Obama promises to spend us into prosperity
Petronius
Goes right along with fighting for peace and fucking for virginity...
Can you say "hyperinflation"?
Mr. Jaggers
Yes, I can: "Hyperinflation." The conditions that will bring it on have
been building up for, oh, around nine years in earnest, and several decades
prior to that. None of this is news to me.
James the Deflated
oly
Can you explain why the magic nig nog is recieving the Nobel Peace
Price???
oly
Petronius
"oly" <oly...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:32b28da2-e64b-4a77...@m33g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Because the whole fucking world has gone insane and can't see that Obama is an
empty suit.
The few positive things I can say about Obama are 1) he isn't Bush, 2) he seems
to treat his wife & children well and 3) he has a nice speaking voice
Mr. Jaggers
What's a "magic nig nog"?
James
Mr. Jaggers
What in the world do you expect in a system where candidates are bought and
paid for by people with more wealth than you and I together could possibly
imagine?
James
Petronius
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:hfpkl...@enews1.newsguy.com...
> ... with more wealth than you and I together could possibly imagine?
I'm pretty good at imagining...
Mr. Jaggers
In this case, imagining in scientific notation is required.
James the Exponential
Petronius
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
As long as I can spend it all in Prexibux
100,000^100,000,000
Peter
In some ways I share your question. Superficially, it appears to be a
common tactic many use to diminish the value of someone by calling
names. Claiming naming rights is masking a claim of superiority.
Really, the presidency of the US is the dirtiest job in the world. My
view is that finding people of ability that are willing to take the
job is the central problem; making fun of the poor fellow who is stuck
with the job seems sadistic.
Mr. Jaggers
I posed the question, I suppose in stereotypical teacher fashion, knowing
full well the answer in advance. This "magic nig nog" business is quite
enthusiastically received by the audience of such luminaries as Rush
Limbaugh, who over and over played a pejorative comic song about Obama based
on "Puff the Magic Dragon" on his radio show. It's just one of literally
hundreds of memes that automatically signal to me that further attempts at
rational conversation are pointless.
I have trouble with the notion that anyone gets "stuck with the job" of
President, as I can't imagine that anyone in politics is unaware of the
klieg-light-driven nature of the position. What mystifies me is that people
of the stature of Washington, Jefferson, and Madison, to name a few, were
willing to take the job back then, but we can't seem to find their peers in
these times. The only thing I can think of is that we tend to deify people
of the past, who may have been, in fact, no better than present-day
politicians.
James
Peter
wrote:
"I have trouble with the notion that anyone gets "stuck with the job"
of President, as I can't imagine that anyone in politics is unaware of
the klieg-light-driven nature of the position."
Possibly I am missing what you mean here. Trapping the unsuspecting
was not my point although I am quite sure that the job looks far worse
once you become president than when you first seek it. Neither do I
mean that we, the citiizens, should be so timid as to fail to mention
what errors we see.
The change from the early fifties as compared with the present is
amazing. Being much younger then, perhaps my tender ears were
shielded, but lately I seem to hear only loud voices shouting insults;
few even seem able to be polite, let alone inclined that way. The
harshness causes good ideas to seem as if they belong in the gutter,
even though a president might be glad to hear them if they were well
presented.
Demeaning the person of the incumbent demeans the office and tends to
diminish the pool of excellent future candidates (although it may
encourage scoundrels).
Bruce Remick
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:hfr2m...@enews2.newsguy.com...
I don't think I'd trust anyone with such an ego to presume he or she is the
best qualified person to be our nation's president. Or the head of my local
community association, for that matter.
Mr. Jaggers
There's nothing wrong with your ears, Peter. I hear the same things, which
I did not hear even as recently as 20 years ago. But in these last two
decades we have seen the ascendency of anything-goes talk radio, and the
poison generated there is vectored anonymously and effortlessly via the
internet and forwarded email. It finds fertile soil in the ignorant and
fearful minds of its consumers. I see this willingness to denigrate and
broadbrush in more and more people whom I have known all my life and who
never expressed such notions previously.
I have stated before, but it bears repetition yet again: The one thing that
I enjoy more than hearing an opinion that I agree with is hearing an opinion
that I disagree with, provided that it is well-crafted. Examples of this
latter activity have become rarer than 1909-S VDB cents found in pocket
change.
James
mazorj
Can you explain why your racism is peeking out from under the covers again?
mazorj
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:hfr2m...@enews2.newsguy.com...
That's true, with the added factors that the whole arena of public policy
was far simpler (if equally contentious) back then; and our Founding Fathers
didn't live and operate under the microscope of omnipresent 24/7 media and
Internet scrutiny and analysis of their every move.
Anyone who runs for public office does so for the power it confers to make
changes envisioned by the candidate. FDR didn't run for president so he
could put another Roosevelt in the White House. He relished using the
powers of office and was very good at it. He accumulated his lists of
vehement and even rabid enemies too. Ditto for Jackson, Lincoln, JFK,
Reagan, Clinton, et al. The more effective the individual in office, the
longer and louder the enemies list.
The only way to avoid that is to die from an illness contracted during your
inaugural address. The only difference between then and now is that
communications technology has made it possible for factions of every breed
to coalesce, build their power base, and project their views more loudly to
more more corners of our existence.
Mr. Jaggers
What you say is all true. What I find most troubling about this is that the
contagion, which in earlier times was confined to media personalities and
politicians, has now infected so many of the people we come in contact with
in our everyday life, and who see nothing at all wrong with spouting off
their unsolicited opinions at inappropriate times and in inappropriate
places.
James
mazorj
"Peter" <w2...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:ebd4df20-ad85-4bd1...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
=====================
The reason that the political echo chambers focus on the negative is the
same reason that newspapers almost never report "good news". Hardly anyone
wants to pay attention unless it's bad. The 999 cops who did a good to
outstanding job today are overlooked for the one who did something bad.
