Comments for The Left Starts to Rethink Reagan »
Posted By stephen-johnson 1 year, 7 months ago in NewsIt's no secret that intellectuals, generally being liberals, didn't think much of Ronald Reagan at the time..But I think that now they can no longer ignore him. His impact on the world and country, whether you like it or not, was so important that to ignore him is to ignore an entirety of American politics.
Read Full Story at newsweek.com »
RSS Join the Discussion
+ Add CommentShowing 252 of 254 Comments
-
Neutral
stephen-johnson1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
FTA:
What Reagan did was something differentâ;;it was to lead with the same spirit and optimism and forward-looking hope that liberals had projected, but in the name of policies that were frankly conservative. And he managed to do that in a way that no previous president, and certainly no conservative president, had managed to do before.
Reply-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned17 Replies
-
AtheismIsRealityComment removed: Retracted by user6 Replies
-
-
Neutral
Wolfie20071 year, 7 months ago
-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned35 Replies
-
Neutral
Leemck021 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Wolfie, short of the Soviet collapse, which is a great accomplishment, what else? Handling WWII is rather significant or bringing the nation back from the Great Depression. Greatest in the 20th century is laying it on a bit thick. Whatever you desire to remember him for if fine, but do not carry his policy forward another day. He is known for needing a national bailout to keep America from also collapsing as did the Soviets. You keep him as a hero, I'll remember him as an actor that played a good part.
Reply-
-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned3 Replies
-
-
-
Neutral
jordan111 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The absolute best president of the 20th century.>>>>
Well, if you're into throwing vulnerable people into the streets to be homeless, watching people die of a horrible cluster of diseases and not giving a damn, Ignoring all expert opinion and squandering billions on a failed star wars system, raising taxes numerous times cause the squandered billions ate up the treasury....then yeah. Reagan would probably fit the bill for 'greatest president.'
Reply -
-
-
ranchhandComment removed: Retracted by user22 Replies
-
Neutral
NoWayMan1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
the more I think about reagan, the worse his legacy becomes.
he's the guy who started this GOP cycle of massive spending and massive deficits, turned his back on people with AIDS, paid off iran to hold the hostages a little while longer, caused hundreds of thousands of deaths in central america, made decisons by using an astrologer, advanced the cause of the military industrial complex, allowed crack to top it off, he took the solar panels off the white house cause he thought solar power was stupid.
his success is mostly due to a massive marketing campaign that continues to this day.
Reply-
libsRfunnyComment removed: Hard Banned37 Replies
-
Neutral
Leemck021 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
NoWay, this is more of what I remember. Ray-gun, was masterful at dodging the bullet, as in teflon, but these are some of the less wonderful things he done. Before America loses it's competitive position by people that are longing for a glory day that didn't exist, please accept Reagan as a Executive that some things good and some screwed, like Drugs for Guns (Olie and Contra), as well as his Just say no to Drugs. Don't try to make the greatest drug lord more than a human.
Reply-
-
Neutral
Leemck021 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I can't recall the reporter, but it was a lady who invented him as The Teflon President; eluding to his superb ability for not letting stuff he messed up stick to him. You see even now, a fair number of people overlook some major boo boo's. Wasn't Drugs for Guns huge? How do we forget?
Reply
-
-
-
-
Neutral
jimdoze1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"Were Iran to attain a nuclear capacity, it would complicate the geopolitics of the Middle East. But none of the problems we face compare with the dangers posed by a rising Germany in the first half of the 20th century or an expansionist Soviet Union in the second half."
WRONG!
Iran is equally dangerous and, in the context of the world economy, probably far more dangerous than Germany was in the 20th century. The rise of the world economy, made up of many surging national economies rests on carbon based energy, specifically oil. As such, the strategic importance of Middle Eastern oil supplies is far higher than Belgium, France and Italy were to the world economy in the early and mid-twentieth century. Furthermore, the fuse to ignite potential world economic disaster, inevitably to be followed by major war, is far shorter than it was back then.
