Gotta admit. That was epic shameful.
And funneling the money to South American "freedom fighter" death squads.
I'm sorry, I have no information on this. Next question.
I'm sorry, I have no information on this. Next question.Gotta admit. That was epic shameful.
And funneling the money to South American "freedom fighter" death squads.
The sad thing ... with your alzhemiers ... I believe you.
|
Gotta admit. That was epic shameful.
And funneling the money to South American "freedom fighter" death squads.
Yeah, so was Carter standing by while Ortega's thugs went around killing wealthy Nicaraguan families. Entire families. Weren't many stand up guys in Central and South America back then...
But, I forget, you're not an animal or a murderer if you have a copy of Das Capital in your back pocket...
Gotta admit. That was epic shameful.
And funneling the money to South American "freedom fighter" death squads.
Yeah, so was Carter standing by while Ortega's thugs went around killing wealthy Nicaraguan families. Entire families. Weren't many stand up guys in Central and South America back then...
But, I forget, you're not an animal or a murderer if you have a copy of Das Capital in your back pocket...
Not that I like Carter as a politician... but I guess standing by is what, roughly half as bad as being the financier, wouldn't you say?
stuff.
Are you really defending the Iran Contra affair?
Look, I'm not trying to pick on any one president over others. I really don't think any of them (including current) are 'great statesmen' or folks to be "missed."
I miss people like Frank Zappa, Jim Henson, George Carlin, Phil Hartman, James Brown, and good ole Gygax, not a bunch or lying politicians.
Politicans lie?
Excuse me while I go swallow some xanax and paxil. We're doomed.
stuff.Are you really defending the Iran Contra affair?
Look, I'm not trying to pick on any one president over others. I really don't think any of them (including current) are 'great statesmen' or folks to be "missed."
I miss people like Frank Zappa, Jim Henson, George Carlin, Phil Hartman, James Brown, and good ole Gygax, not a bunch or lying politicians.
+1
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
And, for the record, um, ALL economics are "trickle down". Unless you work for the government, a rich dude, or someone that could convince a rich dude or a bank to fund them, created your job.And if you do work for the government, someone stole money from a productive member of society to cover your paycheck.
Stealing is wrong. Are you seriously arguing that taxes that to go pay the men and women of the armed forces, the people who build roads, and the people who fight fires is "stealing"?
And "trickle-down" economics, while a nice theory, doesn't work. "Trickle-up" stimuli, giving money to middle class and working class citizens, as with the 2008 tax rebates, and the 2009 "Make Work Pay" program, does have a multiplier effect, because middle class people do spend money, more or less right away, and more or less locally. Giving enormous chunks of money to the wealthy, as Reagan proposed, doesn't have the same kind of multiplier effect, because wealthy people often invest, or often buy overseas direct from global markets.
|
"Ketchup is a vegetable."
heh, heh, heh, I remember that one in high school. It was funny
Trading arms for hostages with Iran(note: a french hostage was worth more then an American.)
He obviosly got further then than obama has trying to "talk" to Iran's islamofacist leadership. This is a bigger problem than anything Reagan ever did.
Reagan belongs in prison then hell for all the wrongs he has done.
That's just not nice. The man brought down the Godless Soviet commie empire. There has to be a place in Heaven for that.
Just a quick note to say I love how paizo can have all this going on... politely without flaming and with legitimate discussion going on. Congrats to all involved, and thanks again.
Just a quick note to say I love how paizo can have all this going on... politely without flaming and with legitimate discussion going on. Congrats to all involved, and thanks again.
For the life of me I just can't twist this into something hateful. Dang!
|
|
And, for the record, um, ALL economics are "trickle down". Unless you work for the government, a rich dude, or someone that could convince a rich dude or a bank to fund them, created your job.And if you do work for the government, someone stole money from a productive member of society to cover your paycheck.
Stealing is wrong. Are you seriously arguing that taxes that to go pay the men and women of the armed forces, the people who build roads, and the people who fight fires is "stealing"?
