Who cares what progressives say (and historians do not say that. I'm sure some do, but on balance not)? If nothing else, Reagan portrayed a sense of - everything will be alright. And it was. Bush I tried that, and it didn't work as well at the end. Obama is trying that, and he's failing miserably. Because behind that a) you have to be believeable (which neither Bush I nor Obama are) and b) you have to surround yourself with folks that know what their doing rather than insisting that you know better than your policy team.
I know - How dare Reagan get the hostages home, end the cold war, get the Berlin Wall torn down, keep Qadafi quiet for 20 years by bombing the crap out of him the moment he stuck his head out of the rabbit hole (without a war) and having unemployment down to the lowest level in our history. Terrible. Simply terrible. We should be so unlucky as to find someone so bad to lead us.
Worst President - that is funny. Jimmy Carter himself would have an argument for you.
who cares? ... well - if you are going to give an example of a limited gov't free market society that works ... it a) has to work for the majority of people and b) it actually has to be a limited gov't free market society ... both of which are fails under reagan ...
i'm not gonna get into it with you on reagan - he's been discussed to death ... if you want to soak up the conservative love-in you guys have with him ... so be it ... i see him as a religious zealot that paved the way for the rise of the christian right in america ... either way - he probably wasn't the worst president ... but neither was carter ...
who cares? ... well - if you are going to give an example of a limited gov't free market society that works ... it a) has to work for the majority of people and b) it actually has to be a limited gov't free market society ... both of which are fails under reagan ...
i'm not gonna get into it with you on reagan - he's been discussed to death ... if you want to soak up the conservative love-in you guys have with him ... so be it ... i see him as a religious zealot that paved the way for the rise of the christian right in america ... either way - he probably wasn't the worst president ... but neither was carter ...
Limited is a relative term. I realize we need some social programs. I'm not every person for themselves. I'm just a big believer in reducing welfare rolls to bare minimums and "forcing" (I could use incentivizing, but I'll play the game) people to take jobs they might not be willing to under entitlement style programs a la David Dinkins and Obama if he wasn't stopped. I look at NYC at the time Giuliani took over as a microcosm of what's going on in the Nation, and think - jeez - if the Republican's weren't so worried about getting a religious nut, and the Democrats weren't so worried about his label, we might want to give a guy that's proven himself on a fairly large stage a chance.
In my lifetime, Carter was easily the worst. There's not even a debate. Long lines at gas stations, high interest rates AND out of control inflation, high unemployment, and let's not go to our National psyche at the time and the Iranian Hostage crisis. He might be the worst ever, but It's hard for me to say since I'm not quite sure what the hell John Tyler did.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Blockhead:
Why does the government forcibly take my money to fund wars I don't agree with? This is unfair. I want
What is unfair?
Do you complain when the government forcibly takes your money to fund police who fight the "war on drugs", I am sure you don't agree with that, right...
So by your logic we should get rid of the police since you don't agree with how they are implementing something, yet you seem to be oblivious to the good they do and service they provide, same goes for the military...
I don't support the wars but I don't have any issues having my money being used as its intended purpose "Defense" "R&D", etc... , hell the internet (today's modern)that you use daily to bash the military, was a development/invention by the military
Blockhead:
Why does the government forcibly take my money to fund wars I don't agree with? This is unfair. I want
BTW, protecting its citizens and their interests is an express purpose of our Federal Government. Welfare is not.
So, you may disagree with the wars (and that's what our freedom affords you - the right to disagree), but at least that's a purpose in the Constitution and of our Commander in Chief. There's nowhere in Jefferson's great document that folks are entitled to handouts (not disagreeing with some form of welfare. Just pointing out the fallacy of your attempted argument).
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Limited is a relative term. I realize we need some social programs. I'm not every person for themselves. I'm just a big believer in reducing welfare rolls to bare minimums and "forcing" (I could use incentivizing, but I'll play the game) people to take jobs they might not be willing to under entitlement style programs a la David Dinkins and Obama if he wasn't stopped. I look at NYC at the time Giuliani took over as a microcosm of what's going on in the Nation, and think - jeez - if the Republican's weren't so worried about getting a religious nut, and the Democrats weren't so worried about his label, we might want to give a guy that's proven himself on a fairly large stage a chance.