Reply-
Neutral
Dionys1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I wonder why Israel is so dangerous. Could it be that they were attacked so many times right from the start. The first war began as the British troops left. If your neighbors attacked you every time you left your house I bet you would get dangerous to.
You are sticking your head in the sand about China and the Muslim Terrorists.
Reply-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Pure Muslim theology. Just like the example of Muhammad. He told all Christians and Jews to leave Arabia or die. Treaties he made with the Jews in Yathrib (Medina) and with his own tribe in Mecca were ignored by him within two years of making them.
You seem to forget that the Zionists were a group of Christians who wanted Jews to have a homeland in Israel. Muslims attacked Israel immediately as the British were leaving. This is because they were killing the Christians that were partly responsible for creating the country. Why do you rewrite history so much? You sound like the Muslim doctrine of Al Takeyya. Allowing Muslims to lie about almost anything. They are allowed to lie about the following:
1. For reconciliation among people.
2. In war.
3. Amongst spouses, to keep peace in the family.
That is a huge territory. Then they are expected to lie to non Muslims.
Reply-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>Pure Muslim theology
Pure nonsense. I am a Christian. I have Christian friends with family who were victims of the pre-Israel Zionist terrorists.
>>You seem to forget that the Zionists were a group of Christians who wanted Jews to have a homeland in Israel
And you seem to forget that those Christians were WESTERN Christians. They didn't know the difference between Arab Christians & Muslims, just like the Crusaders didn't know the difference & began killing ALL Arabs.
>>You sound like the Muslim doctrine of Al Takeyya
I'm a Christian of Arab descent, just like millions of other Arab Christians. Many lived & live in peace w/Muslims. And many were killed by the Zionist terrorists to make room for Israel. It's you Western "Christians" that don't know didly about what has happened over there & do the historical revisions.
Reply-
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm glad someone does. I'm VERY tired of some on these boards that have the mantra: "Israel does no evil; Palestinians do no good."
They both do & have done some atrocious things to each other. Blindly backing 1 or the other does nothing but exacerbate the situation.
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Read the Hamas Charter.
Their objective is to kill all Jews. That is the only solution for them. Then people like you say they should just lay down and die. Every time in history the Jews have given in to a Palestinian request it is taken but only more bombs and killing is done. Yassar Arafat was criticized by his fellow Muslims when he made a treaty. He then referred to the treaty that Muhammad had with the Jews at Medina and everybody shut up. They understood that the treaty was made to be broken at a convenient time. That is the Islamic view of treaties in conformance to the way Muhammad did it.
Do the Jews avow that they will kill all Palestinians or do the Palestinians say they will kill all Jews?
Reply-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That charter was written YEARS ago. They've since recognized Israel.
And you talk about the Muslims breaking treaties, but you don't mention that Israel's basically broken just about EVERY treaty it's had w/the Palestinians.
You can't have it both ways. If you expect the Palestinians, not all of whom are Muslims, to honor their side of the treaties, you need to expect the same of Israel.
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Historically Muslims have always broken treaties. Starting with the treaty with the Jews in Medina and the treaty with Mecca. Within two years of each 10 year treaty they were broken. Muhammad did it. They do it that way ever since.
Lets see. Israel gets attacked all the time by terrorists like Hamas sending rockets into Israel from Gaza. They do something about it and they are breaking the treaty. Good thinking. They close the border because the terrorists send people to blow themselves up in order to go to Paradise. And that is breaking the treaty. Good thinking again.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LOL
Do you know whay the Crusaders went to Israel? The Byzantine emperor wrote 2 letters to the Pope asking for help against the Muslims attacking him. True they were wrong in some of the things they did but they halted the Muslim onslaught for over 200 years. At that point Muslims were in Spain, across northern Africa and East to northern India. The Byzantine empire was under siege.