Ditto for all aspects of government.
At least with Obama we have a president who is not only open to good ideas,
he solicits them, listens carefully, has the intellect to understand them,
then *acts* on the ones he views as feasible and necessary. That makes him
far more than "at least he's not Bush".
Is he perfect as a person or as a president? Of course not. Is he a
political animal? Duh. You don't get into any important office without
being one. Can his supporters disagree with specific actions and policies
of his? Of course. Can he deliver on everything he wants or has promised?
No, and neither could any other president. There are limits to power.
But at least he is willing to use the levers of power to try to effect
much-needed changes that none of his predecessors had the balls to even get
near.
Petronius
"mazorj" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:hfrffl$27v$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> But at least he is willing to use the levers of power to try to effect
> much-needed changes that none of his predecessors had the balls to even get
> near.
Obama has failed to keep any of his campaign promises.
Obama promised "transparency" but now his administration stonewalls and claims
executive privilege in a manner unseen since Nixon's failed administration.
Good intentions pave the road to hell.
While I don't believe Obama is an evil man (unlike Bush & Cheney, who were
diabolically evil), I do think he is an empty suit and will likely be a one-term
POTUS.
mazorj
"Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:dA9Um.42620$cX4....@newsfe10.iad...
See my reply to James. If you don't believe that your ideas are better than
your opponent, and that you are at least equally qualified to get them
enacted, then why even run for office? (Small local offices like community
associations usually only require a willingness to serve. There may be a
dozen candidates who are more qualified but if they're not willing to serve,
the best you can end up with is #13.)
There is a big difference between hubris, and believing in your ideas and
abilities (of which you need a massive dose to run for any national office).
Bush and his cronies had hubris coming out the ears. Thus far, I don't see
that in Obama. That could change because power does corrupt, but I didn't
write in Caspar Milquetoast for my president last November.
- mazorj
Former holder of several thankless offices because he hadn't yet learned to
say no.
mazorj
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
Right. In the unspoken words of political mad dogs of all stripes, "It's
working!"
Truth be told, though, that always is a key factor in any communications
strategy, be it politics, or marketing an exotic energy drink. You want to
reach the point where the buzz ripples outs by itself, through people who
unquestioningly accept it from their trusted sources even though they never
are exposed to or seek out verifiable source material.
The main difference between guerilla marketing levels of "Hey, dude, you
need to try this shit! One bottle kept me going all through an
all-nighter!" and having "Can you believe what that jackass is doing to
America?" thrown in your face is more quantitative than qualitative. The
population at large is much more interested in politics than the Next Big
Thing in exotic beverages, so that's what they want to talk and hear about.
Focus on the male 18-22 market and the reverse will be true.
Mr. Jaggers
So, tell us, who *do* you like?
James the Campaign Manager
Mr. Jaggers
In my third of a century of public school teaching, we had a ton of those
"#13s" come and go on the school board. That's part of the reason that
education in America is as jacked over as it is.
James the Edjeekater
Petronius
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:hfrk3...@enews5.newsguy.com...
I voted for Hillary in the primary.
She's got more balls than Obama ever will hope to.
Mr. Jaggers
So, this raises an interesting conundrum: when your guy/team/dog doesn't
win in the first round, who gets your support after that? I'm not expecting
an answer, just raising the question to get people to think.
James the Chooser
mazorj
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
If the "#13 Effect" isn't an official corollary of the Peter Principle, it
ought to be.
A very astute polling consultant who ran the member surveys at my office had
a lecture where he explained that there was a reason why many of the locally
elected officials in our organization were problematic and even destructive.
It's because the overwhelming percentage of individuals of any group who
seek any office - particularly but not exclusively the thankless ones - have
an ax to grind against the national organization and/or their predecessors
in local office. They're one-issue radicals. Most eventually will come
around to the extent that once they have experienced reality from the
inside, they grow into reasonably competent, reasonably responsible
representatives. Some go on to become outstanding leaders. In most cases,
the ones who remain clueless and ineffective eventually get replaced by the
next PO'd Young Turk. A small but disruptive minority of rabid loud-mouths
convince enough voters to keep them in office, where all they do is crouch
in their bunkers and shoot at everything that moves.
Petronius
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
I couldn't bring myself to vote for Obama, whom I believe is, at heart, a
radical Muslim sympathizer and a danger to the American way of life.
I threw my vote away and voted Green.
Bruce Remick
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
I think it's a different proposition depending on the circumstances and the
individuals involved. With me, if my team isn't in the race or playoffs I
often root for whatever one is representing the same conference or division.
As a Red Sox fan by birth, I would root for (gulp) Yankees from their
Division, and finally whatever team represented the American League in the
Series. In presidential politics, I never had a "guy" I was really excited
about. But if a guy who impressed me early on got eliminated, I probably
wouldn't throw my support to any of the others. I would likely vote for or
against a candidate based on my perceptions of his personality.
So what ever happened to those Mint-issued coins in the Indian-crafted bags
that were the Numismatic Cabbage Patch dolls a few years ago and which seem
to have fallen off the planet? I can't even remember what the coin(s) were.
I don't recall ever seeing them advertised on the secondary market. Maybe
the original buyers love them so much they never plan to part with them.
Jud
> With me, if my team isn't in the race or playoffs I
> often root for whatever one is representing the same conference or division.
> As a Red Sox fan by birth, I would root for (gulp) Yankees from their
> Division, and finally whatever team represented the American League in the
> Series.
That's where we differ Bruce. I too am a Red Sox fan, have been for
over 50 years, through the very difficult years. Sure, there are
INDIVIDUALS in the Yankee organization that I have appreciated, Maris,
Mantle, Skowron, etc from the 60's. However, I subscribe to the t-
shirt philosophy "I support two teams, the Red Sox and whoever beats
the Yankees" and have been known to utter "Yankees Suck" more than
once. I truly was hoping that after the Red Sox were out of the
running after the ALDS that it would come down to the Yankees and the
Dodgers, and having the Dodgers win, for the sole reason that it would
give Joe Torre a chance to rub it in Steinbrenners face.