In my lifetime, Carter was easily the worst. There's not even a debate. Long lines at gas stations, high interest rates AND out of control inflation, high unemployment, and let's not go to our National psyche at the time and the Iranian Hostage crisis. He might be the worst ever, but It's hard for me to say since I'm not quite sure what the hell John Tyler did.
really? ... a president who lies in order to send a country into a war that has cost the country billions of dollars plus the extensive loss of many innocent lives does not beat out a guy who is probably the most well respected ex president around the world still alive today? ... i'm sorry - but if you think carter is worse than W. than we really are seeing the world through much different eyes and it is no wonder we disagree ...
Blockhead:
Why does the government forcibly take my money to fund wars I don't agree with? This is unfair. I want
What is unfair?
Do you complain when the government forcibly takes your money to fund police who fight the "war on drugs", I am sure you don't agree with that, right...
So by your logic we should get rid of the police since you don't agree with how they are implementing something, yet you seem to be oblivious to the good they do and service they provide, same goes for the military...
I don't support the wars but I don't have any issues having my money being used as its intended purpose "Defense" "R&D", etc... , hell the internet (today's modern)that you use daily to bash the military, was a development/invention by the military
really? ... a president who lies in order to send a country into a war that has cost the country billions of dollars plus the extensive loss of many innocent lives does not beat out a guy who is probably the most well respected ex president around the world still alive today? ... i'm sorry - but if you think carter is worse than W. than we really are seeing the world through much different eyes and it is no wonder we disagree ...
Hold the phone - when I speak of worst President, I talk about what they did when they were.... President. Yes, Jimmy is a great philanthropist now. Kudos. But, as a President and leader, he sucked.
As for W - I think history will provide a much better perspective on him. Clearly, at the end he was polarizing, and thus a clearly underqualified person won the Presidency due to party affiliation. But, his respect for this President and his silence when he could have been saying - told you so - in so many instances shows the character of the man (Quantanamo anyone?).
Every President makes mistakes. Was he lying? I don't know. Maybe. Was he mislead (which has its own criticism to go along with it)? Maybe. But, I do know for sure that during his 8 years we felt a whole lot better about ourselves than Carter. At least he was trying to do right. I'm not sure what the hell Carter was doing.
I'm also not arguing he was the best or top 10 President. But, comparing the 2 is a joke. If you don't remember what the US was like in 1979, then I suggest you ask some folks that do.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Blockhead:
Why does the government forcibly take my money to fund wars I don't agree with? This is unfair. I want
What is unfair?
Do you complain when the government forcibly takes your money to fund police who fight the "war on drugs", I am sure you don't agree with that, right...
So by your logic we should get rid of the police since you don't agree with how they are implementing something, yet you seem to be oblivious to the good they do and service they provide, same goes for the military...
I don't support the wars but I don't have any issues having my money being used as its intended purpose "Defense" "R&D", etc... , hell the internet (today's modern)that you use daily to bash the military, was a development/invention by the military
no where in keeprockin post bashed the military.
Show me on the gov's spending chart where they have a line item for War...
Hold the phone - when I speak of worst President, I talk about what they did when they were.... President. Yes, Jimmy is a great philanthropist now. Kudos. But, as a President and leader, he sucked.
As for W - I think history will provide a much better perspective on him. Clearly, at the end he was polarizing, and thus a clearly underqualified person won the Presidency due to party affiliation. But, his respect for this President and his silence when he could have been saying - told you so - in so many instances shows the character of the man (Quantanamo anyone?).
Every President makes mistakes. Was he lying? I don't know. Maybe. Was he mislead (which has its own criticism to go along with it)? Maybe. But, I do know for sure that during his 8 years we felt a whole lot better about ourselves than Carter. At least he was trying to do right. I'm not sure what the hell Carter was doing.
I'm also not arguing he was the best or top 10 President. But, comparing the 2 is a joke. If you don't remember what the US was like in 1979, then I suggest you ask some folks that do.
are you really that partisan? ... the answer has to be yes to be willing to give soooo much leeway to W. and then attack the current president with the most rudimentary talking points ... good grief ... sorry - we just do not see the world the same way and it's pretty much impossible to have discussion when we both see a ball and you say it's red and i say it's green ...