You don't seem to know the history of Jews and Christians under Islam. Do you know about the Pact of Umar? The fact that the Jizra tax was supposed to be paid under humiliating circumstances. Do you know what happened in turkey at the start of WW1? 1 million Christians killed. Do you know what happened to Christians in Greece. Failure to pay the tax meant they took their children. Boys to the military and girls to harems.
In the independence that Israel received the Muslims began persecuting the Jews everywhere.
http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_independence_r...
Reply -
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why don't you read up on the history of what happened to the Jews in Medina by Muhammad.
He had treaties with all three tribes. The first two one at a time he attacked and told them to leave with what they could carry. The last he beheaded all the men and made slaves out of the women and children. In all three cases he took their possessions as booty.
What happened to all the Jews and Christian in Arabia by Muhammad as he took over the area.
He ordered all Jews and Christians to leave Arabia or die. He then offered all the Arabs to convert or die.
As they expanded out of Arabia the option for People of the Book was to submit to the Pact of Umar, convert, or die. All others it was convert or die.
Read up on the Pact of Umar. It was mostly what Muhammad had told his generals. Lenient rulers made the Pact easy but hard liners made it a burdensome task. Read up on your own history. I read up on it and became angry that people like you ignore it.
Reply -
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Account for the fact that in the 1830's the British and American officials there state that the population was many Jews and a small group of Muslim herdsmen. As Zionism pushed more Jews there they were going into a vacuum. Then later the Muslims started pushing Arab Muslims into a territory that was never settled by Arabs. Controlled but never settled. A few Persians were living there. It was mostly arid land.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
ADAGUY1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I keep seeing the phrase "what Reagan did", and I keep asking, tell me, just what did he do?! Fact is Reagan has shown to be the downfall of the true conservative, and what I consider the start of the hijacking of the GOP!
Stop and think about it. When he left office, the debt was around 5.5 trillion, and "FREE TRADE" had been born.
We are still paying for these ideals, and will continue to pay for them until the politicians start working for the citizens rather than the major players.
Reply-
Neutral
ADAGUY1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ask yourself, were we better off when supply side economics were not around? Bush sr. had it rightwhen he labeled it Voo Doo economics!
Sorry, but I admired Reagan when he first ran for pres in 1976. I really wanted him to win. But when he aligned himself with former Nixon chronies and ran again in 80, I saw through him.
Let's see, wasn't he the one who wanted smaller government?
Reply-
-
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>Bush 2 is with a Republican congress he let the liberals control too much spending.
Now we know you're confused. The Democrats had absolutely NO power in Congress while the Republicans were in control. To say that the Liberals (ie, Democrats by your own definition) had too much control over spending is like saying the Moon puts off too much heat in the middle of the afternoon.
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LOL
He let Kennedy write the education bill. Remember that that was what he talked about when he became president. How it would be a time of getting together. House Republicans almost revolted a couple of times and in my opinion should have. Bush sent someone to sweet talk them into going along. I remember hearing a couple of congressmen angry about that.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned4 Replies
-
-
-
Neutral
CRYMTYPHON1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Ronald Reagan:
A staunch supporter of family values, he was the divorced dad of a hilariously disfunctional family.
Holding a bible up to America and saying, 'this is what you need', he was a California pagan who brought an astrologer into the white house to make national security decisions.
A man who looked you in the eye and told you straight; he looked America in the eye and said he would increase defense spending, protect social security, cut taxes and balance the budget.
Easy to assume he was just a B movie actor doing the greatest role of his life...
And yet; there was more to him. When he was shot, he joked while others panicked. He could deliver lines like William Jennings Bryan. Even his enemies were fond of him.
I agree; as a leftist, he is looking better to me over time.
Reply -
Neutral
dwemm1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Can we bring up the Laffer curve again? This first surfaced as the excuse for "trickle down" economics in the first Reagan campaign, something King George I called "voodoo economics."