And "trickle-down" economics, while a nice theory, doesn't work. "Trickle-up" stimuli, giving money to middle class and working class citizens, as with the 2008 tax rebates, and the 2009 "Make Work Pay" program, does have a multiplier effect, because middle class people do spend money, more or less right away, and more or less locally. Giving enormous chunks of money to the wealthy, as Reagan proposed, doesn't have the same kind of multiplier effect, because wealthy people often invest, or often buy overseas direct from global markets.
Soldiers and firefighters do not work for the government (nor do cops, for that matter), they work for us. Note I said "work for the government". As far as your "trickle up" theory, unemployment went from 7% to over 10% (but, really almost 15% to 16% if you count the people who gave up and stopped looking for work) after the various "trickle up" programs, so there goes that theory. Unless you think money "trickling up" to Sony for PS3s and LG for flat screens is sound economic policy.
Rich people create jobs (generally through that investing you find so distasteful), poor people don't. You can buy all of Obama's lies about the jobs he's "saved or created" this year, I'll just watch the unemployment rate continue to rise and wonder why Europe, who didn't pass any "stimulus" packages, is recovering, and we aren't.
<---has been watching rich Americans create jobs in China for the last 11 years (I have one of them, and I'm Canadian). Bravo, America! China loves you. So do I!
We must've not read that section in Sun Tzu's abridged version.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Soldiers and firefighters do not work for the government (nor do cops, for that matter), they work for us. Note I said "work for the government". As far as your "trickle up" theory, unemployment went from 7% to over 10% (but, really almost 15% to 16% if you count the people who gave up and stopped looking for work) after the various "trickle up" programs, so there goes that theory. Unless you think money "trickling up" to Sony for PS3s and LG for flat screens is sound economic policy.
Rich people create jobs (generally through that investing you find so distasteful), poor people don't. You can buy all of Obama's lies about the jobs he's "saved or created" this year, I'll just watch the unemployment rate continue to rise and wonder why Europe, who didn't pass any "stimulus" packages, is recovering, and we aren't.
+1
I'd also point out that, technically, small businesses are often hit by 'taxing the rich' and I believe this would include our beloved Paizo, who has been stimulating the economy by providing employment oportunities to freelancers and hiring during this depression.
As to the state taking money... Let's look at how the state rewards incompetence in the public sector. Not to mention quietly giving Fannie and Freddie a massive bailout over the holidays so it escapes the news cycle.
I can make anyone a small government conservative in two weeks. Just take Federal Employee Health Plan calls.
I think it is fine that Reagan is missed by his supporters. I went to the Green Bay Packers Game yesterday and there is a lot of tribute to past players and coaches. Helps build the mystique, draw strength and sell tickets. But I do think it is pretty disappointing that the current view on torture by Republicans is so divergent from Reagan signing a treaty to ban torture and to compel prosecution of those who torture even if their governments refuse.
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/05/01/shifts/
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Soldiers and firefighters do not work for the government (nor do cops, for that matter), they work for us. Note I said "work for the government".
I admit, my friend, that I fail to see the distinction. Ideally, everybody in the public sector works for the public. The entire government works for the public. The only distinction I could fathom is that some people in government are elected by the people directly, and others are hired, but that can't be your criterion.
As far as your "trickle up" theory, unemployment went from 7% to over 10% (but, really almost 15% to 16% if you count the people who gave up and stopped looking for work) after the various "trickle up" programs, so there goes that theory. Unless you think money "trickling up" to Sony for PS3s and LG for flat screens is sound economic policy.
Rich people create jobs (generally through that investing you find so distasteful), poor people don't. You can buy all of Obama's lies about the jobs he's "saved or created" this year, I'll just watch the unemployment rate continue to rise and wonder why Europe, who didn't pass any "stimulus" packages, is recovering, and we aren't.
First, let's be clear that the government stimulus --high and low-- and the unemployment spike, and the financial collapse that's led to both of them, have been around for longer than one year. Bush II sent out the $600 or $1200 checks, and Bush 2 bailed out the major banks. This isn't an Obama thing. But the stimulus checks didn't cause unemployment.
(Be careful with statistics: If you want to say that the current 10% unemployment is "really" an unknowable 15%, then how high, "really" was the 7% of two years ago? By the way, which president oversaw the highest post-war unemployment? Reagan, 10.8%, 1982.)
