On Tue, 30 Apr 2013 22:23:48 -0600, RichTravsky quacked:
> So you admit Bonzo was evil...
Hitler was evil, so Stalin is good? This seems to be the staple argument
of leftists: that because one evil exists in the world, rival evils are
somehow justified, even desirable.
By "Bonzo," I assume you refer to Ronald Reagan, the Satanic Father of
all the Antichrists of the modern American left.
Not that I believe Reagan was "evil" myself; he was of above-average
intelligence, charming, and had a successful career; but by the time he
became president he was close to being a doddering old fool, albeit a
doddering old fool with a clever staff who could (usually) keep him out
of trouble. But senility is not the same as evil. The Judeo-Christian
definition of evil is knowing that what one is doing is wrong, and doing
it anyway (the story of Adam and Eve and the apple). Reagan was too
senile to understand what he was doing, much less knew it was wrong, and
he really wasn't doing anything at all, since it was his evil corrupt
corporate puppetmasters pulling his strings.
In contrast, Jimmy Carter was and still is a brilliant man (a former
nuclear engineer), and is probably THE most ethical president in American
history. Unfortunately, the traits of ethics and honesty (and especially
intelligence) are almost the exact opposites of the "leadership" skills
Americans demand. Carter's error was to tell Americans the truth, in a
time they desperately wanted to be lied to. Reagan told Americans what
they wanted to hear, and his error was being so senile as to actually
believe it himself!
My own attitudes towards Reagan are somewhat ambivalent. I remember both
him and Jimmy Carter, and remember skyrocketing inflation, gas rationing,
and "malaise" when I was in elementary school during his administration,
and a fairly pleasant and optimistic life during junior/high school under
"fascist" Ronald Reagan. Perhaps this is because unlike your mama who
resented the fascist cuts in the food stamp budget -- diverting your
personal ration to feed her crack habit -- my mom and dad WORKED to feed
their children.
In retrospect, the nuclear war that Reagan's leftist opponents predicted
he would start never happened, and his administration ended with the
collapse of the socialist Soviet Union they adored so much (becoming
somewhat less noisy after guidance and funding from their progressive
Soviet overlords dried up, forcing them to get capitalist jobs to feed
their worthless asses instead of living on the Russian dole).
I visited Britain in 1987, right after graduating high school. I was
still politically naive, but I couldn't help but notice that the rhetoric
of British leftists towards Margaret Thatcher was not just similar but
IDENTICAL to that of American leftists towards Ronald Reagan! It was
like both were reading off the same script written by their Soviet
paymasters!
Another obvious similarity is that neither British or American leftists
seem to have paying jobs -- then or now -- but yet always have infinite
amounts of cash to travel to participate in the latest "spontaneous" anti-
American demonstrations, to "Occupy" something or other indefinitely,
with no jobs to report to or other obvious sources of income that would
explain how they can sit on sidewalks forever without starving to death.
Hmm...
= = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = = =
"[B]efore the breakdown of communism in the USSR, leftist types in the
West would seldom criticize that country. If prodded they would admit
that the USSR did many wrong things, but then they would try to find
excuses for the communists and begin talking about the faults of the
West. They always opposed Western military resistance to communist
aggression. Leftist types all over the world vigorously protested the
U.S. military action in Vietnam, but when the USSR invaded Afghanistan
they did nothing. ... [B]ecause of their leftist faith, they just
couldn't bear to put themselves in opposition to communism."
-- Industrial Society and Its Future