Jesus--where is Ronald Reagan!! - Page 2 - U.S. Politics Online: A Political Discussion Forum

Tanngrisnir3 · #16 (**permalink**) 10-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by andy764383

So you were about 9 when Carter became Pres. I'm sure you weren't paying to much attention at that age.

I was 15 and the Carter years were horrible. Thank God for Ronald Reagan.

Are you OK? Do you wanna talk about it?

andy764383 · #17 (**permalink**) 10-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSGracchus

Reagan was actually worse than McCain without a teleprompter, but that may be because he was suffering from the early stages of Alzheimers while he was president. He was great at delivering a speech.

What you have to remember about conservatism is that it isn't defined by a fixed set of policies. Conservatism is a reverence for tradition and a skepticism towards change. The purpose of conservatives in the political dialog is to force progressive ideas to prove themselves against criticism, rather than being implemented without testing. Conservatism isn't supposed to win and govern. It's supposed to slow liberalism/progressivism down and keep it from flying off the handle and doing stupid things. It's supposed to lose, but not too easily or quickly. And that means conservative ideas, like progressive ones, change over time, as progressive ideas become accepted and part of the mainstream, and hence cease to be progressive and become conservative.

When I was a kid, racism was a conservative idea, and so was the notion that women were only supposed to be homemakers. When my grandfather was a kid, conservatives opposed the eight-hour day and labor unions. When my great-great-grandfather was a kid, conservatives championed slavery. And when his great-grandfather was a kid, the conservatives were believers in the divine right of kings.

Today's conservatism is yesterday's liberalism, and today's liberalism will be the conservatism of tomorrow. Live long enough, and you see that happen.

I'll join in the compliments for this post

And then add that it's not complete. Conservatism is also about the role of Government. It's about our role in the international environment. It's about getting out of the way, as much as possible, of the free market. It's about protecting family values. It's about many other things.

andy764383 · #18 (**permalink**) 10-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tanngrisnir3

Are you OK? Do you wanna talk about it?

Nah. Reagan put an end to the misery so I'm fine.

zip98053 · #19 (**permalink**) 10-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by andy764383

I'll join in the compliments for this post

And then add that it's not complete. Conservatism is also about the role of Government. It's about our role in the international environment. It's about getting out of the way, as much as possible, of the free market. It's about protecting family values. It's about many other things.

Now you went and ruined the buzz.

TSGracchus post was about conservatism not Conservatism.

MarcATL · #20 (**permalink**) 10-07-2008

Dude...President Reagan, or any of the other dead Presidents aren't able to help you.

Snap out of it!

TSGracchus · #21 (**permalink**) 10-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by andy764383

I'll join in the compliments for this post

And then add that it's not complete. Conservatism is also about the role of Government. It's about our role in the international environment. It's about getting out of the way, as much as possible, of the free market. It's about protecting family values. It's about many other things.

Temporarily, yes. But there will come a time in the future when the need to regulate the free market is universally recognized, when internationalism is the norm, and when "family values" is no longer a code phrase for fundamentalist Christian morality. At that time, what are now liberal positions on these issues will be conservative ones, progressives will be pushing for something completely different, and opposition to those initiatives will be conservative. Sometimes it helps to take a long view. From my own (liberal) perspective, it helps me keep a level head in times like the past 25 years or so. I know there's a rhythm to these things, and that a society can't be in a ferment of change all the time, because it becomes exhausted and needs to take a break. And then, having taken a break, it becomes antsy again and wants to move forward -- like now.

Quote:

I was 15 and the Carter years were horrible. Thank God for Ronald Reagan.

Ah, that explains a lot. If Jimmy Carter was the first president in one's politically-aware life, that gives one a rather different perspective. For me, 1976 was the first election in which I was old enough to vote, and the first president of whom I was aware in real-time was Lyndon B. Johnson. (I was sort of aware of Kennedy, but only when he got killed and all the grown-ups were crying for some reason I didn't quite understand.) So I didn't compare Carter to Reagan, I compared him to Tricky Dick, and believe me, he didn't look so bad against that background.

andy764383 · #22 (**permalink**) 10-07-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSGracchus

Temporarily, yes. But there will come a time in the future when the need to regulate the free market is universally recognized, when internationalism is the norm, and when "family values" is no longer a code phrase for fundamentalist Christian morality.