The idea was that if we stoked the rich with enough tax breaks that they would invest and pay for the jobs that would bring social equality through the hard working "little people" who would be so grateful they would never ever think about welfare again.
The decade ended in a recession that wrecked the economy. And record deficits that were never paid.
Later George II adopted "trickle down" and tax breaks for the wealthy to fuel employment and the economy based on the Laffer curve.
Did somebody mention the "definition of insanity?"
Reply -
mackiemesserComment removed: Retracted by user1 Reply
-
mackiemesserComment removed: Retracted by user
-
mackiemesserComment removed: Retracted by user
-
Neutral
silvera1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So we have a couple of talking head pundits throwing out inane revisionist drivel and all of a sudden "liberals are rethinking Reagan". Give me a break! Reagan didn't have an original thought in his head and other than "looking good" and being able to read a teleprompter well, he was a worthless old buffoon parroting whatever his handlers told him to say. His administration's regressive policies laid the foundation of a twisted conservative movement culminating in the election of the worst, most destructive president in history, G.W.Bush. How's that for a legacy?
Reply-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>and all of a sudden "liberals are rethinking Reagan"
I'm actually rethinking Reagan, in light of W. I USED to think he was just about the worst president in US history. Now I'm sure that W is the worst & Reagan, at most, is the 2nd worst.
I guess that's a step up. I can see some of the more hard-cores here using this to prove that us "Liberals" are starting to improve our outlook on Reagan's presidency.
Reply-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned12 Replies
-
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>How can anybody be worse than Carter. I used to think he was inept. But now with what he is doing these days I am coming to the conclusion that he is evil.
Carter did what he had to to keep the hostages alive. When Carter left office, a family could afford a house with only 1 income. He started an incentive program for alternative fuels. He kept us out of war.
He wasn't the greatest president in history, but he was a damned sight better than Reagan & DEFINITELY better than W.
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LOL
Ever hear of Stagflation. Ford was flattening the inflation but Carter turned it into double digits. He helped the current government if Iran into power because he didn't like the Shah. Such a wise decision. That government repaid his help by taking the embassy. He now caters to those types of people. His trip to see terrorists and lay a wreath on another terrorists grave says a lot.
Reply-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
We're not even going to get into the Middle East. I have family & friends in Lebanon & Palestine, as well as friends with family in Palestine & Israel. If you unilaterally label Hamas, the PLO, or Palestinians as "terrorists" and give Israel a free pass to do anything it wants in the occupied territories, then you don't know sht about it. Ask the Israelies, Palestinians, & other Arab countries in the region about the Israeli GOVERNMENT'S refusal to accept any peace overtures, despite the people's support for an REAL peace process & stop of Israeli aggressions in the Occupied territories.
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LOL
Occupied territories. What garbage. When the UN created the countries of Israel and Trans Jordan the Jordan river was the border. That was what the trans part of Trans Jordan meant. When the British left the Muslim countries surrounding Israel left. Jordan captured the West Bank. So now that Israel took it back it is occupied territory? Get your history correct.
Hamas and the PLO have repeatedly followed the example of Muhammad. Treaties are made to get time to prepare for another day. They are made to be broken as it suits them. Their avowed aim stated over and over is to wipe out the Jews as the example of Muhammad gives them.
The Hamas charter:
http://www.mideastweb.org/hamas.htm
Reply-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>When the UN created the countries of Israel and Trans Jordan
That's the problem. The _UN_ mandated it w/no regard for the Christians, Muslims & Jews already living on that land - IN PEACE UNTIL PRO-ZIONISTS BEGAN THEIR TERRORIST ACTIVITIES.
>>Treaties are made to get time to prepare for another day. They are made to be broken as it suits them
And you completely ignore ALL of the treaties that Israel has broken over the decades. Typical 1-sided BS.
And as for the Hamas Charter, they have agreed to recognize Israel MULTIPLE times.