Ever notice the reception received at Fenway from former Red Sox
players? Standing ovations for Kevin Millar, Trot Nixon, Nomar
Garciaparra, Orlando Cabrera etc? Boo's to Johnny Damon. Even Mariano
Rivera got cheered at Fenway! <G>
Jud "There's always next year" <Red Sox motto>
Mr. Jaggers
Um, no, that's the motto of the Cubs.
James the Northsider
Bruce Remick
"Jud" <numis...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:b68423fb-ec79-4ced...@l13g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
=========================
Yeah, we do differ there. I never felt that anti-Yankees. During the
regular season maybe a little bit, but I mellow during the playoffs.
Growing up in the 1940's and 50's, kids in our crowd had various team
loyalties, but I don't remember anyone really hating other teams, even the
Yankees. We usually held the all-stars on all teams in awe. That attitude
probably carried over to today with me. There were no "difficult years" in
my memories of the Sox. They usually had a colorful team with enough
sluggers and characters to attract a big radio and TV audience if you
couldn't actually go to the park. World Series usually wasn't in the cards,
but I never really cared.
If the Sox and Yankees slugged it out during the year and the Yankees ended
up in the playoffs, I rooted for them almost like "family" when they took on
the guys from the National League. They represented "my" league. And
you'll remember back in the 1950's players had no free agency option, so few
changed teams unless traded. Trades might have brought the wrath of the
fans on owners, but not on the players. Today it's understandable why fans
get upset when their star defects to the opposition for a bigger paycheck.
Good for the players, but frustrating for the fans.
mazorj
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
I thought their motto was "In dolore semper patientia".
Forever suffering in sorrow.
Mr. Jaggers
Nope, never heard of it.
James the Long-Suffering
Petronius
>Today it's understandable why fans get upset when their star defects to the
>opposition for a bigger paycheck. Good for the players, but frustrating for the
>fans.
I'm a huge baseball fan and it's NOT understandable nor frustrating to me.
Why shouldn't a guy get the most he can?
Wouldn't anybody?
For over a century baseball players were treated like chattel, traded and
discarded when no longer needed.
Now the show is on the other foot.
MLB is making more money than ever.
MLB players are making more money than ever.
Attendance is at record highs despite the faltering economy.
Where these people are getting the money to pay for the high ticket prices is a
mystery to me.
If I didn't get free passes a couple of times a year, I'd never go to a MLB
game.
Bruce Remick
"Petronius" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
news:hfu5ok$av$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> "Bruce Remick" <rem...@cox.net> wrote in message
> news:mHtUm.2551$Z%1.1...@newsfe02.iad...
>>Today it's understandable why fans get upset when their star defects to
>>the opposition for a bigger paycheck. Good for the players, but
>>frustrating for the fans.
>
> I'm a huge baseball fan and it's NOT understandable nor frustrating to me.
> Why shouldn't a guy get the most he can?
> Wouldn't anybody?
> For over a century baseball players were treated like chattel, traded and
> discarded when no longer needed.
> Now the show is on the other foot.
> MLB is making more money than ever.
> MLB players are making more money than ever.
All the more reason I would kinda like to see a return to the "old days"
when baseball players were treated like chattel. They were offered an
opportunity to make a few bucks by playing a game for a decade or so instead
of sweating on an assembly line or toiling on the farm. They knew the
system and felt it suited them. The standouts were idolized and given the
further opportunity to make more money by endorsing Wheaties or Camels.
During the off season many of the average players did have to work to make
ends meet. Tough life. Today even those with marginal major league skills
make millions while still bitching about not being appreciated or getting
enough at bats. Lock 'em into one team subject to the whims of the owner
for awhile. I feel most for the fans of low budget teams that suddenly hit
the jackpot with players who develop into stars, and then to see those stars
demand tens of millions to stay or be plucked away by the rich owners.
> Attendance is at record highs despite the faltering economy.
> Where these people are getting the money to pay for the high ticket prices
> is a mystery to me.
> If I didn't get free passes a couple of times a year, I'd never go to a
> MLB game.
You can say that again! What especially gets me is watching the games
on TV and seeing baggy-pants teens sitting in the first two rows of
corporate boxes and hardly paying attention to the game. What a waste! I
only go to ball games at Fenway anymore when my brother has some extra
tickets from his business-- maybe once every couple of years. I remember
paying a dollar to sit in the bleachers there. I have come to like the
local A-minor league games where you can sit in the front row by the dugout
for six bucks. Go Red Yanks!
Petronius
While we're at it, let's put those darkies back to work in the cottonfield,
right?
mazorj
"Petronius" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
>
> "mazorj" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:hfrffl$27v$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
>> But at least he is willing to use the levers of power to try to effect
>> much-needed changes that none of his predecessors had the balls to even
>> get near.
>
> Obama has failed to keep any of his campaign promises.
Pure, utter nonsense.
http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/promises/
You need to get your Giant Brain working.
> Obama promised "transparency" but now his administration stonewalls and
> claims executive privilege in a manner unseen since Nixon's failed
> administration.
> Good intentions pave the road to hell.
> While I don't believe Obama is an evil man (unlike Bush & Cheney, who were
> diabolically evil), I do think he is an empty suit and will likely be a
> one-term POTUS.
An empty suit couldn't have moved the public and the Congress to the changes
he has effected in less than one year in office. An empty suit wouldn't
have the balls to attempt the changes that previous presidents wouldn't
touch throughout their terms of office.
What in your opinion are the characteristics of a "non-empty-suit"
president, anyway? Just because his reach may occasionally exceed his grasp
doesn't make him an empty suit. Just because he can talk and act like an
intellectual when he wants to doesn't make him an effete, ineffective, ivory
tower "empty suit" dreamer. Nor does his unwillingness to use fear and
suspicion and empty bluster to garner support.
