181 replies to this topic

[HFrog71]

Duquesne Frog, on 14 February 2011 - 07:11 AM, said:

So you don't think that modern Conservatives haven't converted the reality of Reagan into a highly idealized mythological "package" that is quite a bit removed from the reality?  I hear a lot about the fiscal hawk, Commie-hatin', liberal evisceratin', Reagan these days but very little of the guy who used expansive government spending as a tool to bring down the Soviet Union, who was chastised by Conservatives of the time for being so cozy with Gorbachev, who was friends with and worked closely with Tip O'Neill in a bipartisan way that seems almost unheard of today, and who sold arms to the Iranian theocracy.

Not to mention the fact that Reagan started out as a self-professed "hemopheliac Democrat", was the head of a labor union, and a corporate shill.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

Duquesne Frog, on 14 February 2011 - 07:11 AM, said:

So you don't think that modern Conservatives haven't converted the reality of Reagan into a highly idealized mythological "package" that is quite a bit removed from the reality?  I hear a lot about the fiscal hawk, Commie-hatin', liberal evisceratin', Reagan these days but very little of the guy who used expansive government spending as a tool to bring down the Soviet Union, who was chastised by Conservatives of the time for being so cozy with Gorbachev, who was friends with and worked closely with Tip O'Neill in a bipartisan way that seems almost unheard of today, and who sold arms to the Iranian theocracy.

Which is not to say, before anybody goes down this route because I know someone will, that Reagan's actions should be compared to Che's.  But to argue that only "liberals" mythologize their heroes is, frankly, absurd.

Which, going back to your original point, who here exactly has touted a mythological interpretation of Che Guevara?

Don't forget Reagan "cut and ran" from Lebanon. (Correctly, IMO.)  Just imagine the "interpretation" of this we'd get here--and on the e-mails that feed some here--were it Carter, Clinton, or Obama who did this.

The number of people wearing Che gear making his personal political statement number high into the ones. The number of people here who have touted Che's revolutionary ideals is, I think, zero. About the same number around the country are wearing Jesse James gear and are really personally promoting a guerrilla continuance of the Civil War, a return to slavery, and the supremacy of  states rights.

[RSF]

I think a discussion of Che Che Rodriguez is in order......

[Duquesne Frog]

RSF, on 14 February 2011 - 08:17 AM, said:

I think a discussion of Che Che Rodriguez is in order......

Ruthlessly cutting down the enemies of Marxism with his putter ...

[FriskyFrog]

STL Frog, on 13 February 2011 - 11:29 PM, said:

Wow indeed.

Speaking of liberals and conservatives in broad strokes is par for the course around here.  A search of the forum shows the term "conservatives" used 61 times, "liberals" used 78 times, "libs" used 70 times, "libtard" used 12 times, and "the left" used 61 times.  I personally wish that we could get beyond the overgeneralizations and discuss actual issues, but I realize that is how this board operates.  IMO, this phenomenon is very different than attacking an individual poster by making huge unfounded assumptions about his work value and ethics.  Again, just my opinion, but I stand by my "wow" comment - it was my genuine response.

[HFrog71]

FriskyFrog, on 14 February 2011 - 08:43 AM, said:

Speaking of liberals and conservatives in broad strokes is par for the course around here.  A search of the forum shows the term "conservatives" used 61 times, "liberals" used 78 times, "libs" used 70 times, "libtard" used 12 times, and "the left" used 61 times.  I personally wish that we could get beyond the overgeneralizations and discuss actual issues, but I realize that is how this board operates.  IMO, this phenomenon is very different than attacking an individual poster by making huge unfounded assumptions about his work value and ethics.  Again, just my opinion, but I stand by my "wow" comment - it was my genuine response.

You forgot the 44 threads where the word "lemmings" is used.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

FriskyFrog, on 14 February 2011 - 08:43 AM, said:

Speaking of liberals and conservatives in broad strokes is par for the course around here.  A search of the forum shows the term "conservatives" used 61 times, "liberals" used 78 times, "libs" used 70 times, "libtard" used 12 times, and "the left" used 61 times.  I personally wish that we could get beyond the overgeneralizations and discuss actual issues, but I realize that is how this board operates.

I think the broad brush is possibly a bit more applied by one subgroup than some others. Why radical moderates hardly use a brush at all preferring instead a laser beam at all times!

Quote

  IMO, this phenomenon is very different than attacking an individual poster by making huge unfounded assumptions about his work value and ethics.  Again, just my opinion, but I stand by my "wow" comment - it was my genuine response.

I think burf might have been a little depressed or something last night. He's not normally quite like he was then in his comments.

[NewfoundlandFrog]

HFrog71, on 14 February 2011 - 07:42 AM, said:

Not to mention the fact that Reagan started out as a self-professed "hemopheliac Democrat", was the head of a labor union, and a corporate shill.