It's already recognised the free market needs regulating. To an extent. Just not the extent liberals want.

Internationalism IS the norm. To an extent. Just not the extent liberal apologists want.

Family values transend fundamentalist Christian morality. That you don't see this is, frankly, amazing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSGracchus

At that time, what are now liberal positions on these issues will be conservative ones, progressives will be pushing for something completely different, and opposition to those initiatives will be conservative. Sometimes it helps to take a long view. From my own (liberal) perspective, it helps me keep a level head in times like the past 25 years or so. I know there's a rhythm to these things, and that a society can't be in a ferment of change all the time, because it becomes exhausted and needs to take a break. And then, having taken a break, it becomes antsy again and wants to move forward -- like now.

Sounds like Rome around 500 AD.

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSGracchus

Ah, that explains a lot. If Jimmy Carter was the first president in one's politically-aware life, that gives one a rather different perspective. For me, 1976 was the first election in which I was old enough to vote, and the first president of whom I was aware in real-time was Lyndon B. Johnson. (I was sort of aware of Kennedy, but only when he got killed and all the grown-ups were crying for some reason I didn't quite understand.) So I didn't compare Carter to Reagan, I compared him to Tricky Dick, and believe me, he didn't look so bad against that background.

You assume too much. I started following politics when I was 7, during the 1968 election. I was for Humphrey btw. Just didn't trust that Nixon fella. My interest probably results from my earliest childhood memory, JFK's assassination. I was less than 2 and a half.

Your response was condesending and not based on fact. Your post indicates you are several years older than me, so you should have been much more aware of the political environment when Kennedy died, not just that people were crying and you didn't know why. That you weren't doesn't speak well of you. Maybe you were one of those kids that got held back in school (back in the days they actually did this) until he caught up. Another conservative idea I'm sure.

TSGracchus · #23 (**permalink**) 10-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by andy764383

You assume too much. I started following politics when I was 7, during the 1968 election.

Then there's no excuse for your belief that Carter was as bad as you seem to think. He didn't get us involved in a military quagmire and then refuse to raise taxes to pay for it, like LBJ. He didn't abuse the powers of his office to destroy his political opponents, like Nixon. He wasn't the amiable bumbler that Gerald Ford was. He was just a man who was unlucky enough to inherit an artificial oil crisis that depressed the economy, and lacked the charisma to get people to follow him despite that.

And his successor was a man who DID have that charisma, and was lucky enough that the oil crisis abated shortly after he took office, for reasons that had nothing to do with anything he did (more to do with what Carter did, actually). Hence the phenomenon of the Reagan economy, a success in spite of his bad policies. Actually, he was a very lucky man in many respects.

Quote:

Your post indicates you are several years older than me, so you should have been much more aware of the political environment when Kennedy died

Why? Is there nothing to life besides politics, even for a seven-year-old boy? If you were really focused on the 1968 election at that age, quite honestly I feel sorry for you. It interested me, but I was 12, and that was the age at which I got seriously interested in politics for the first time. (Along with girls, and spirituality.) Before that, there was art, there was music, there was poetry, there were games and good times with my friends. I'm happy to say that politics did not intrude into my childhood very much at all, and I do not regret the lack in the least.

andy764383 · #24 (**permalink**) 10-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSGracchus

Why? Is there nothing to life besides politics, even for a seven-year-old boy? If you were really focused on the 1968 election at that age, quite honestly I feel sorry for you. It interested me, but I was 12, and that was the age at which I got seriously interested in politics for the first time. (Along with girls, and spirituality.) Before that, there was art, there was music, there was poetry, there were games and good times with my friends. I'm happy to say that politics did not intrude into my childhood very much at all, and I do not regret the lack in the least.

I knew you were slow. I was into girls at six. Maybe in ten years you'll catch up to where I was ten years ago.

TSGracchus · #25 (**permalink**) 10-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by andy764383

I knew you were slow. I was into girls at six.

The most charitable thing to believe about this is that you're lying. If you're not, you've just admitted to being a pervert.

andy764383 · #26 (**permalink**) 10-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by TSGracchus

The most charitable thing to believe about this is that you're lying. If you're not, you've just admitted to being a pervert.