I've read a couple of economists and policy reporters in the last few months (for example, here) suggest that one of the major causes of America's economic downturn was something we both approve of: the PATRIOT Act, which gives the Federal government clearance to pry into global money matters conducted in dollars. That pushes some legitimate business, and almost all the illegal trade, away from our economy.
Actually, money spent on PlayStations is not bad economic policy: Domestic concerns --retail, shipping, utilities-- get the bulk of that stimulus, because working-class people don't get on the phone and order product directly from Japan.. If working folks spend money on domestic products, that's even better, of course, but not by much.
I don't find investment distasteful, far from it. But you have to be careful what you're investing in, if you want to use that money to provide new jobs. Invest in a small business, yes. Invest in local real-estate markets, not so much. Invest in a blue-chip stock portfolio, much less so, because those companies aren't looking for new employees. Invest in lucrative off-shore opportunities, none at all. And Reagan cut the Capital Gains tax rate, so those overseas investments looked even better.
We have seen the results of Reaganomics. The marginal tax rates for the richest Americans were slashed, domestic spending was curtailed (hence, the unemployment spike), and military spending exploded.
"In order to cover new federal budget deficits, the United States borrowed heavily both domestically and abroad, raising the national debt from $700 billion to $3 trillion, and the United States moved from being the world's largest international creditor to the world's largest debtor nation." It's similar to Argentina's economic reversal under Peron.
--+--+--
As I've written up-thread, Reagan was in many ways an improvement over Carter. He understood better than most that "being presidential," inspiring confidence in the people, is important. His policies led the Soviets to overspend, and kept the international lenders from buoying them up, which contributed to their downfall.
Reagan. Huh. Weird.
I was born in '78. My memories of Reagan are hazy, at best. But then again, everything I saw was through the filter of my black working single mom, so I know my perspective is off. Looking at history and what I learned in school and thumbing through a few microdots on the subject, I thought he was so-so. He espoused some attitudes that offended me inadvertantly which may be a result of him growing up in a different time period or simply alzheimers, and Iran Contra was certainly a disgrace. Still, I was a little kid. I have more ire for Bush I, mainly because I was more aware at the time and due to my Panamanian heritage.
The Reagan era will be remembered as an era of renewed patriotism and hope for a better future. It will also be remembered as an era of economic growth and military strength that even revisionism can not touch.
Fixed it for you. ;)
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
The Reagan era will be remembered as an era of renewed attacks on the poor and middle class of America, and the great fraud perpetuated on both to subvert thier own interests to advance those of the highest income tier.
The Reagan era will be remembered as an era of renewed patriotism and hope for a better future. It will also be remembered as an era of economic growth and military strength that even revisionism can not touch.
I think those can both be true. Reagan's America was tougher on the working class and poor: federal assistance programs were eliminated or sharply reduced, unemployment was very high, and real purchasing power diminished. More to the point, Reagan did his best to turn the mood in America against the poor. "Welfare cheats" and "welfare queens" entered the popular lexicon, although the poor remained, well, poor.
(Although, to his credit, Reagan signed an expanded Earned Income Tax Credit in 1986, replacing a host of other, smaller deductions and credit initiatives. By far, the largest "trickle-up" stimulus in America.)
But Garydee is right; there was a renewed patriotism, and a growth in military spending (I wouldn't say that strength naturally follows from that; you have to spend wisely). As Reagan rode the swing away from Ford/Carter "stagflation", we could give him credit for economic growth (although, as I said above, the same kind of growth Argentina could attribute to Peron)
--+--+--
Oh, and, Garydee, an aside. Even with a winking smilicon, quoting someone and changing their entire position is something of a cheap shot. It's a frustrating bit of rhetoric that stifles conversation rather than encouraging it.
We own little on these boards other than our words. Please don't mess with somebody else's property.
Oh,and, Garydee, an aside. Even with a winking smilicon, quoting someone and changing their entire position is something of a cheap shot. It's a frustrating bit of rhetoric that stifles conversation rather than encouraging it.