And a promiscuous shill at that!

[RSF]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 14 February 2011 - 10:09 AM, said:

I think the broad brush is possibly a bit more applied by one subgroup than some others. Why radical moderates hardly use a brush at all preferring instead a laser beam at all times!

Sometimes a good cluster bomb works, too.....

[The Uniballer]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 14 February 2011 - 10:21 AM, said:

And a promiscuous shill at that!

But he found religion later on, doubling the excise tax on cigarettes.
He also tripled the excise tax on telephone service and increased the gasoline tax more than double.
Before the election reagan said "unless there's a palace coup and I'm overtaken or overthrown, no, I don't see the necessity for that".  That was in response to being asked on 9/28/82 if he could "flatly rule out any tax increases, revenue enhancers, or specifically an increase in the gasoline tax."

[burford]

weklfrog, on 13 February 2011 - 06:43 PM, said:

when are yo going to start using a small portion of your brain?

Wanna meet for a cup of coffee?

[burford]

weklfrog, on 13 February 2011 - 06:43 PM, said:

when are yo going to start using a small portion of your brain?

Well, I probably shouldn't have been so pointed on my first response to you.  Instead, I will post for the umpteenth time the Howard Stern audio interviewing obama supports.  Then you, once again, you can defend them and inform us how they are SOOOO well informed.

[pcf]

STL Frog, on 13 February 2011 - 11:29 PM, said:

Wow indeed.

Did I offend your delicate sensibilities as a conservative?

[burford]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 13 February 2011 - 07:29 PM, said:

Do you know just how many decades--forget days--of getting paid nothing or next to nothing, being on short term-soft money contracts working hand to mouth, and just how very many people any individual one of whom on a whim without any consequence to them can derail things that you have to "justify yourself to"  it takes to get this tenure you're so jealous of? I truly doubt it. For example in my case and I may well have been ahead of the curve and certainly was not much behind, I got my first hard money, quite low but at least real living wage contract academic job at age 30. Tenure takes another 7 years here (institutions vary, but this is normal enough).  

Wow, just wow, as you all like to say.  Tenure at 37 and haven't had to worry about justifying your job since.  

Hey, dude, you were the one who started the "real world" asinine comment.

[burford]

FriskyFrog, on 13 February 2011 - 09:08 PM, said:

Wow.  You never get tired of shoving people into the little boxes in your mind that you've created for anyone who doesn't think like you do.

You might try reading his post first, Frisky.  One wonders how you would characterize Nathanael, the whom Jesus was so fired up about, the one who spoke his mind and had no deceit.  I would expect from you he would get a firm scolding as to how poor a Christian he was because he refused to conform to the ways of the world.  Little boxes?  Nah, don't think so.

[burford]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 14 February 2011 - 10:09 AM, said:

I think burf might have been a little depressed or something last night. He's not normally quite like he was then in his comments.

Ok, I'll take that.  Should have said why do extreme liberals like the guy so much, as in the progressives and Hollywood types and Ayers and Dorn.

[oldscribe]

NewfoundlandFrog, on 14 February 2011 - 08:04 AM, said:

Don't forget Reagan "cut and ran" from Lebanon. (Correctly, IMO.)  Just imagine the "interpretation" of this we'd get here--and on the e-mails that feed some here--were it Carter, Clinton, or Obama who did this.

The number of people wearing Che gear making his personal political statement number high into the ones. The number of people here who have touted Che's revolutionary ideals is, I think, zero. About the same number around the country are wearing Jesse James gear and are really personally promoting a guerrilla continuance of the Civil War, a return to slavery, and the supremacy of  states rights.

Hey! Now you're getting personal!

[The Uniballer]

burford, on 14 February 2011 - 12:15 PM, said:

Ok, I'll take that.  Should have said why do extreme liberals like the guy so much, as in the progressives and Hollywood types and Ayers and Dorn.

Why do you care what an extremely small percentage of the population think?
The answer is they're extremists.  They do it either becasue they're nuts, they have no clue, or they're trying to irritate you.  If you think they represent a significant number of people in this country or on this board,
I think you're wrong.  It'd be like asking why conservatives love Fred Phelps.

[pcf]

The Uniballer, on 14 February 2011 - 12:21 PM, said:

Why do you care what an extremely small percentage of the population think?

He doesn't, but it is a darn good way to demonize, diminish, ignore, and exclude people.
However, it is also possible that burf doesn't really know any liberals except for the caricatures he sees on O'Reilly or hears about at church. Then when he meets a liberal he can tune them out because he knows they worship Che and Satan on alternate days.

[weklfrog]

burford, on 14 February 2011 - 11:56 AM, said:

Wanna meet for a cup of coffee?

Sorry, I'm busy that morning.