Most boys at six think girls have cooties and want nothing to do with them. I didn't say I had sex with them at that age, and you're a pervert for thinking that way. Your response shows what you're all about. Oh yeah, you're from San Fran. That explains it.

Slon · #27 (**permalink**) 10-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by andy764383

So you were about 9 when Carter became Pres. I'm sure you weren't paying to much attention at that age.

I was 15 and the Carter years were horrible. Thank God for Ronald Reagan.

So let me get this straight. You pursue the Ayers/Obama connection here:

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/obam...-neighbor.html

Making claims as damning as:
"Lets not forget that Obama interned at the same law firm where Ayers wife, another infamous terrorist, worked."

But what do you think of Reagan's support for groups that would undoubtedly be called terrorists were they to oppose the US today?

Quote:

Whatever the Soviet goals may have been, the international response was sharp and swift. United States President Jimmy Carter, reassessing the strategic situation in his State of the Union address in January, 1980, identified Pakistan as a "front-line state" in the global struggle against communism. He reversed his stand of a year earlier that aid to Pakistan be terminated as a result of its nuclear program and offered Pakistan a military and economic assistance package if it would act as a conduit for United States and other assistance to the mujahidin. Pakistani president Zia ul-Haq refused Carter's package but later a larger aid offer from the Reagan administration was accepted. Questions about Pakistan's nuclear program were, for the time being, set aside. Assistance also came from China, Egypt, and Saudi Arabia. Also forth coming was international aid to help Pakistan deal with more than 3 million fleeing Afghan refugees.

Quote:

The civil war in Afghanistan was guerrilla warfare and a war of attrition between the several communist (that is, PDPA) controlled regimes and the mujahidin; it cost both sides a great deal. Many Afghans, perhaps as many as five million, or one-quarter of the country's population, fled to Pakistan and Iran where they organized into guerrilla groups to strike Soviet and government forces inside Afghanistan. Others remained in Afghanistan and also formed fighting groups; perhaps most notable was one led by Ahmad Shah Massoud in the northeastern part of Afghanistan. These various groups were supplied with funds to purchase arms, principally from the United States, Saudi Arabia, China, and Egypt. Despite high casualties on both sides, pressure continued to mount on the Soviet Union, especially after the United States brought in Stinger anti-aircraft missiles which severely reduced the effectiveness of Soviet air cover.

andy764383 · #28 (**permalink**) 10-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slon

So let me get this straight. You pursue the Ayers/Obama connection here:

http://www.uspoliticsonline.com/obam...-neighbor.html

Making claims as damning as:
"Lets not forget that Obama interned at the same law firm where Ayers wife, another infamous terrorist, worked."

But what do you think of Reagan's support for groups that would undoubtedly be called terrorists were they to oppose the US today?

Are you comparing a scumbag communist (Ayers words: communist with a small "c") terrorist like Ayers with the anti-communist groups Reagan supported? Gimme a break.

Slon · #29 (**permalink**) 10-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by andy764383

Are you comparing a scumbag communist (Ayers words: communist with a small "c") terrorist like Ayers with the anti-communist groups Reagan supported? Gimme a break.

So terrorism is okay if you're anti-communist, or is it impossible to be a "terrorist" no matter what terrorism you commit if you are anti-communist? Just trying to figure it out since you seem to have a problem with Obama going to the same school with Ayers, but don't have a problem with Reagan funding terrorist activities.

andy764383 · #30 (**permalink**) 10-08-2008

Quote:

Originally Posted by Slon

So terrorism is okay if you're anti-communist, or is it impossible to be a "terrorist" no matter what terrorism you commit if you are anti-communist? Just trying to figure it out since you seem to have a problem with Obama going to the same school with Ayers, but don't have a problem with Reagan funding terrorist activities.

If you say so. It's not what I said but whatever pops your top. I also never said Obama and Ayers went to the same school, so apparently you have a reading comprehension problem.

There is a world of difference between a radical communist (with a small "c") like Ayers blowing up buildings in his own country and people fighting against an invading power.

Here's where you compare our invasion of Afghanistan with the Soviet invasion of the same country.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode