RE: Reagan the Hero- Iran/Contra; defend it if you can, NeoCon appologist morons!

POSTED BY: chrisisall
UPDATED: Monday, August 31, 2026 18:11
VIEWED: 16766
PAGE 6 of 15

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE

KHYRON

Friday, February 23, 2007 2:19 PM

Causal, I completely agree with what you're saying regarding there being ideologues on both sides, but in response to the style of American politics, how much lower do you think voter turn-out would be if one really had politics that revolved around policies and not personalities? It's a shame, but there's a reason why it has become this way.

The best argument against democracy is a five minute conversation with the average voter.

CAUSAL

Friday, February 23, 2007 2:22 PM

Probably a lot lower, you're right. Of course, voter apathy is a whole other issue besides the two-party system. Somehow, strangely, I'd rather have lower voter turn-out if it meant that those who did show up were educated on the relevant issues and candidates.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

FREDGIBLET

Friday, February 23, 2007 6:18 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Big words coming from the side of discrimination and bigotry.

Quote:
Originally posted by XXXX:
In my opinion [Christians] should be glad to be tolerated as they are, cause I for one, would like to see the evil bastards tied to a stake and screaming while the flames licked ever closer, and fault me for it if you will, I would damned well ENJOY it.

The right doesn't have the market on hatred and bigotry, you know.

Of course not, but I'm pretty sure that if you comared the right and left the right would have a much worse track record on the subject.

CAUSAL

Friday, February 23, 2007 7:22 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by fredgiblet:
Of course not, but I'm pretty sure that if you comared the right and left the right would have a much worse track record on the subject.

This is exactly the sort of statement I'm talking about though: how is this not itself a bigoted and discriminatory statement? After all, how would you ever figure out who had what kind of record, and how would it be possible determine whose record was worse? This kind of statement reflects dogmatism, not realism, and is no different than saying, "Vote Democrat: It's Easier Than Thinking." How is your statement that the right has a worse record on bigotry different than if AUraptor said that the left has a worse record on moral terpitude? Wouldn't that bother you just a little? I'm sure that it would have to, both because it's just untrue and because it's ridiculous to even claim that you could make that kind of calculation. Both parties have done bad. Neither is on the whole better or worse than the other. To assert that the Republicans are the party of discrimination and bigotry is no more true than to say that the Democrats are the party of immorality. Both statements represent nothing more than the dogmatism of the party in their attempt to paint the other side as stupid or evil or both, in order to make it so that the American voter will continue giving them power without actually thinking things through carefully enough to realize that we no longer have a representative democracy, we have an oligarchy of the wealthy.

________________________________________________________________________
Grand High Poobah of the Mythical Land of Iowa, and Keeper of State Secrets

Captain, FFF.net Grammar Police

MEDFORDTIM

Friday, February 23, 2007 7:40 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by rue:
"Why, oh, why do we have to have a two-party system?" Well, ok. I haven't taken my Ritalin yet, so of course the first thing that popped into my head - and would have been out of my mouth if we were talking - was - " 'cause it's better than one party?" Followed immediately by "you can never have too many parties !" Which of course progresses the discussion not at all.

off the wall and need to climb back on ...

Rue's a member of the All Night Party

Anyway, that's what I think...

MT

MEDFORDTIM

Friday, February 23, 2007 7:48 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
Probably a lot lower, you're right. Of course, voter apathy is a whole other issue besides the two-party system. Somehow, strangely, I'd rather have lower voter turn-out if it meant that those who did show up were educated on the relevant issues and candidates.

I tend to agree, but my preference (for America) would be the Australian system = Vote - It's The Law!

For some reason, politicians don't like that idea...

Anyway, that's what I think...

MT

FREDGIBLET

Friday, February 23, 2007 7:56 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by Causal:
This is exactly the sort of statement I'm talking about though. How would you ever figure out who had what kind of record, and how would it be possible determine whose record was worse?