Do you complain when the government forcibly takes your money to fund police who fight the "war on drugs", I am sure you don't agree with that, right...
So by your logic we should get rid of the police since you don't agree with how they are implementing something, yet you seem to be oblivious to the good they do and service they provide, same goes for the military...
I don't support the wars but I don't have any issues having my money being used as its intended purpose "Defense" "R&D", etc... , hell the internet (today's modern)that you use daily to bash the military, was a development/invention by the military[/quote]
no where in keeprockin post bashed the military.[/quote]
Show me on the gov's spending chart where they have a line item for War...[/quote]
sorry but that is just dumb. they don't have a line for war but they do have a very big line for "defense".
Do you complain when the government forcibly takes your money to fund police who fight the "war on drugs", I am sure you don't agree with that, right...
So by your logic we should get rid of the police since you don't agree with how they are implementing something, yet you seem to be oblivious to the good they do and service they provide, same goes for the military...
I don't support the wars but I don't have any issues having my money being used as its intended purpose "Defense" "R&D", etc... , hell the internet (today's modern)that you use daily to bash the military, was a development/invention by the military
no where in keeprockin post bashed the military.[/quote]
Show me on the gov's spending chart where they have a line item for War...[/quote]
sorry but that is just dumb. they don't have a line for war but they do have a very big line for "defense".[/quote]
Its sarcastic... military/defense same thing... what are you confused about?
Blockhead:
Why does the government forcibly take my money to fund wars I don't agree with? This is unfair. I want
What is unfair?
Do you complain when the government forcibly takes your money to fund police who fight the "war on drugs", I am sure you don't agree with that, right...
So by your logic we should get rid of the police since you don't agree with how they are implementing something, yet you seem to be oblivious to the good they do and service they provide, same goes for the military...
I don't support the wars but I don't have any issues having my money being used as its intended purpose "Defense" "R&D", etc... , hell the internet (today's modern)that you use daily to bash the military, was a development/invention by the military
no where in keeprockin post bashed the military.
Not only that, but I think you're missing his point. The govt uses our money in many ways. Social programs are intended to help, so is the military. I think whenever we have a debate about things such as welfare, and people refer to it as the govt "stealing" your money, you are going to get responses like this.
My biggest complaint with programs like welfare is that there is obviously some abuse of the system, and it is flawed.. Is the govt wasting our money? then again, some of you might have seen a thread I created a few weeks back where a govt contract with Anham is under investigation to have overcharged them by up to 12,000% percent for rebuilding what we blew up "defending" ourselves in Iraq. for the record, I am not bashing the military, but I am questioning how they are spending money on "defense" when companies are able to rip us off building crap in Iraq (when we shouldnt ever be there in the first place!)
are you really that partisan? ... the answer has to be yes to be willing to give soooo much leeway to W. and then attack the current president with the most rudimentary talking points ... good grief ... sorry - we just do not see the world the same way and it's pretty much impossible to have discussion when we both see a ball and you say it's red and i say it's green ...
I am not giving W. a pass. There are clearly issues with some of the stuff he did. He's not an all time President. I do think that through the prism of time, his 8 years will be viewed differently.
I also think it took Reagan a lot less time to dig out of a MUCH bigger hole (stagflation) than it's taking Obama (we celebrate 9.1% unemployment that excludes those that have stopped looking?). However, as with W, it's even more difficult to judge a sitting President in terms of their overall place in history. I just know he's got the car pointed in the wrong direction. I just don't necessarily know how wrong. Here's the funny part - he's basically contniued all W's foreign policy plans (which I'm sure you totally disagree with) AND run the economy deeper into the ditch with no end in sight.
Sorry. The world doesn't work the way you tell it to.
Not only that, but I think you're missing his point. The govt uses our money in many ways. Social programs are intended to help, so is the military. I think whenever we have a debate about things such as welfare, and people refer to it as the govt "stealing" your money, you are going to get responses like this.