If he is a one-termer, it will be because the Republican strategy of "Just
say NO!" to anything and everything will severely impair his effectiveness
while the right wing-nut echo chamber continues to spread its lies and
people like you buy into them.
Petronius
Obama is pretty much all hot air, not unlike you.
Bruce Remick
"Petronius" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
Apparently you see some connection there.
Petronius
Just in your neolithic attitude concerning labor.
Bruce Remick
"Petronius" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
"Neolithic labor" worked well for over a century in baseball. No players
ever were conscripted into the baseball cottonfields.
Petronius
> "Neolithic labor" worked well for over a century in baseball. No players ever
> were conscripted into the baseball cottonfields.
Since MLB is doing better than ever under a more enlightened free-market labor
policy, I'd have to say your assessment is full of beans.
Bruce Remick
"Petronius" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
So that brings us back around to your earlier complaint about how you can't
afford to go to a game anymore. MLB may be doing fine. Marginal players
are getting rich. How're YOU doing?
Petronius
How I'm personally doing (fine, thanks for asking) has nothing whatsoever to do
with your assertion that MLB was doing better under the old reserve clause.
Please try to stick to the point and not wander off with non sequiturs.
Bruce Remick
"Petronius" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
You said in effect that you couldn't afford to go to MLB games anymore.
Games were affordable to most fans when the old reserve clause was in place.
I never said baseball was doing better then (than now). I said that things
were fine. Owners were making money. Players with baseball skills were
able to money by playing a game, and average fans could afford to take the
kids to watch those games. Today, owners still make money, players make
obscene money with tons of new endorsement, appearance, and autograph
opportunities, and more and more fans are being priced out of the action.
My main point is that, as a fan, I was better off under the old reserve
clause.
mazorj
As a fan, yes, but you have to admit that players were owners' chattel under
the old system. It cost us 75 cents for bleacher seats when I was a kid.
But those cheap seats were analogous to (not "equivalent to" but definitely
analogous to) buying cheap imported goods made in overseas sweat shops.
Nowadays the best value is minor league baseball. You can take the family,
get the hot dogs and souvenirs, and enjoy professional-class baseball
without leaving an arm or a leg behind. Most teams have nice,
family-friendly stadiums. With the demise of the C and D leagues, the level
of performance is almost indistinguishable from MLB. True, you won't see
the MLB superstars, but they all came up from the minors so every once in a
while you can point to one and say "I knew him when..."
mazorj
"Petronius" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
BTW, can you answer anything? Such as the link I posted or the follow-on
questions? Or do we just assume that by running away from them, you
concede?
mazorj
"Petronius" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
I think that in reality you're a really weird fellow, Mr. Petronius/TGB/...
Bruce Remick
Greedy fan that I may be, I liked it better when good players couldn't just
decide they wanted to play for the Yankees or Dodgers and then leave the
team that hired and developed them for more money and exposure. (I do
realize that this is the American way, but it's baseball.) By choosing to
play in the MLB system, they accepted that system and agreed to play within
it. Or they could get a day job like the rest of us. Sure, they were
chattel, but so were those who chose to be movie stars and entertainers. It
was by choice and most of us at one time envied those pro athletes and film
stars.
There were cheap seats because owners didn't have to pay exorbitant salaries
to encourage their better players to remain on board. Analogy-wise it
reminds me of a girl who aspires to be a nurse and studies for years toward
that goal. Then when she gets that nursing job she goes on strike for
better pay and conditions.
>
> Nowadays the best value is minor league baseball. You can take the
> family, get the hot dogs and souvenirs, and enjoy professional-class
> baseball without leaving an arm or a leg behind. Most teams have nice,
> family-friendly stadiums. With the demise of the C and D leagues, the
> level of performance is almost indistinguishable from MLB. True, you
> won't see the MLB superstars, but they all came up from the minors so
> every once in a while you can point to one and say "I knew him when..."
>
I "discovered" one of our local Class A teams a few years ago and became
hooked. Even the wife enjoys the atmosphere and the closeness to the
action. In my younger days, I remember the Cape Cod League where you often
could drive through town and stop the car beside the field and watch a game
for a while. The young players were supported and housed by local families.
I believe the league still exists under that format. The nearby Appalachian
League also operates that way and I would imagine there are similar leagues
around the country.
Petronius
>
> BTW, can you answer anything? Such as the link I posted or the follow-on
> questions? Or do we just assume that by running away from them, you concede?
>
reply.
You're a bombastic sort, much given to pontificating and sneering at the
opinions of others.
No, I don't think I'll give you any more of my time until you clean up your
act...
mazorj
"Petronius" <x...@xxx.xxx> wrote in message
What insults? In my initial reply I called one of your statements "pure,
utter nonsense" and provided a link to show it as such. That's not ad
hominem. I added one allusion to your immediately previous nym. There were
no insults there, just on-topic facts and opinions.
Saying in a separate post that in reality you are a really weird fellow was
code that I'm sure you understood.
So by this insipid evasion you concede. Okay, thanks. The only thing more
obnoxious than posting dubious opinions is refusing to respond when they're
contradicted.
This is even funnier given that you didn't have any problem trading insults
under your old nyms.
linxlvr
> "mazorj" <maz...@verizon.net> wrote in message
>
>
> > But at least he is willing to use the levers of power to try to effect
> > much-needed changes that none of his predecessors had the balls to even get
> > near.
>
> Obama has failed to keep any of his campaign promises.
> executive privilege in a manner unseen since Nixon's failed administration.
> Good intentions pave the road to hell.
> While I don't believe Obama is an evil man (unlike Bush & Cheney, who were
> diabolically evil), I do think he is an empty suit and will likely be a one-term
> POTUS.
