MovieChat Forums > Mr. Conservative: Goldwater on Goldwater (2006) Discussion > Goldwater: NOT Mr. Conservative

Goldwater: NOT Mr. Conservative

posted 17 years ago by jtpaladin
9 replies | jump to latest

It was Goldwater and his disenchantment of voters that kept the Republican Party a minority party for so long. He opposed Civil Rights legislation which is fundamental to the Constitution. He hated the idea of Christians organizing for political purposes even though he had no problem with other groups doing the same. Ironically, it was Christian conservatives that put Ronald Reagan in the White House and later helped elect a Republican majority in Congress.

Goldwater was a nut in so many ways. The guy wanted to use nuclear weapons in Vietnam!! Now, I wanted to win this war as well but not with nukes.

He pretended to be pro-Life but wasn't. In his later years, he came out as more and more liberal. In this documentary, it is full of liberals who praised him for so many different things. You know when Ted Kennedy praises you, you have a serious problem.

Sure, Johnson ended up being a complete and total disaster for America on all fronts but Goldwater and his lunacy would have ended up getting us into a war with the Soviets that would have ended with the lives of millions of dead Americans.

Mr. Conservative? Sure, on a few things but to be a true conservative you have to embrace a larger philosophy than just a strong national defense and a free market economy. Goldwater could never understand something as simple as that and was in contempt of what the Founding Fathers advocated.

--------------------------------------
America put the "fun" back into "Fundamentalism".

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin888 16 years ago

How cna smeothing that shred the COnstitution and drestroyed the Black Community be "Fundamental to the Constitution"?

www.teaparty07.com
Join the Ron Paul Revolution and take back America!!!

[–] darkknight-9 16 years ago

Might I add his opposition to the 1964 CRA and with other righty Republicans ultimately destroyed the trust and hope Black America had in the GOP? I mean seriously, very few black Republicans in Congress and if Obama wins the Presidency will most likely keep the Democrats' grip on the AA vote for another 20 years!

That's the gripe I have with conservative Republicans, they turned the party of Lincoln into the party of the South!

[–] bbagnall 16 years ago

First off, it was a Republican Eisenhower who started the civil rights/desegregation thing - seriously, read it on Wikipedia. But I am opposed to all the forceful intervention by the Federal Government in the 60's. There are very real constitutional rights that were tread on by granting positive rights to Americans. For example, the Soviets never had freedom of association but we have this in the constitution. By forced busing, much as it seems like a good idea, you are violating freedom of association by forcing people to associate with one another when they clearly did not want to.

The results are seen today in our poor education system. Blacks get forced into classes next to whites, and rather than some blacks being able to be top of the class they are pushed to the bottom. This demoralizes them and they begin to resent education. You can clearly see this expressed in the education system today. Blacks at one time ran nice businesses in their neighborhoods, but today they just seem demoralized and don't even want to give it a shot.

[–] darkknight-9 16 years ago

Yes, it was a Republican (Eisenhower was conservative in his beliefs) and helped start the Civil Rights Movement. But since the GOP nominated Barry (who didn't support the 1964 CRA), blacks fled the party and with appealing to Southern Whites in the 60's, that's why they don't trust the GOP. With Hillary or Obama, it will stay that way for another 20 years.

I'm eager to know what constitutional rights were violated by granting positive rights.

[–] Mithrandir-Olorin888 16 years ago

Goldwater supported the Civil Rights Acts of 1958 and 1960, the 64 had Nothing to do with Civil Rights it was a Fraud that millions still buy into.

RonPaulMarch.com
The Battle may be over, But the War has only Just Begun.

[–] darkknight-9 16 years ago

Didn't respond to my question: It's like people like you who give the GOP a bad name. Your kind ensures a generation of blacks will vote Democrat thanks to Obama. Thank You Thank You Thank You Thank You Thank You Thank You.

[–] darkknight-9 16 years ago

I now hate Goldwater for setting the GOP back in race relations 50 years. Why did he stop supporting the Civil Rights Movement?

[–] 16 years ago

[deleted]

[–] Youwillhateme 14 years ago

Can you provide some sources for your outrageous lies?

Here are some of your ridiculous statements and my responses:

You wrote: "He opposed Civil Rights legislation which is fundamental to the Constitution"

He did NOT oppose the Civil rights Act, except Article II, which dealt with Government telling PRIVATE business what to do. He said you cannot legislate morality, which was the basis for his objection. Don't repeat the left wing nut job lies. But I guess you want big government in your life running thing. which is fine with me, but don't tell me how to run MY life.

You wrote: "He hated the idea of Christians organizing for political purposes even though he had no problem with other groups doing the same."

What? Are you serious? He opposed separation of Church and State. Do you not understand that concept? Religious institutions are separate and should be kept that way when it comes to politics. Its still this way today.

You wrote: "Ironically, it was Christian conservatives that put Ronald Reagan in the White House"

Your baseless argument that conservatives put Reagan onto office is plain ignorant. He won with a landslide except for 7 states, which obviously shows you he was put in the office by EVERYONE. Oh God, the ignorance.

You wrote: "The guy wanted to use nuclear weapons in Vietnam!"

Quote form history channel: "Although Goldwater discussed the possibility of using low-yield nuclear weapons to defoliate infiltration routes in Vietnam, he NEVER actually advocated the use of nuclear weapons against the North Vietnamese." Full quote here: http://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/9/22?catId=15

You wrote: "He pretended to be pro-Life but wasn't."

He was pro-life, but changed his view later on and became pro-choice. He stance was related mostly to do with States rights. There was no pretend.

It is just amazing the amount of meritless statements you asserted. You should be ashamed of yourself.