Historically pushes for tolerance and greater acceptance have usually come from the left (whichever party is pushing a socially liberal agenda at the time), whether or not it is easily quantifiable...I don't know, but every time in history that I have heard of tolerance comes from the moderate left more than any other source. The extreme left can be just as bad as the right with intolerance, but even the moderate right has, in my experience, been behind the left in issues of bigotry and discrimination.

Quote:
How is your statement that the right has a worse record on bigotry different than if AUraptor said that the left has a worse record on moral terpitude?

I'm actually not disagreeing with AUraptor's statement on the subject, we both agree the the left has less concern with moralistic issues, the real difference is that he sees it as bad and I don't.

Quote:
Both parties have done bad. Neither is on the whole better or worse than the other.

More or less agree, but I never mentioned parties, I was talking about ideologies.

Quote:
Both statements represent nothing more than the dogmatism of the party in their attempt to paint the other side as stupid or evil or both, in order to make it so that the American voter will continue giving them power without actually thinking things through carefully enough to realize that we no longer have a representative democracy, we have an oligarchy of the wealthy

I realize that, but I have to hold out hope that one party isn't as bad as the other in this regard or else we are completely screwed unless we revolt.

AURAPTOR

Friday, February 23, 2007 9:21 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
Another impressive but meaningless sacrificial charge by AURAPTOR.
I sometimes wonder if his anscestors were cavalry officers.

It sure would help matters if you could be less vague.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

ROCKETJOCK

Saturday, February 24, 2007 12:36 AM

First, in re: Reagan; I lived through his administration as both a bachelor in the military and a newlywed family man in the reserve. My opinion of him was formed by events as they happened, not dry history or the blush of nostalgic recollection. Frankly, the man both angered me, and scared the living s**t out of me on a daily basis. His stance on drugs, for example, was calculated to make the problem as bad as possible (by cutting rehab program funds), while simultaneously using the resulting increase in addiction to wage a war on civil liberties that continues to this day. And don't get me started on Iran-Contra. His administration showed a massive contempt for the rule of law, and a horrible genius at picking the wrong allies.

And as for the notion that his administration had their hearts in the right places because they were fighting to keep Central America safe from Communism... This reminds me of Monty Python's admonition to "Honor the memory of those who died to keep China British!"

Now onto a sidebar, since someone brought it up: Barak Obama. Unlike those referenced Young Democrats, I actually have researched the man's positions and voting record, and, while I'm not in 100% agreement with him in all ways, I think we could do worse. And frequently have.

Besides, as the saying goes, "You can tell a lot about a man by the enemies he makes"; judging by the way Fox News is grasping to find something to swiftboat the man with, he may just have my vote on general principal. So far, what they've come up with is:

1. His biological father was (gasp!) Muslim!

2. When he was a child, he attended four semesters in a (gasp!) Muslim school!

3. His middle name is (gasp!) Hussein!

4. He is a (gasp!) smoker! (Gasp, gasp, hack, cough, gasp again, wheeze...)

and, my favorite so far (drum roll please)...

5. He hasn't done enough for the black community. Which, coming from Fox News, is not so much a case of the pot calling the kettle black, as one of the china teapot calling the kettle too white...

"She's tore up plenty. But she'll fly true." -- Zoë Washburn

YINYANG

Saturday, February 24, 2007 1:09 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by RocketJock:
Besides, as the saying goes, "You can tell a lot about a man by the enemies he makes"; judging by the way Fox News is grasping to find something to swiftboat the man with, he may just have my vote on general principal. So far, what they've come up with is:

1. His biological father was (gasp!) Muslim!

2. When he was a child, he attended four semesters in a (gasp!) Muslim school!

3. His middle name is (gasp!) Hussein!

4. He is a (gasp!) smoker! (Gasp, gasp, hack, cough, gasp again, wheeze...)

and, my favorite so far (drum roll please)...

5. He hasn't done enough for the black community. Which, coming from Fox News, is not so much a case of the pot calling the kettle black, as one of the china teapot calling the kettle too white...

I don't know if this was FOX, or someone else, but there was also a reference to him having the same style as Ahmadinejad...

PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 NEXT PAGE