Umm... I don't think I could really agree with you on that. He may
have had trouble getting some things done so far, but he certainly is
working on them. You might be against them, that is fine. I might be
against some and for some. But to act as if his administration is not
doing anything, I really wonder where you are getting your news from.
--
dw
linxlvr
> I couldn't bring myself to vote for Obama, whom I believe is, at heart, a
> radical Muslim sympathizer and a danger to the American way of life.
> I threw my vote away and voted Green.
He is a radical Muslim sympathizer. Yea. Ok. A danger to the American
way of life? What part of the American way of life are you referring
to?
--
dw
mazorj
"linxlvr" <lin...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:4a6fb80d-e602-480e...@1g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
He fears anything not grounded in the imaginary universal superiority of his
white American culture.
I never could understand how anyone with self-proclaimed liberal views could
cling to racism and xenophobia, two of the worst and most primitive of the
social injustices. Ball players with 8-figure salaries get his sympathy and
understanding, while average people (or presidents) who happen to be from
Muslim countries don't.
If he had said "Obama is the first president to have been directly exposed
to Muslim culture and religion and thus, despite his personal belief in and
practice of Christianity and American values, has been the first to express
genuine personal sensitivity to the rights and needs of peaceful,
law-abiding Muslims," I could agree.
But that kind of carefully worded accuracy is "bombastic hot air" and
doesn't fit his style or his prejudices. Bumper-sticker rancor is more to
his liking.
Reality
> Obama has promised to spend the country into prosperity.
Reagan did it, why not Obama?
oly
The difference is a combination of political ability, cynicism and
just where one lives in long-term polticial and economic cycles.
Reagan knew about the maximum he could go spend and really didn't care
about the short-term effect of what he did; his ideological goal was
to "tie-up" the hands of his successors for at least a generation to
come. He did it in California long before he did it nationally. He
explicitly knew damn well what he was doing. He chose to benefit the
white upper middle class in the short-term plus some of the riches.
Long-term, well, save-qui-peut and Reagan himself knew that he
personally would be dead anyway.
OTOH, the present administration has no learning, no knowledge and no
wisdom of what came before them and thus, very little comprehension of
the "art" of the possible. Their inabilities and inadequacies may in
fact be soothing to them, since maybe NOT a lot is in fact possible.
They are all still relatively young and may not at all be capable of
protecting themselves from their miscalculations... like Reagan did.
Given this and the limited position "they" find themselves in, they
are "in and over their heads". Bail, ye pole-troons.
God Bless and keep the soul of Ronald Reagan. We would not be in this
continuing USA country, typing on these confound machines, today, had
Reagan not been a profound genius.
oly
Mr. Jaggers
Reagan fan that I am, I think you might be stretching the truth just a tad.
James, who named his dog "Dutch"
Petronius
news:16cc1b74-1871-4d2c...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>God Bless and keep the soul of Ronald Reagan. We would not be in this
continuing USA country, typing on these confound machines, today, had
Reagan not been a profound genius.
More like a likeable boob than "profound genius".
Mr. Jaggers
He was the only President during my lifetime who ever said "God Bless
America" and sounded like he meant it. Maybe it was the actor in him, but
all the rest seem to have been doing little more than throwing red meat to
the Religious Right.
James the Heathen
mazorj
oly
===========================
Every administration's new broom comes to town to sweep with a blend of
hubris and ignorance. A notable example was Jimmy Carter's crowd of Georgia
carpetbaggers-in-reverse, who didn't play well with the Washington
establishment. Bush 2 created a similar stir, although it was less obvious
because the perps were publicity-shy cronies well placed in the
establishment. FDR did the same with his "brain trust" as did JFK with his
"the best and the brightest". So Obama is hardly unique or even the primary
example of this effect. In every new administration, mistakes are made out
of hubris and ignorance.
Congress also is subject to occasional sea changes that play into hubris and
ignorance. Gingrich used a new Republican majority riding on Reagan's
legacy to declare war on reasonable discourse, the legacy of which has
continued to worsen.
Obama stands out, first because he's what's happening now, and second,
because he is stretching for changes that equal and even exceed the ones
that Bush made in the opposite direction. Part of his blessing and his
curse is that eight years of Bush created an enormous pent-up demand to
correct the effects of his harmful policies. Now that the way has been
cleared, everyone is trying to rush through the exit doors at once.
I give Reagan credit for restoring optimism and confidence to America's
morale in the post-Vietnam, post-Nixon, post-Carter era. I even agreed with
some of his policies. But I don't think he would have been nearly as
popular or effective if he hadn't had the great fortune to follow the inept
and snake-bitten Carter term. If he had won in 1976 (serving immediately
after Nixon instead of after Carter) his star would be considerably dimmed
in history. The gas shortage, the Iranian revolution, the runaway
inflation, etc. would have been on his watch, not Carter's.
You went rather over the top in your deification of him, oly. Whatever we
are in the 234th year of our republic is because of him? We're typing on
computers today because of him? What's next, claiming that he invented the
Internet? :-)
oly
> "oly" <oly2...@aol.com> wrote in message
As a matter of fact, we ARE in the 234th year of the Republic because
Reagan came when he did. He was an essential man.
But I have already allowed that the time Reagan bought for us (one
generation) has about expired.
FWIW, I spent about two hours listening to two Washington D.C.
lobbyists earlier this week (on banking related issues).
I found that whenever these speakers said something that I could agree
with, they would immediately (and in detail) spell out the argument
for the other side of the same question. I suspect that this is a
very common trait among your ilk, Mr. Mazor. What did Christ say
about being lukewarm???
oly
Mr. Jaggers
I remember hearing in more than one college class about the "Great Man"
theory of history vs. the "Times" theory of history. The attribution of the
fall of Communism to Reagan (the Great Man theory at work) is laughable, if
not tragic. It leads us to fantasize about the prowess of our leaders. I
often wonder if the Current Occupant matters as much as the cesspool of
politicians, pundits, and preachers that inhabit the various layers below
him/her. Certainly all of the turmoil about health care reform, global
warming, and social morality is being launched from within that cesspool,
not from the top position. The CO has done little more than outline his
visions, charging the cesspoolniks to create things that he would feel good
about signing into law. I'm not holding my breath.