We own little on these boards other than our words. Please don't mess with somebody else's property.
I'll tell ya what. I'll promise not to do that again as long as Lazar actually tries to contribute to the conversation than taking cheap shots at Reagan. How about that?
I'll tell ya what. I'll promise not to do that again as long as Lazar actually tries to contribute to the conversation than taking cheap shots at Reagan. How about that?Oh,and, Garydee, an aside. Even with a winking smilicon, quoting someone and changing their entire position is something of a cheap shot. It's a frustrating bit of rhetoric that stifles conversation rather than encouraging it.
We own little on these boards other than our words. Please don't mess with somebody else's property.
So disagreeing with you is taking cheap shots... gotcha!
I thought LazarX contributed just as much to the conversation as most other posters in the thread, he just doesn't hold Reagan in the same regard as others.|
|
And my favorite:
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan
When that became a fashion statement for politicians to make was the bellweather of the decline of the American Political system. It was a deathblow to a strong belief in the inherent value of the American political system when it's own politicians make thier case on how it's a system that inherently fails as opposed to a flawed system that can be made better.
Actually until the mid-20th century there was no strong belief in the inherent value of the American political system. Until the Great Depression most Americans mistrusted the government and with good reason. There were a few politicians that Americans had looked up to, like Lincoln, but thanks to things like Teapot Dome, Standard Oil, Tamany Hall and other events in the 19th century the average person believed that the government was about as corrupt as it was possible for them to be. Prior to that, in the 18th century the federal government was somthing that most people considered to be too remote to even consider on a regular basis. It's only been in the last 50 to 60 years that the Federal Government has become a big player in the average citizen's life. Mostly this has been through the New Deal and The Great Society. As a result Reagan's veiw of the government was actually much more in line with America historically speaking then our own is today.
I'll tell ya what. I'll promise not to do that again as long as Lazar actually tries to contribute to the conversation than taking cheap shots at Reagan. How about that?Oh,and, Garydee, an aside. Even with a winking smilicon, quoting someone and changing their entire position is something of a cheap shot. It's a frustrating bit of rhetoric that stifles conversation rather than encouraging it.
We own little on these boards other than our words. Please don't mess with somebody else's property.
So disagreeing with you is taking cheap shots... gotcha!
I thought LazarX contributed just as much to the conversation as most other posters in the thread, he just doesn't hold Reagan in the same regard as others.
Disagreeing with me isn't a cheap shot. However, words that deal with "attacks on the poor and middle class" is just a bunch of nonsense that is a cheap shot.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Disagreeing with me isn't a cheap shot. However, words that deal with "attacks on the poor and middle class" is just a bunch of nonsense.
Getting American incited against welfare recipients is indeed an attack on the poor. Shifting the tax tables and eliminating a ton of (what we would now see as baroque) tax deductions does place a larger share of the tax burden on the middle class.
LazarX isn't alone in his analysis.
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan
That pretty much sums it up. If you have a decent job, a roof over your head, food on the table, etc. It is easy to snort and laugh about government help, or help of any kind. But if you are sitting on your roof and the flood waters of Katrina are rising, well it becomes a different story.
Most of us may still be able to laugh about 'help' and feel good we don't need the government (yet?), but a lot of children go to sleep hungry in this country. Many of our most vulnerable citizens are not getting their basic needs met. Despite every president speaking all high and mighty, when it comes time to actually live by their own Christian ideals, they fall far short, and the above quote is a great example.
PS Hope? Patriotism? Really? Hey I just lost my job, can I pay the rent with my hope?
The rich got richer, and the poor got poorer.
So what if the economy grew?
Reagan was a terrible President, so was Bush Sr. and Jr.
Good old Reaganomics, let the rich get richer and the middle class pay for everything.
And for Bush Sr. and Jr. sending our Military to be used for a security force for the oil companies, shame on you both.
Disagreeing with me isn't a cheap shot. However, words that deal with "attacks on the poor and middle class" is just a bunch of nonsense.Getting American incited against welfare recipients is indeed an attack on the poor. Shifting the tax tables and eliminating a ton of (what we would now see as baroque) tax deductions does place a larger share of the tax burden on the middle class.
