DiscussMormonism.com

MCB wrote:His January 26 post on the State of the Union address is amazingly blind.

Yeah, that isn't really too encouraging. On the other hand, he probably only intended his pals to see this. They probably have lots of chuckles calling Obama "obummer" and the like. Hey, I am not too happy with Obama either, but give me him over Michelle Bachmann, Paul Ryan, or Sarah Palin any day. There is disappointing, and then there is scary as hell.

Kishkumen wrote:

Yeah, that isn't really too encouraging. On the other hand, he probably only intended his pals to see this. They probably have lots of chuckles calling Obama "obummer" and the like. Hey, I am not too happy with Obama either, but give me him over Michelle Bachmann, Paul Ryan, or Sarah Palin any day. There is disappointing, and then there is scary as hell.

My name is The Reaping, and I endorse this message.

Kishkumen wrote:

MCB wrote:His January 26 post on the State of the Union address is amazingly blind.

Yeah, that isn't really too encouraging. On the other hand, he probably only intended his pals to see this. They probably have lots of chuckles calling Obama "obummer" and the like. Hey, I am not too happy with Obama either, but give me him over Michelle Bachmann, Paul Ryan, or Sarah Palin any day. There is disappointing, and then there is scary as hell.

I would point out to those of you who may have been too young to remember, or not even born as of 1979, that such was the vast, broad opinion of Ronald Reagan then, 'scary as hell'. The talk was that he'd have us in WWIII against Leonid Brezhnev's USSR within a year if he was elected. Reagan trailed Jimmy Carter in the polls right up until the Thursday before the Tuesday election in November 1980.

Think what you might about Reagan, but nearly every parameter used to measure such things puts his presidency ahead of Jimmy Carter's.

When it comes right down to it, the U.S. presidency is a PR position. The real governing and decisions are made by the cabinet members and appointees--and the Senate has confirmation authority over that process. Who is elected president more symbolizes the thought direction of the electorate.

sock puppet wrote:I would point out to those of you who may have been too young to remember, or not even born as of 1979, that such was the vast, broad opinion of Ronald Reagan then, 'scary as hell'. The talk was that he'd have us in WWIII against Leonid Brezhnev's USSR within a year if he was elected. Reagan trailed Jimmy Carter in the polls right up until the Thursday before the Tuesday election in November 1980.

Think what you might about Reagan, but nearly every parameter used to measure such things puts his presidency ahead of Jimmy Carter's.

When it comes right down to it, the U.S. presidency is a PR position. The real governing and decisions are made by the cabinet members and appointees--and the Senate has confirmation authority over that process. Who is elected president more symbolizes the thought direction of the electorate.

If we're talking about Reagan's presidency, that's true.

sock puppet wrote:I would point out to those of you who may have been too young to remember, or not even born as of 1979, that such was the vast, broad opinion of Ronald Reagan then, 'scary as hell'. The talk was that he'd have us in WWIII against Leonid Brezhnev's USSR within a year if he was elected. Reagan trailed Jimmy Carter in the polls right up until the Thursday before the Tuesday election in November 1980.

Yes, undoubtedly Reagan was an influential figure in modern US politics. Whether that makes him a "great" president or not is a little more controversial. Certainly he accelerated this country's slide toward a corporate plutocracy that gives little care to its poorest members, and set the example for running giant deficits in order to fund the military.

I will say this for Reagan, however, he wasn't, for all of his faults, an ignoramus or a lunatic. Sadly, each person on the list I offered might well qualify for at least one of those descriptions. Sarah Palin is, simply put, a bad joke, as anyone with a lick of common sense and some sense of responsibility would be able to tell you. Michelle Bachmann is "Sarah Lite" if I have ever seen a contender for that dubious honor, while Paul Ryan is a wacko ideologue who worships at the altar of a Russian ex-pat who thought the only antidote to Soviet Communism was an equally extreme and ill-advised utopian vision of an "every man an island" non-society of unfettered ubermensch geniuses.

Reagan, on the other hand, was a fairly practical guy, who spent a great deal of time familiarizing himself with the issues of his day. However much I may disagree with the whole "screw the poor" mentality of conservative America, I think the resistance to Reagan was largely a matter of political snobbery, whereas the resistance to the characters on my list represents the last vestige of common sense and sanity in our United States of Growing Lunacy.

sock puppet wrote:When it comes right down to it, the U.S. presidency is a PR position.

George W. Bush would probably disagree, and he would be right... for once.

sock puppet wrote:Think what you might about Reagan, but nearly every parameter used to measure such things puts his presidency ahead of Jimmy Carter's.

You could use the Swiss bank accounts of the Nicaraguan Contras as one of the strongest parameters. That Carter fellow was too damned decent for such intrigue and honors.

Hey, I am not too happy with Obama either, but give me him over Michelle Bachmann, Paul Ryan, or Sarah Palin any day. There is disappointing, and then there is scary as hell.

Yeah, Obama is definitely scarier and more extreme than all of those, who are merely mainstream, put together.

Have you ever read a newspaper from outside of southern Idaho, bcspace?

JohnStuartMill wrote:Have you ever read a newspaper from outside of southern Idaho, bcspace?

Either BCSpace is making a trolly comment, he is cynically trying to manipulate the overton window by saying something absurd, or he's off his rocker because he has bought into others efforts to manipulate the overton window.

Obviously what is mainstream shifts over time. If Reagan's administration argued the president had the unchecked authority to assassinate US citizens without charge or trial and admitted to trying to do just that, there'd be an epic national scandal. Now Obama's administration does that and people barely blink. But that doesn't mean BCSpace's assertion is on speaking terms with reality.

Recent polls show that roughly 70-75% of Americans want higher taxes imposed on the wealthiest 2%. These bozos are against that.

Recent Town Hall events prove that Republicans are having a difficult time with their latest budget proposal, even among their own constituents, when they try to dismantle Medicare. They draw boos every time they talk about it or maintaining the low tax rate for the rich. Remember, Medicare is the socialized medicine that "mainstream" America is supposed to be opposed to, but they're not.

These nutjobs are hardly mainstream and neither is bcspace.