Meanwhile, I fear that world events and environmental circumstances (the
Times theory) might be working against the prospect of a bright future for
my country, or any country, no matter who is at the helm. The latest issue
of Scientific American contains an article about Southwest Asian nuclear
exchange that unmistakeably points in that direction. It's going to take a
lot more than the POTUS to deal with that, and so far I see only ignorant
and petty BS as the rule of the day in our Legislature. Or, to quote
Shakespeare, it is a "Tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
signifying nothing."
James, an Insignificant Little Man living in Frighteningly Dangerous Times
Mr. Jaggers
Christ was talking of spiritual, not temporal, matters.
Willingness to examine both sides of a political issue does not equate to
being lukewarm. It equates with possession of higher mental powers and the
ability to use them. It separates Man from the other living creatures.
James, but not the one in the Bible
oly
> mazorj wrote:
> > "oly" <oly2...@aol.com> wrote in message
>
> - Show quoted text -
I would subscribe to the "Great Man" theory myself, and point out FDR,
Churchill and to a lesser degree, Reagan as simply indispensible men
to the Western world. In another way, Hitler, Stalin and Mao were
indispensible.
Pakistan is probably the most dangerous country in the world, but I
can't see through to the end of that. Problematic.
oly
oly
wrote:
>
> - Show quoted text -
In the case of Washington D.C. lobbyists, it is more like the
"Geography Teacher Candidate and the School Board".
When I hear those gents talk, I sense no convictions, no search for
truth and equity, just a mouth-for-hire (and probably other orifices
as well).
oly
Mr. Jaggers
Oof, no comment!
James the Taciturn
Mr. Jaggers
At the risk of being called "lukewarm" I subscribe to both. Way too many
humans fail to see the interaction and interdependence of the two. And
that's why the world is in such a mess.
> Pakistan is probably the most dangerous country in the world, but I
> can't see through to the end of that. Problematic.
I think that distinction belongs to the region, not to just one country. It
took a lot more than the snuffing of an Archduke to start WWI, and it will
take a lot more than Pakistan to bring on WWIII. But all the ingredients
for the recipe are now in the crucible, waiting.
James the Worried
oly
>
> - Show quoted text -
Pakistan has about 300 nukes and an unstable government, plus a "bad
crowd(s)" waiting in the wings. Afghanistan and lots of other places
have "the bad crowd", but no nukes and missiles.
I think I have to take careful exception to "Christ was talking of
spiritual, not temporal, matters".
I am no theologian, but I do have some historical idea of the time and
place.
If Christ were a simple mortal, a Jew living in that day, could he
have concieved of a difference between the two??? Even the Roman
occupation was probably thought of as a religious abomination.
oly
Mr. Jaggers
[snippage out of respect for our unknown readers]
> Pakistan has about 300 nukes and an unstable government, plus a "bad
> crowd(s)" waiting in the wings. Afghanistan and lots of other places
> have "the bad crowd", but no nukes and missiles.
According to an article in the January 2010 issue of Scientific American,
Israel has 80 nukes, Pakistan 60, India 50.
> I think I have to take careful exception to "Christ was talking of
> spiritual, not temporal, matters".
>
> I am no theologian, but I do have some historical idea of the time and
> place.
One does not need to be a theologian to know and understand what Christ said
and why he said it. I am eternally thankful that I have the texts and the
intelligence to read them for myself and draw my own conclusions.
> If Christ were a simple mortal, a Jew living in that day, could he
> have concieved of a difference between the two??? Even the Roman
> occupation was probably thought of as a religious abomination.
Christ was indeed a Jew living in that day. Except for his statement about
rendering unto Caesar, he was a spiritual guy start to finish.
James the Renderer
oly
wrote:
I just felt that a really clear cut ability to think between the
spiritual and secular is a product of the "18th Century
Enlightenment".
The Roman province of Judea was probably not one of those places where
the native people made such a difference(s). Religion was (almost)
everything.
oly
mazorj
oly
====================
"Render unto Caesar" shows that Christ was acutely aware of the difference.
oly
>
> - Show quoted text -
Well, of course he was. Jesus is God (once God incarnate) and God
knows everything.
But if he were a mere mortal, well, the average Judean in the street
in that age might well have had quite a problem with making the
distinction.
oly
mazorj
...
> I think I have to take careful exception to "Christ was talking of
> spiritual, not temporal, matters".
>
> I am no theologian, but I do have some historical idea of the time and
> place.
>
> If Christ were a simple mortal, a Jew living in that day, could he
> have concieved of a difference between the two??? Even the Roman
> occupation was probably thought of as a religious abomination.
>
> oly
> ====================
>
> "Render unto Caesar" shows that Christ was acutely aware of the
> difference.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
> Well, of course he was. Jesus is God (once God incarnate) and God
knows everything.
So you say, but I'll go along with that for this discussion.
> But if he were a mere mortal, well, the average Judean in the street
in that age might well have had quite a problem with making the distinction.
Well, duh. First, in your view as you just stated it, Christ was not a mere
mortal. His knowledge and understanding and wisdom far surpassed that of
ordinary men. He had knowledge of things unknown to mortals. He also
preached things that mortals knew but didn't heed, like "love thy neighbor".
"Render unto Caesar" falls in the latter category.
That was a very pointed and important distinction for him to make to his
fellow Jews. Even today, certain fundamentalist branches of the three
Abrahamic religions do not make any important distinction between the
theological and the profane worlds. Every aspect of daily life, from food
to government and politics, is ruled by viewing everything through the lens
of religious beliefs. For them, the two are inextricably intertwined. It
undoubtedly was even more so in Christ's time. "Render unto Caesar" can be
interpreted as a caution against mixing the sacred with the profane.