LazarX isn't alone in his analysis.
Sure. But there are much better ways of stating things things than how Lazar X did. If you think there isn't anything wrong with the wording he used then I really don't know what to tell you Chris. When you say words like "fraud" and "attack", you're over the line.
Sure. But there are much better ways of stating things things than how Lazar X did. If you think there isn't anything wrong with the wording he used then I really don't know what to tell you Chris. When you say words like "fraud" and "attack", you're over the line.
Disagreeing with me isn't a cheap shot. However, words that deal with "attacks on the poor and middle class" is just a bunch of nonsense.Getting American incited against welfare recipients is indeed an attack on the poor. Shifting the tax tables and eliminating a ton of (what we would now see as baroque) tax deductions does place a larger share of the tax burden on the middle class.
LazarX isn't alone in his analysis.
Then how should he state his thoughts?
|
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
When that became a fashion statement for politicians to make was the bellweather of the decline of the American Political system. It was a deathblow to a strong belief in the inherent value of the American political system when it's own politicians make thier case on how it's a system that inherently fails as opposed to a flawed system that can be made better.
Eh. Politicans have been beating on the US government as being a total failure since before the Constitution was ratified, and in every election since.
Reading old books about politics (old as in written then, not written now), it is shockingly how little has changed in terms of the vitriol.
Then how should he state his thoughts?Sure. But there are much better ways of stating things things than how Lazar X did. If you think there isn't anything wrong with the wording he used then I really don't know what to tell you Chris. When you say words like "fraud" and "attack", you're over the line.
Disagreeing with me isn't a cheap shot. However, words that deal with "attacks on the poor and middle class" is just a bunch of nonsense.Getting American incited against welfare recipients is indeed an attack on the poor. Shifting the tax tables and eliminating a ton of (what we would now see as baroque) tax deductions does place a larger share of the tax burden on the middle class.
LazarX isn't alone in his analysis.
Without making it sound like a personal attack. I disagree with Chris Mortika on nearly everything he has said about Reagan on this thread but he hasn't resorted to these tactics on his analysis of Reagan.
|
|
"The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help."
Ronald Reagan
That pretty much sums it up. If you have a decent job, a roof over your head, food on the table, etc. It is easy to snort and laugh about government help, or help of any kind. But if you are sitting on your roof and the flood waters of Katrina are rising, well it becomes a different story.
Most of us may still be able to laugh about 'help' and feel good we don't need the government (yet?), but a lot of children go to sleep hungry in this country. Many of our most vulnerable citizens are not getting their basic needs met. Despite every president speaking all high and mighty, when it comes time to actually live by their own Christian ideals, they fall far short, and the above quote is a great example.
PS Hope? Patriotism? Really? Hey I just lost my job, can I pay the rent with my hope?
The rich got richer, and the poor got poorer.
So what if the economy grew?
Go be poor in Africa, parts of Asia or the Middle East. Then let me drive you through the "poor" parts of Houston. Let me know how many single family homes with two cars in the driveway and satellite dishes you see in Africa, parts of Asia and the Middle East.
As far as "Christian ideals" go, well, if I had relied on the government when I was released from prison, I'd have been f$~%ed. Those evil Christians helped me get a driver's license, my birth certificate, clothes to wear for job interviews, eye glasses, and bus passes. And I'm not a Christian.
Sorry, I'll take Christian folk and their obvious evil over the Government's "benevolence" any day of the week if I'm really in need.
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Reagan was a terrible President, so was Bush Sr. and Jr.
Good old Reaganomics, let the rich get richer and the middle class pay for everything.
And for Bush Sr. and Jr. sending our Military to be used for a security force for the oil companies, shame on you both.
Your doctor called, your prescription is waiting for you...
'Sending our military to be used as a security force...' can you actually back those statements up with, y'know, reality?
People may disagree with things actually done (Reagan's Iran Contra, Clinton's lying under oath...) but please, keep your accusations grounded in reality.
Reagan was a terrible President, so was Bush Sr. and Jr.
Good old Reaganomics, let the rich get richer and the middle class pay for everything.