My biggest complaint with programs like welfare is that there is obviously some abuse of the system, and it is flawed.. Is the govt wasting our money? then again, some of you might have seen a thread I created a few weeks back where a govt contract with Anham is under investigation to have overcharged them by up to 12,000% percent for rebuilding what we blew up "defending" ourselves in Iraq. for the record, I am not bashing the military, but I am questioning how they are spending money on "defense" when companies are able to rip us off building crap in Iraq (when we shouldnt ever be there in the first place!)
Then thats just the gov. YOU elected. Its has nothing to do with the intended purpouse/good and services the military/defense provides for its citizens.
Welfare is not a good or service that provides ( I am not talking about unemployment which is already paid for by yourself) Its giving someone your money and getting nothing in return.
The worst part is all the opportunitys are available to people at any class. You have free schooling,healthcare,food,shelter not to mention the gov. vouchers for free daycare,school supplies, school meals for the weekend. Its an endless list of handouts and items that I have to pay for.
I travel alot from jobsite to jobsite and I used a GPS, a product of my tax dollars developed by the military.
Is it to much to ask people that do not pay taxes and rely on everyone else to at least be required to do some type of community service.
I am not giving W. a pass. There are clearly issues with some of the stuff he did. He's not an all time President. I do think that through the prism of time, his 8 years will be viewed differently.
I also think it took Reagan a lot less time to dig out of a MUCH bigger hole (stagflation) than it's taking Obama (we celebrate 9.1% unemployment that excludes those that have stopped looking?). However, as with W, it's even more difficult to judge a sitting President in terms of their overall place in history. I just know he's got the car pointed in the wrong direction. I just don't necessarily know how wrong. Here's the funny part - he's basically contniued all W's foreign policy plans (which I'm sure you totally disagree with) AND run the economy deeper into the ditch with no end in sight.
how are you not giving him a pass!?? ... that is exactly what you are doing ... either way - this discussion is off topic ... i will simply disagree that reagan's era is an example of a prosperous society that operated with limited gov't and free-market principles ...
Is any socialist going to actualy answer the question...
there is no answer because what you think is socialism is not. until you understand that there is nothing to answer.
haha ok, then whats your definition?
ok even though this was already written back on page 4 or something i will repeat it. Socialism for me means that the collective is more important than the individual. for example, in Canada where i live we have universal health care. i pay through my taxes for health care not only for myself but also for everyone else. we do this because we realized that health care in essential.
another example, is that we have a social safety net that assists people when they can't do it themselves. for example, we have regulation against certain things such as food, medication. we also have welfare for when people are not able to find jobs, we also have employment insurance for when someone is laid off.
In this sense the advocacy of a socialistic act or measure will not necessarily characterize a Socialist. Socialism will mean, not one, but many things socialistic. Thus, for example, protection is socialistic. Yet the protectionist is not, as such, a Socialist. Most protectionists are not Socialists. Many protectionists are, in their general views, as anti-socialistic as men can well be.
The Socialist, under this definition, would be the man who, in general, distrusts the effects of individual initiative and individual enterprise ; who is easily convinced of the utility of an assumption, by the State, of functions which have hitherto been left to personal choices and personal aims ; and who, in fact, supports and advocates many and large schemes of this character.
A man of whom all this could be said might, in strict justice, be termed a Socialist. The extreme Socialist is he who would make the State all in all, individual initiative and enterprise disappearing in that engrossing democracy of labor to which he aspires. In his view, the powers and rights of the State represent the sum of all the powers and all the rights of the individuals who compose it ; and government becomes the organ of society in respect to all its interests and all its acts. So much for the Socialist.
Socialism, under our definition, would be a term properly to be applied (1) to the aggregate of many and large schemes of this nature, actually urged for present or early adoption ; or (2) to a programme contemplated, at whatever distance, for the gradual replacement of private by public activity ; or (3) to an observed movement or tendency, of a highly marked character, in the direction indicated.
"The really important thing is not to live, but to live well. And to live well meant, along with more enjoyable things in life, to live according to your principles."
