however I can't help but skew into race in this---I can't stand leftists or anyone else who looks down on the south for being 'racist,' when they're sitting in their lily white communities far away from any black people. They just don't understand the cost of black crime, the drain on the public sector, or the waste of human potential that black people exhibit. If they had our demographics they would hold the same views we do. No one dislikes blacks for the color of their skin. We have conflict with them due to their failures and maladies which spill over on to our communities.
>>74228360
On point 1, you make a good point and I certainly respect him for his position. Any politician willing to stand for something they believe when it is unpopular to do so strikes me as someone who got into the politics game for the right reasons. Such people tend to get my vote regardless of whether I agree with them on everything.
One of the few politicians I like in my country New Zealand - Winston Peters, took a similar stance when our cucked 'centre right' party decided to put a vote to the floor on gay marriage. His party alone opposed it, and not even because he disagreed with it, but because he felt it was an issue that should have been put to a national referendum. It wasn't popular, people called him a bigot, but fuck I respected him for it.
IMO Fetal designation as a life is not about independence of breathing or pumping blood in my view, because you can just as rightly say that in a babies first year of life it is still completely dependent on it's mother for life. A baby will die if not fed. It can't fend for itself, I don't see a difference between that and a conscious fetus dependent upon it's mothers blood and liver and what not.
When something is conscious, it is alive, and to destroy that is to kill. I think being pro life (beyond the 12 odd week mark which is the ballpark for consciousness) is completely compatible with conservative values, especially libertarian values - Life, liberty and happiness - Do what you want in life, as long as you don't deprive another of theirs.
That all said, I think you have a valid point of view. Just one that I mostly disagree with.
>>74224374
Well, he'd have plunged the nation into nuclear war.
That could be seen as better or worse, depending on your perspective.
>>74224374
USSR would have died in 1968 and America would never had any of its major debt programs installed.
>>74228012
Judaism is only passed down maternally. His mother was Christian.
>>74229752
On point 1 we agree, so I can't add much.
On the other, a newborn baby whose mother does not want it can simply be adopted. There is no conceivable justification for killing it instead at that point.
But with an embryo or an undeveloped fetus, that is not the case. There's no way for the mother to cease support without causing its death. If she does not have the right to abort it she is effectively reduced to slavery - slave to the foetus, slave to the man who placed it in her, quite possibly without her consent.
"Imagine a world in which the act of swallowing a pill murdered another human being. In what sense could I claim the right to swallow? On the one hand, in what sense could I claim the right to my own body when I cannot properly control what is put into it? This is the dilemma posed by the antiabortionists who grant the fetus a right to control the woman's body which competes and conflicts with her own right. The result is not conflicting rights, but the destruction of the framework from which rights derive meaning. Unlike gray areas of libertarian theory in which disputes arise because rights are not well defined, the alleged rights are clear and in direct contradiction. The fetus's life requires a claim on the woman's bodily functions; the woman's right to her body requires the fetus's death. In Randian terms, this is 'the fallacy of the stolen concept." In this fallacy, a word is used while the conceptual underpinnings which are necessary to the definition of the word are denied. Thus, the antiabortionists use the concept of 'rights' without regard for the fact that the fetus is not a discrete individual, the alleged rights conflict, and the rights involve two people claiming control of one body. Whatever version of rights is being attributed to the fetus, it is not the natural rights championed by libertarianism." -- http://www.wendymcelroy.com/abort.htm
Respect to your point of view as well. Wrong it may be, but not ill-intentioned.
>>74224787
Good point. Vietnam was a shitshow and the strategy was to kill as many communists as possible, rather than take and hold territory.
>>74227577
He's a classical conservative, you dope. When the meaning of the term "Conservative" in US politics meant someone who interpreted the constitution literally, rather than figuratively like the "liberals" did.
Now it's just an invented right-wing position versus pseudo commies.