The difference between us is that I can admit the Palestinians did some extremely awful things. If you're going to lay all the blame on the Palestinians & Arabs, & completely ignore all of the attrocities of the pre-Israel Zionist terrorists & Isreali gov't, then you're a blind full who can only see 1 side of this issue, & you're part of the problem of the continued violence over there.
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"That's the problem. The _UN_ mandated it w/no regard for the Christians, Muslims & Jews already living on that land - IN PEACE UNTIL PRO-ZIONISTS BEGAN THEIR TERRORIST ACTIVITIES."
In 1948 as the British was leaving the Muslims all around attacked in order to "drive the Jews into the sea and kill them there". Don't give me any garbage otherwise. The UN was doing what the League of Nations was going to do before WW2. In the 30's the decision to create a Jewish state. They drug their feet and did the same after WW2. In 1948 they finally did what they were supposed to do in the 30's.
You ignore the Arab revolt of the 20 -21, 29, and 36-39 where the Arabs were killing Jews and burning their property. At times the British were not allowing Jews to defend themselves and allowing the Arabs free reign. During this time the Jews were buying the land and buildings that they lived in. They bought the land that they turned into agricultural land.
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Made a mistake. The decision for a Jewish state goes back to 1917. All Jews settling there did so by buying the places where they lived. There were many Muslim attacks on the Jews throughout the following years that you ignore. Like the Turkish killing of 1 million Armenian Christians.
The Hasmas signed a treaty. They continue to shell Israel but you ignore that. Typical Muslim terrorists. Been the same since Muhammad. Get a copy of "The Truth About Muhammad" by Robert Spencer. That is how Muslims view him. All text is reverenced back to Muslim holy works, Quran, Hadith, and Ibn Ishaq. All Muslims are to follow his example. They are doing it.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Leemck021 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Reagan did some good but be screwed up a bit also. Whatever, his time has passed, and the Reagan legacy belongs in the history books only. Reaganism in policy is nothing short of a formula for disaster. His Voodoo Economics specifically, followed closely by labor practices. His views on civil society, or what I think is meant by conservatism, are long term poor at best (See W's ratings). If you look at the loss of the middle class, the loss of the dollar's value and image that bought us the need for W, I am confident an argument for giving him credit for a Cold War Strategy, that took work done by others to a favorable conclusion is all he deserves. Follow the stars.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
ChefEOD1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
That's so typical. You freaking idiots cannot even think of people other than lumping them all together into one of two categories. I say liberal and your only response is "Bush-Republican-Neocon". It is why you lose elections and the only reason you can come up with is that the others cheated. Get a brain! Start looking at the world as other than black & white, us against them. No better yet, keep thinking that way, and keep losing the Oval Office every 4 years.
Reply-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You seemed to have lumped all non-ultra-conservatives, IOW everyone but the 28% who still blindly follow W, into your "Liberal" comment. The ONLY people I "lumped" into my description were those 28%-ers who are too blind by party loyalty to even admit they're responsible for anything.
I have conservative friends that do not fit into my description. There have been people, such as Bob Dole, for whom I had respect even tho we differed on ideologies.
And it's divisive comments like "Being liberal means never saying your sorry" that reduce our elections & political discussions to no more than nose-thumbing & name-calling.
Look through this thread; there are a number of Conservatives who do NOT fit into the "Bush Republican-Neocon" category that you & others lump as "Liberal." So, apparently, it's the fanatic Right that does the lumping; it's just the center Right & over that bear the brunt of your comments.
Reply-
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>Is the fanatic right similar to the lunatic left?
Yes. The difference is you seem to include ALL Democrats & moderate Republicans who no longer buy the lies of the Reagan, Bush-1 & Bush-2 administrations in that title. I only include the far Right fanatics - the 28%-ers who still blindly follow every lie of the W admin.