— Socrates
Comments
who cares? ... well - if you are going to give an example of a limited gov't free market society that works ... it a) has to work for the majority of people and b) it actually has to be a limited gov't free market society ... both of which are fails under reagan ...
i'm not gonna get into it with you on reagan - he's been discussed to death ... if you want to soak up the conservative love-in you guys have with him ... so be it ... i see him as a religious zealot that paved the way for the rise of the christian right in america ... either way - he probably wasn't the worst president ... but neither was carter ...
Limited is a relative term. I realize we need some social programs. I'm not every person for themselves. I'm just a big believer in reducing welfare rolls to bare minimums and "forcing" (I could use incentivizing, but I'll play the game) people to take jobs they might not be willing to under entitlement style programs a la David Dinkins and Obama if he wasn't stopped. I look at NYC at the time Giuliani took over as a microcosm of what's going on in the Nation, and think - jeez - if the Republican's weren't so worried about getting a religious nut, and the Democrats weren't so worried about his label, we might want to give a guy that's proven himself on a fairly large stage a chance.
In my lifetime, Carter was easily the worst. There's not even a debate. Long lines at gas stations, high interest rates AND out of control inflation, high unemployment, and let's not go to our National psyche at the time and the Iranian Hostage crisis. He might be the worst ever, but It's hard for me to say since I'm not quite sure what the hell John Tyler did.
Do you complain when the government forcibly takes your money to fund police who fight the "war on drugs", I am sure you don't agree with that, right...
So by your logic we should get rid of the police since you don't agree with how they are implementing something, yet you seem to be oblivious to the good they do and service they provide, same goes for the military...
I don't support the wars but I don't have any issues having my money being used as its intended purpose "Defense" "R&D", etc... , hell the internet (today's modern)that you use daily to bash the military, was a development/invention by the military
BTW, protecting its citizens and their interests is an express purpose of our Federal Government. Welfare is not.
So, you may disagree with the wars (and that's what our freedom affords you - the right to disagree), but at least that's a purpose in the Constitution and of our Commander in Chief. There's nowhere in Jefferson's great document that folks are entitled to handouts (not disagreeing with some form of welfare. Just pointing out the fallacy of your attempted argument).
really? ... a president who lies in order to send a country into a war that has cost the country billions of dollars plus the extensive loss of many innocent lives does not beat out a guy who is probably the most well respected ex president around the world still alive today? ... i'm sorry - but if you think carter is worse than W. than we really are seeing the world through much different eyes and it is no wonder we disagree ...
no where in keeprockin post bashed the military.
Hold the phone - when I speak of worst President, I talk about what they did when they were.... President. Yes, Jimmy is a great philanthropist now. Kudos. But, as a President and leader, he sucked.
As for W - I think history will provide a much better perspective on him. Clearly, at the end he was polarizing, and thus a clearly underqualified person won the Presidency due to party affiliation. But, his respect for this President and his silence when he could have been saying - told you so - in so many instances shows the character of the man (Quantanamo anyone?).
Every President makes mistakes. Was he lying? I don't know. Maybe. Was he mislead (which has its own criticism to go along with it)? Maybe. But, I do know for sure that during his 8 years we felt a whole lot better about ourselves than Carter. At least he was trying to do right. I'm not sure what the hell Carter was doing.
I'm also not arguing he was the best or top 10 President. But, comparing the 2 is a joke. If you don't remember what the US was like in 1979, then I suggest you ask some folks that do.
are you really that partisan? ... the answer has to be yes to be willing to give soooo much leeway to W. and then attack the current president with the most rudimentary talking points ... good grief ... sorry - we just do not see the world the same way and it's pretty much impossible to have discussion when we both see a ball and you say it's red and i say it's green ...
So by your logic we should get rid of the police since you don't agree with how they are implementing something, yet you seem to be oblivious to the good they do and service they provide, same goes for the military...
I don't support the wars but I don't have any issues having my money being used as its intended purpose "Defense" "R&D", etc... , hell the internet (today's modern)that you use daily to bash the military, was a development/invention by the military[/quote]
no where in keeprockin post bashed the military.[/quote]
Show me on the gov's spending chart where they have a line item for War...[/quote]
sorry but that is just dumb. they don't have a line for war but they do have a very big line for "defense".
no where in keeprockin post bashed the military.[/quote]
Show me on the gov's spending chart where they have a line item for War...[/quote]
sorry but that is just dumb. they don't have a line for war but they do have a very big line for "defense".[/quote]
Its sarcastic... military/defense same thing... what are you confused about?
