Comments on: Objectivity

By: Final Frontier

Final Frontier — Sun, 22 Feb 2009 16:20:24 +0000

Swamp,

The conversion is coming . . .

By: Final Frontier

Final Frontier — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 19:23:58 +0000

Double wow. For people who like to claim that members of their party are the only true Americans and that Democrats are somehow not patriotic, you sure seem to be willing to look the other way when your party fails in its basic principles. Let me remind you who has the ultimate responsibility for the budget–the CEO. In this case, the president. Had Reagan wanted to, he could have exercised the veto. But he didn’t. And your defense of Reagan’s failure to address the murder of Marines is beyond stunning: let’s see if I can follow your argument. Well, it started under Carter, so there is no way the guy who came AFTER Carter could have figured out that there was a threat in the Middle East. Hmm . . not a very good argument, so let’s go to the old standby: it’s Clinton’s fault! And it is okay to negotiate with terrorists privately (while publicly insisting we don’t) as long as it happened under Reagan. Surely he could not be expected to multi-task since he was facing down the tottering Soviet Union. So we lied to the American public! At least we gave a “positive” speech unlike that Obama guy, who seems so bummed out about the massive economic problems we face! What a downer! He should just smile for the cameras and tell us what we want to hear. Really?

By: swampcritter2

swampcritter2 — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 18:55:35 +0000

I’m much too old to be termed a neo-con. In my post I did not state that I was pleased with dead Marines and a spiraling national debt,I stated the opposite.
I do not think that libs suffer from moral equivocation, I KNOW that they do.
By the way I’m still waiting for you to convert me into becoming a good liberal.

By: Michael

Michael — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 15:16:01 +0000

Wow, for someone whose side claims to see the nuance in everything, there’s sure a lot of black and white in your comment.

First of all, let me blow a hole in your national debt comment by reminding you who makes the budget; that would be Congress. I seem to recall every time Reagan submitted a budget, old Tip O’Neill would call it “dead on arrival.” The one thing that Reagan didn’t do (but Clinton did) was shut down the government when he had a budget that was disagreeable. It bears repeating that revenues practically doubled during Reagan’s term despite the lower tax rates overall.

As for “dead Marines” this was not solely a Reagan thing. Both Carter and Clinton had their military misadventures too. While it’s a little ghoulish to discuss trading the lives of Marines, given Reagan’s success in subduing the Soviet threat I think the Marines in Lebanon was a small price to pay. The threat of radical Islam (which, by the way, took shape in the Carter years with the fall of the Shah of Iran and the hostage crisis) wasn’t yet understood in the manner which we do now. I think this also helps to explain the “negotiating with terrorists” aspect; sometimes the world presents only the opportunity to choose the least bad choice.

What I do take pride in is the fact that Reagan came at a time when national morale was low and took action to restore it by putting people’s money back in their pockets and restoring the economy. In retrospect, his solutions were not absolutely perfect but seem to have found much more success than any of his successors have found.

This is as opposed to President Obama’s constant drumbeat of what is wrong with our country. We all know what’s wrong (and some of us happen to believe his “solutions” will only make things worse) but we rarely hear about what is right. His inauguration speech was somewhat positive but since then it’s been a steady diet of doom and gloom.

By: Final frontier

Final frontier — Sat, 21 Feb 2009 04:39:36 +0000

So if you neo-cons take pride in a massive national debt, dead Marines, and negotiating with terrorists, then you pretty much have lost every last one of your stated values. And you think liberals suffer from moral equivocation? Wow. You may profess a love of country, but you do not walk the walk. National debt, dead Marines, negotiating with terrorists. But he could give a good speech about how much he loved the country. So who is really guilty of not walking the walk?

By: swampcritter2

swampcritter2 — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 18:56:49 +0000

Gosh Final Frontier, You are correct, Ronald Reagan did increase the national debt dramatically. Those Marines who died never had their deaths avenged. I wasn’t pleased at all about these things. As far as Iran-contra was concerned, I was personally happy that Reagan was ballsy enough to circumvent a ball-less Democrat congress and arrange to kill a few Marxists in Nicaragua.
I personally didn’t revere Reagan, but I have a feeling you hated him then, and hate him more now. Reagan gave America back it’s pride, and libs can’t abide that. They may profess a love of country, but they’ll never walk the walk.

By: Final Frontier

Final Frontier — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 17:26:47 +0000

Quite a stretch to go from the Heritage Foundations obvious pro-Reagan bias (even you have to admit that) to the census and the evil Democratic plot to take over the country! Your party has NEVER tried to manipulate election districts to their benefit, right? Republicans are only interested in doing what is morally right, and they are the only true Americans. Yet, you Reagan worshippers never can seem to answer a few questions: does it matter that he MASSIVELY increased the national debt? Do you care that 180+ Marines were killed by terrorists in Lebanon, and Ronald Reagan did nothing? And do you smell any sort of problem with trading arms for hostages (otherwise known as negotiating with terrorists)? I’m not arguing that Reagan is the worst president ever, but I am so sick of hearing the hagiography of Ronald Reagan with no acknowledgment that there were very serious problems under his watch.