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Typical lib. All Republican lie. You left out the only President that I know for sure lied. He did it before being elected. The rolling disclosures of Slick Willie going on to perjury about Monica. Then you have the gall to accuse Republicans?
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LOL
They are using that Star Wars technology these days. Remember a little while back they shot the fuel tank of a satellite that is coming down so the caustic fuel will not hit the atmosphere all at once. Star wars. And you thought is was something else?
Reply -
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Can you point out where one "Lib" stated who the greatest president was? The only ones I saw were saying it was Reagan.
If you're going to buy more ammunition for your weapon because the "Libs" like Wolfie are saying Reagan was the best in the 20th century, I guess that's your prerogative.
Reply
-
-
Neutral
Leemck021 year, 7 months ago
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It would've ended in a lot of people going to prison for it, except Daddy Bush pardoned everyone before the investigation could run its course.
It always amuses me that the party that's supposedly "tough on crime" is the same one who pardons felons (Ollie North), preemptively pardons criminals (Iran/Contra) & commutes sentences (Scooter Libby).
I guess it's more like "Angered" than "Amused" tho.
Reply-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned12 Replies
-
Neutral
Leemck021 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
PapaWolf, yet another, "I am not a crook". I must admit, they are good at saying one thing and doing the opposite; fiscally responsible, moral, support the troops = Broken dollar, K-street, bulletproof vests. Trying to sneak that Reagan mystique out to help the Cons nearing election, but I see some still remember the real deal. This con stuff did not start yesterday.
Reply
-
-
-
Neutral
cleare1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
i admit, that even i, who whole heartedly hated Reagan have begun to feel a bit...well, nostalgic for the Reagan days. but, only in comparison to the exceptionally horrid administration we have now. next to george, ronnie looks like santa.
Reply-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The following is from Dinesh D'Souza. Unfortunately it is what is perceived by too many people. The issues are those that liberals push to the detriment of family values.
The problem for most Muslims is Western liberalism. But here we must distinguish between two kinds of liberalism. There is the classical liberalism of the American founding. Call this Liberalism 1. This liberalism is reflected in such principles as the right to vote, to assemble freely, to debate issues, to trade with others, to practice one's religion, political and religious toleration, and so on.
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Then there is the modern liberalism of the 1960s. Call this Liberalism 2. This liberalism is defined by such tenets as the right to blaspheme, the complete exclusion of religious symbols from the public square, the right of teenage boys and girls to receive sex education and contraceptives, the right to abortion, prostitution as a worker's right, pornography as a protected form of expression, gay rights and gay marriage, and so on. It is this second type of liberalism that seems to drive the social agenda of today's Democratic Party. For example, Hillary Clinton chaired a presidential task force during the 1990s that promoted prostitution as an international right for workers.
In Oregon right now there is a court fight going on. They passed a law prohibiting selling pornography to minors. The ACLU and the book sellers are trying to make it so 13 year olds are able to buy this garbage.
Reply-
mntnman444Comment removed: Spammer, Hard Banned
-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>the right to blaspheme
According to whose law & whose God? 1 persons blasphemy is another person's mythology. I had a coworker who berated me for saying Fck while he threw around GDmn like it was nothing. Which is worse?
>complete exclusion of religious symbols from the public square
Which CAN amount to gov't sanctioning of a religion. Place ALL religious symbols & there's no prob
>right of teenage boys and girls to receive sex education and contraceptives
You'd rather have children not knowing anything experimenting & getting pregnant or STD's?
>right to abortion
You do NOT know EVERY medical, physical, emotional, financial, etc., factor of every pregnancy. Why should only the richest who can afford to "send their children away" be the only ones allowed to get an abortion?
>prostitution as a worker's right
Prostitutes DO work &, in some places, it's legal & regulated. Why shouldn't they have the same rights as other workers?
Reply -
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
(continued)
>pornography as a protected form of expression
Again, 1 person's porn is another person's art. Was it idiot Ashcroft who put a cloth on the statue because it was of a naked woman?