Not only that, but I think you're missing his point. The govt uses our money in many ways. Social programs are intended to help, so is the military. I think whenever we have a debate about things such as welfare, and people refer to it as the govt "stealing" your money, you are going to get responses like this.
My biggest complaint with programs like welfare is that there is obviously some abuse of the system, and it is flawed.. Is the govt wasting our money? then again, some of you might have seen a thread I created a few weeks back where a govt contract with Anham is under investigation to have overcharged them by up to 12,000% percent for rebuilding what we blew up "defending" ourselves in Iraq. for the record, I am not bashing the military, but I am questioning how they are spending money on "defense" when companies are able to rip us off building crap in Iraq (when we shouldnt ever be there in the first place!)
I am not giving W. a pass. There are clearly issues with some of the stuff he did. He's not an all time President. I do think that through the prism of time, his 8 years will be viewed differently.
I also think it took Reagan a lot less time to dig out of a MUCH bigger hole (stagflation) than it's taking Obama (we celebrate 9.1% unemployment that excludes those that have stopped looking?). However, as with W, it's even more difficult to judge a sitting President in terms of their overall place in history. I just know he's got the car pointed in the wrong direction. I just don't necessarily know how wrong. Here's the funny part - he's basically contniued all W's foreign policy plans (which I'm sure you totally disagree with) AND run the economy deeper into the ditch with no end in sight.
Welfare is not a good or service that provides ( I am not talking about unemployment which is already paid for by yourself) Its giving someone your money and getting nothing in return.
The worst part is all the opportunitys are available to people at any class. You have free schooling,healthcare,food,shelter not to mention the gov. vouchers for free daycare,school supplies, school meals for the weekend. Its an endless list of handouts and items that I have to pay for.
I travel alot from jobsite to jobsite and I used a GPS, a product of my tax dollars developed by the military.
Is it to much to ask people that do not pay taxes and rely on everyone else to at least be required to do some type of community service.
there is no answer because what you think is socialism is not. until you understand that there is nothing to answer.
how are you not giving him a pass!?? ... that is exactly what you are doing ... either way - this discussion is off topic ... i will simply disagree that reagan's era is an example of a prosperous society that operated with limited gov't and free-market principles ...
ok even though this was already written back on page 4 or something i will repeat it. Socialism for me means that the collective is more important than the individual. for example, in Canada where i live we have universal health care. i pay through my taxes for health care not only for myself but also for everyone else. we do this because we realized that health care in essential.
another example, is that we have a social safety net that assists people when they can't do it themselves. for example, we have regulation against certain things such as food, medication. we also have welfare for when people are not able to find jobs, we also have employment insurance for when someone is laid off.
In this sense the advocacy of a socialistic act or measure will not necessarily characterize a Socialist. Socialism will mean, not one, but many things socialistic. Thus, for example, protection is socialistic. Yet the protectionist is not, as such, a Socialist. Most protectionists are not Socialists. Many protectionists are, in their general views, as anti-socialistic as men can well be.
The Socialist, under this definition, would be the man who, in general, distrusts the effects of individual initiative and individual enterprise ; who is easily convinced of the utility of an assumption, by the State, of functions which have hitherto been left to personal choices and personal aims ; and who, in fact, supports and advocates many and large schemes of this character.
A man of whom all this could be said might, in strict justice, be termed a Socialist. The extreme Socialist is he who would make the State all in all, individual initiative and enterprise disappearing in that engrossing democracy of labor to which he aspires. In his view, the powers and rights of the State represent the sum of all the powers and all the rights of the individuals who compose it ; and government becomes the organ of society in respect to all its interests and all its acts. So much for the Socialist.
Socialism, under our definition, would be a term properly to be applied (1) to the aggregate of many and large schemes of this nature, actually urged for present or early adoption ; or (2) to a programme contemplated, at whatever distance, for the gradual replacement of private by public activity ; or (3) to an observed movement or tendency, of a highly marked character, in the direction indicated.
— Socrates