And for Bush Sr. and Jr. sending our Military to be used for a security force for the oil companies, shame on you both.Your doctor called, your prescription is waiting for you...
'Sending our military to be used as a security force...' can you actually back those statements up with, y'know, reality?
People may disagree with things actually done (Reagan's Iran Contra, Clinton's lying under oath...) but please, keep your accusations grounded in reality.
Me= I like to play fantasy games like Pathfinder.
You= Lives in a fantasy world.
Me= I like to play fantasy games like Pathfinder.
You= Lives in a fantasy world.
Insulting other posters = Not cool. Behave or leave the thread.
As far as "Christian ideals" go, well, if I had relied on the government when I was released from prison, I'd have been f!*!ed. Those evil Christians helped me get a driver's license, my birth certificate, clothes to wear for job interviews, eye glasses, and bus passes. And I'm not a Christian.
Sorry, I'll take Christian folk and their obvious evil over the Government's "benevolence" any day of the week if I'm really in need.
I'm struggling to keep from getting involved in this thread. I think I just failed my first Will roll.
I'm not going to condemn or disagree with anything you've wrote that I've quoted above Derek. I think it's great that you got some unconditional help when you really needed it. That's how it should work.
However I think you misinterpreted Fergie's post and changed the context.
Most of us may still be able to laugh about 'help' and feel good we don't need the government (yet?), but a lot of children go to sleep hungry in this country. Many of our most vulnerable citizens are not getting their basic needs met. Despite every president speaking all high and mighty, when it comes time to actually live by their own Christian ideals, they fall far short, and the above quote is a great example.
I don't believe that Fergie is knocking a Christian ethic. I don't read that anywhere. Rather I am taking from their post that they don't believe that the government acts in a Christian manner, despite the claims of some Presidents.
That is something altogether different. One can rail against insincerity without condemning actual charity.
Insulting other posters = Not cool.
Agreed.
Everyone needs to keep this in mind, regardless of their politics or whether they think they're "right."|
|
As far as "Christian ideals" go, well, if I had relied on the government when I was released from prison, I'd have been f!*!ed. Those evil Christians helped me get a driver's license, my birth certificate, clothes to wear for job interviews, eye glasses, and bus passes. And I'm not a Christian.
Sorry, I'll take Christian folk and their obvious evil over the Government's "benevolence" any day of the week if I'm really in need.
I'm struggling to keep from getting involved in this thread. I think I just failed my first Will roll.
I'm not going to condemn or disagree with anything you've wrote that I've quoted above Derek. I think it's great that you got some unconditional help when you really needed it. That's how it should work.
However I think you misinterpreted Fergie's post and changed the context.
Most of us may still be able to laugh about 'help' and feel good we don't need the government (yet?), but a lot of children go to sleep hungry in this country. Many of our most vulnerable citizens are not getting their basic needs met. Despite every president speaking all high and mighty, when it comes time to actually live by their own Christian ideals, they fall far short, and the above quote is a great example.I don't believe that Fergie is knocking a Christian ethic. I don't read that anywhere. Rather I am taking from their post that they don't believe that the government acts in a Christian manner, despite the claims of some Presidents.
That is something altogether different. One can rail against insincerity without condemning actual charity.
Reagan gave millions to charity over his lifetime, according to his tax returns over his lifetime. Gore, Obama and Clinton, according to their tax returns over their lifetimes, gave about $500k combined.
Fergie was just taking another cheap shot at Christianity, period. It amazes me how few people (read: politicians) that think government is the answer put their own money where their mouths are, and how many people who do not think government is the answer are quite generous with their private wealth.
Insulting other posters = Not cool. Behave or leave the thread.Me= I like to play fantasy games like Pathfinder.
You= Lives in a fantasy world.
Your doctor called, your prescription is waiting for you...
I was replying to his statement to me, which wasn't cool.
If you can't handle that, then that's your problem.|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Insulting other posters = Not cool. Behave or leave the thread.Me= I like to play fantasy games like Pathfinder.
You= Lives in a fantasy world.I was replying to his statement to me, which wasn't cool.
"Your doctor called, your prescription is waiting for you..."