So Christ, informed by his divine nature, would have preached a form of
separation of church and state exactly *because* the average believer did
not make such a distinction. God doesn't give a hoot about your party
affiliation or the role that government plays in men's lives or whether
violations of religious beliefs should be punished as a civil offense. He
doesn't care if you are a political radical or middle-of-the-roader. The
only loyalty and zealousness he demands is to him. So Christ was knowingly
and expressly limiting his "render unto Caesar" as a religious admonition
that had nothing to with supporting or rejecting any form of government.
From that, it should be clear that his advice about not being lukewarm also
was directed at the sacred and not at the profane. Every consequential part
of his life, and hence his preachings, was directed toward spiritual rather
than worldly matters.
- mazorj the Theologian
Jean Tant
God Bless and keep the soul of Ronald Reagan. We would not be in this
continuing USA country, typing on these confound machines, today, had
Reagan not been a profound genius.
oly
Ronald Reagan: Worst President Ever?
By Robert Parry
Cruelty with a Smile
With his superficially sunny disposition - and a ruthless political strategy
of exploiting white-male resentments - Reagan convinced millions of
Americans that the threats they faced were: African-American welfare queens,
Central American leftists, a rapidly expanding Evil Empire based in Moscow,
and the do-good federal government.
In his First Inaugural Address in 1981, Reagan declared that "government is
not the solution to our problem; government is the problem."
When it came to cutting back on America's energy use, Reagan's message could
be boiled down to the old reggae lyric, "Don't worry, be happy." Rather than
pressing Detroit to build smaller, fuel-efficient cars, Reagan made clear
that the auto industry could manufacture gas-guzzlers without much nagging
from Washington.
The same with the environment. Reagan intentionally staffed the
Environmental Protection Agency and the Interior Department with officials
who were hostile toward regulation aimed at protecting the environment.
George W. Bush didn't invent Republican hostility toward scientific warnings
of environmental calamities; he was just picking up where Reagan left off.
Reagan pushed for deregulation of industries, including banking; he slashed
income taxes for the wealthiest Americans in an experiment known as "supply
side" economics, which held falsely that cutting rates for the rich would
increase revenues and eliminate the federal deficit.
Over the years, "supply side" would evolve into a secular religion for many
on the Right, but Reagan's budget director David Stockman once blurted out
the truth, that it would lead to red ink "as far as the eye could see."
While conceding that some of Reagan's economic plans did not work out as
intended, his defenders - including many mainstream journalists - still
argue that Reagan should be hailed as a great President because he "won the
Cold War," a short-hand phrase that they like to attach to his historical
biography.
However, a strong case can be made that the Cold War was won well before
Reagan arrived in the White House. Indeed, in the 1970s, it was a common
perception in the U.S. intelligence community that the Cold War between the
United States and the Soviet Union was winding down, in large part because
the Soviet economic model had failed in the technological race with the
West.
That was the view of many Kremlinologists in the CIA's analytical division.
Also, I was told by a senior CIA's operations official that some of the CIA's
best spies inside the Soviet hierarchy supported the view that the Soviet
Union was headed toward collapse, not surging toward world supremacy, as
Reagan and his foreign policy team insisted in the early 1980s.
The CIA analysis was the basis for the d�tente that was launched by Nixon
and Ford, essentially seeking a negotiated solution to the most dangerous
remaining aspects of the Cold War.
The Afghan Debacle
In that view, Soviet military operations, including sending troops into
Afghanistan in 1979, were mostly defensive in nature. In Afghanistan, the
Soviets hoped to prop up a pro-communist government that was seeking to
modernize the country but was beset by opposition from Islamic
fundamentalists who were getting covert support from the U.S. government.
Though the Afghan covert operation originated with Cold Warriors in the
Carter administration, especially national security adviser Zbigniew
Brzezinski, the war was dramatically ramped up under Reagan, who traded U.S.
acquiescence toward Pakistan's nuclear bomb for its help in shipping
sophisticated weapons to the Afghan jihadists (including a young Saudi named
Osama bin Laden).
While Reagan's acolytes cite the Soviet defeat in Afghanistan as decisive in
"winning the Cold War," the counter-argument is that Moscow was already in
disarray - and while failure in Afghanistan may have sped the Soviet Union's
final collapse - it also created twin dangers for the future of the world:
the rise of al-Qaeda terrorism and the nuclear bomb in the hands of Pakistan's
unstable Islamic Republic.
Trade-offs elsewhere in the world also damaged long-term U.S. interests. In
Latin America, for instance, Reagan's brutal strategy of arming right-wing
militaries to crush peasant, student and labor uprisings left the region
with a legacy of anti-Americanism that is now resurfacing in the emergence
of populist leftist governments.
In Nicaragua, for instance, Sandinista leader Daniel Ortega (whom Reagan
once denounced as a "dictator in designer glasses") is now back in power. In
El Salvador, the leftist FMLN won the latest elections. Indeed, across the
region, hostility to Washington is now the rule, creating openings for
China, Iran, Cuba and other American rivals.
In the early 1980s, Reagan also credentialed a young generation of neocon
intellectuals, who pioneered a concept called "perception management," the
shaping of how Americans saw, understood and were frightened by threats from
abroad.
Many honest reporters saw their careers damaged when they resisted the lies
and distortions of the Reagan administration. Likewise, U.S. intelligence
analysts were purged when they refused to bend to the propaganda demands
from above.
To marginalize dissent, Reagan and his subordinates stoked anger toward
anyone who challenged the era's feel-good optimism. Skeptics were not just
honorable critics, they were un-American defeatists or - in Jeane
Kirkpatrick's memorable attack line - they would "blame America first."