If you can't handle that then thats your problem not mine.
I appologize for the snark.
Thank you though, for providing your stunning evidence to back up your claims. I'm in awe.
Reagan gave millions to charity over his lifetime, according to his tax returns over his lifetime. Gore, Obama and Clinton, according to their tax returns over their lifetimes, gave about $500k combined.
That was very commendable of Mr. Reagan. As I recall he was a very devout man. One of his remarks late in his final term (or shortly after he left office) was that he was glad to become a regular citizen so that he could attend church without disruption.
However, he did that as a private citizen. He should be credited with his generousity as a private citizen, not an extension of the government.
As for the other gentlemen, I'm just glad that they gave money to charity at all. I'm not going to hand out gold stars for extra generosity. How much they give/gave will be between themselves, their conscience, the IRS, and whatever deity one may or may not believe in.
We start rating virtue strictly that way and we'll end up with indulgences.
Fergie was just taking another cheap shot at Christianity, period.
Trust me, I'm sensitive to cheap shots at Christianity. :D
However, until Fergie clarifies what exactly they meant, neither of us can be sure. Until such time, it is only our perception and interpretation.
Maybe I'm optimistic, but it doesn't do any good (or help the dialogue) to assume the worst about people.
In any case, I do appreciate your balanced outlook towards Christianity. I don't see it a lot in RPG communities. A lot of people have been hurt by a Church, and it's hard for them to separate one institution with everything else (including Christ).
It amazes me how few people (read: politicians) that think government is the answer put their own money where their mouths are, and how many people who do not think government is the answer are quite generous with their private wealth.
I hear ya. It's hard not to be cynical.
Unfortunately, I think Mr. Reagan might have just been an exceptional individual, even among members of his own party.
|
RPG Superstar 2010 Top 16
|
Politics is one of those "third rails" of polite discourse: touch it and get zapped. One of the reasons, I believe, is that the typical American has time to vote, and that's about all. Getting actively involved in politics takes more time and tolerance for BS than most people are willing to devote.
So, we vote, and if our side loses, we have no recourse other than to sit and steam and wait for another chance to vote. So, when it comes to discussing political figures, we have a lot of steam that's just been given release.
Reagan has become a polarizing figure to Americans. I'd like to think that the Republican party that idolizes him wants to emulate his good points (promoting patriotism, engaging other nations from a position of strength, simplifying government) and chooses to set aside the bad (disastrous debt, violating the War Powers act with Iran-Contra), rather than enshrining it, as well.
And I'd like to think that Democrats are quick to condemn the bad aspects of his tenure in office, ignoring any positives rather than villifying them as well.
Ironic, perhaps, that one of Reagan's hallmarks, working with a Democratic congress to forge real bipartisan accords through genuine personal friendships, is seen by both parties these days as a weakness. But perhaps it's a legacy that we could carry forth on this board.
Ironic, perhaps, that one of Reagan's hallmarks, working with a Democratic congress to forge real bipartisan accords through genuine personal friendships, is seen by both parties these days as a weakness.
It's a tribute to your literacy and excellence that you were able to type that entire sentence without ever once resorting to the incredibly overused catch-phrase of "reach across the aisle."
Not one politician or reporter alive today could have done so.
Ironic, perhaps, that one of Reagan's hallmarks, working with a Democratic congress to forge real bipartisan accords through genuine personal friendships, is seen by both parties these days as a weakness. But perhaps it's a legacy that we could carry forth on this board.
Hear! Hear!
Nominated for the best post of the day!
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Politics is one of those "third rails" of polite discourse: touch it and get zapped. One of the reasons, I believe, is that the typical American has time to vote, and that's about all. Getting actively involved in politics takes more time and tolerance for BS than most people are willing to devote.
<snip>
Related story:
I replied, "Kathy doesn't follow local issues, she doesn't follow national issues. She'll vote for American Idol, but doesn't know Kerry from Bush, nor who's in the White House now. Why in the Nine Hells should I cart her off to the voting booth, where she'll cast her ballot by making a pretty picture on the screen? I don't want my vote negated by someone who votes for the 'pretty name', I've enough of that elsewhere!"