Under Reagan, a right-wing infrastructure also took shape, linking media
outlets (magazines, newspapers, books, etc.) with well-financed think tanks
that churned out endless op-eds and research papers. Plus, there were attack
groups that went after mainstream journalists who dared disclose information
that poked holes in Reagan's propaganda themes.
In effect, Reagan's team created a faux reality for the American public.
Civil wars in Central America between impoverished peasants and wealthy
oligarchs became East-West showdowns. U.S.-backed insurgents in Nicaragua,
Angola and Afghanistan were transformed from corrupt, brutal (often
drug-tainted) thugs into noble "freedom-fighters."
With the Iran-Contra scandal, Reagan also revived Richard Nixon's theory of
an imperial presidency that could ignore the nation's laws and evade
accountability through criminal cover-ups. That behavior also would rear its
head again in the war crimes of George W. Bush.
Wall Street Greed
The American Dream also dimmed during Reagan's tenure.
While he played the role of the nation's kindly grandfather, his operatives
divided the American people, using "wedge issues" to deepen grievances
especially of white men who were encouraged to see themselves as victims of
"reverse discrimination" and "political correctness."
Yet even as working-class white men were rallying to the Republican banner
(as so-called "Reagan Democrats"), their economic interests were being
savaged. Unions were broken and marginalized; "free trade" policies shipped
manufacturing jobs abroad; old neighborhoods were decaying; drug use among
the young was soaring.
Meanwhile, unprecedented greed was unleashed on Wall Street, fraying
old-fashioned bonds between company owners and employees.
Before Reagan, corporate CEOs earned less than 50 times the salary of an
average worker. By the end of the Reagan-Bush-I administrations in 1993, the
average CEO salary was more than 100 times that of a typical worker. (At the
end of the Bush-II administration, that CEO-salary figure was more than 250
times that of an average worker.)
Many other trends set during the Reagan era continued to corrode the U.S.
political process in the years after Reagan left office. After 9/11, for
instance, the neocons reemerged as a dominant force, reprising their
"perception management" tactics, depicting the "war on terror" - like the
last days of the Cold War - as a terrifying conflict between good and evil.
The hyping of the Islamic threat mirrored the neocons' exaggerated depiction
of the Soviet menace in the 1980s - and again the propaganda strategy
worked. Many Americans let their emotions run wild, from the hunger for
revenge after 9/11 to the war fever over invading Iraq.
Arguably, the descent into this dark fantasyland - that Ronald Reagan began
in the early 1980s - reached its nadir in the flag-waving early days of the
Iraq War. Only gradually did reality begin to reassert itself as the death
toll mounted in Iraq and the Katrina disaster reminded Americans why they
needed an effective government.
Still, the disasters - set in motion by Ronald Reagan - continued to roll
in. Bush's Reagan-esque tax cuts for the rich blew another huge hole in the
federal budget and the Reagan-esque anti-regulatory fervor led to a massive
financial meltdown that threw the nation into economic chaos.
Mr. Jaggers
> "oly" <oly...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:16cc1b74-1871-4d2c...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> God Bless and keep the soul of Ronald Reagan. We would not be in this
> continuing USA country, typing on these confound machines, today, had
> Reagan not been a profound genius.
>
> oly
>
> Ronald Reagan: Worst President Ever?
>
> By Robert Parry
[investigative journalism piece snipped]
Maybe so, maybe not, but do you have anything to say in your own words?
James
PC
> news:16cc1b74-1871-4d2c...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> God Bless and keep the soul of Ronald Reagan. We would not be in this
> continuing USA country, typing on these confound machines, today, had
> Reagan not been a profound genius.
>
You are delusional. Reagan raised taxes, further entrenched us into
dependence on foreign oil, and armed the Taliban. He consistently
implemented ecomonic policies for a cheap gain to make himself look good
without regard to this countries' future. The idiot created a sink hole of
prosperity and tax dollars in the form of STAR WARS. He needlessly
escalated the number of nuclear weapons and because he said "tear down that
wall" myopic fools like you think he had something to do with the inevitable
fall of the Soviet Union.
Dr. Richard L. Hall
"Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
news:hgpgi...@enews2.newsguy.com...
To paraphrase Reagan's own words, Ronald Reagan wasn't the solution to our
problems, Ronald Reagan was the problem.
--
Richard
A thought: Life is not a journey to the grave with the intention of
arriving safely in a pretty and well preserved body. But rather it's to
skid in broadside, thoroughly used up, totally worn out, and loudly
proclaiming, "Wow! What a ride!!!"
Mr. Jaggers
> "Mr. Jaggers" <lugburzman[at]yahoo[dot]com> wrote in message
> news:hgpgi...@enews2.newsguy.com...
>> Jean Tant wrote:
>>> "oly" <oly...@aol.com> wrote in message
>>> news:16cc1b74-1871-4d2c...@u7g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>>>
>>> God Bless and keep the soul of Ronald Reagan. We would not be in
>>> this continuing USA country, typing on these confound machines,
>>> today, had Reagan not been a profound genius.
>>>
>>> oly
>>>
>>> Ronald Reagan: Worst President Ever?
>>>
>>> By Robert Parry
>>
>> [investigative journalism piece snipped]
>>
>> Maybe so, maybe not, but do you have anything to say in your own
>> words?
>
> To paraphrase Reagan's own words, Ronald Reagan wasn't the solution
> to our problems, Ronald Reagan was the problem.
I don't seem to remember him saying that.
James the Forgetful
linxlvr
I would say you are incorrect. The Jews of the day had expected the
Savior to overthrow the Government, and to rule here on Earth as a
Political leader.
I believe Christ took great lengths, even to the point of the Final
hearing before Pontius, to demonstrate his interest was somewhere
else, his rule was somewhere else, and what the people did for
Governments here was a separate item.
BTW - Lukewarm was referring to spiritual, and not only that but is
being taken very out of context here, as it was taken from a statement
directed to a particular church at a particular time.
--
dw