>gay rights and gay marriage
Why shouldn't they have the same rights as "straight" couples?
Apparently you believe that only those who believe the "right" way should have rights. No gays, prostitutes, those who don't believe in your god, & those of us who want our children to know the risks of sexual encounters & how to avoid them other than "Just Say 'No'" coz we know how well that works.....
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
LOL
You are proving my point. For the generations from the founding until the 60's those things were considered disgusting. The symbols of religious faith were part and parcel of the American government. Just look at the Supreme Court Building.
Then the ACLU with liberal judges have attacked anything of family value. Anything religious is considered hateful. What was once considered immoral is now to be praised.
One mans porn is another mans art. What garbage. Type in sex on google and tell me that garbage is art. I have to put filters on the computer so that filth doesn't get to my 8 and 11 year old children. And you defend it. That says a lot about you. You must side with the ACLU and booksellers in Oregon. Peddle filth to 13 year olds.
Do you even think about what you are saying in the two above posts?
Reply-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I'm not proving ANYTHING of yours. It's not religion that's hateful; it's STATE SPONSORSHIP of religion. If you think state sponsorship of religion is a good thing, then look at the theocracies around the world. Why argue with Sharia Law? Why fight the Taliban? They're just governing according to THEIR interpretation of their religion.
And there are great works of art that fanatics consider porn. I don't condone selling of porn to minors, but censorship of all "porn" from all is wrong. I keep my children from seeing certain things, but that's MY decision, not yours, not the gov't's & not some wacked out preacher who thinks that a woman's skirt above the ankle is scandalous, or a politician who supposedly passes laws to protect our youth while molesting minors in the Capitol building, or soliciting gay sex against all of his public rhetoric.
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You are almost right about the wording of the constitution. The clause is called the establishment clause. Going back to the time of colonization and the reason many came to America you will find that many came here to escape the established denomination of a country. In England then as now the official denomination was the Church of England started by Henry the Eighth so he could divorce a wife since he was tired of having them executed.
Coming down the years other denominations were harshly dealt with by the government and church. That is why Pilgrims, Puritans, and Quakers came here. All Christian religions. That is the reason for the establishment clause. So one CHRISTIAN denomination could not dominate the rest like in Europe. This was a Christian nation since the beginning. Only in the 60's was this challenged and the establishment clause was falsely called the separation clause.
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There are always the extreme on all sides. The problem is that those pushing the envelope are always pushing it further all the time. The result is things that were immoral are now supposed to be mainstream. I have seen this since the 60's. Activist liberals are always pushing and pushing to change what is acceptable. They always support the "rights" for someone but never the "responsibility" for them. Therefore the list that was given that you attacked. Rights trumps morality every time and responsibility is always left out.
Reply -
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
"According to whose law & whose God? 1 persons blasphemy is another person's mythology. I had a coworker who berated me for saying Fck while he threw around GDmn like it was nothing. Which is worse?"
Here is an example from you. They are both wrong morally but you want to discuss which is worse. The eroding of morals is the problem. What was wrong is now supposed to be OK. This was created a Christian country based on Christian morals and activist liberals seem to think they should attack everything about it.
Think about what you are saying about porn, not art but porn. In the early 60's it was confiscated and was illegal. Everybody knew what it was and understood it to be bad except for those who desired it. That was the moral issue. Then the ACLU took it to the supreme court with the liberal judges then and all of a sudden it was legal. The result is now we have to actively protect our children on line and at book stores rather then society protecting them.
Reply -
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>They are both wrong morally but you want to discuss which is worse
You don't even see the hypocrisy: condemning me for saying Fk & then running around saying GDm. You're right: they're both wrong, but condemning someone for doing the one while he's doing the other is hypocritical - "Why do you look at the speck that is in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log that is in your own eye?"
And, again, on the porn issue: again - one man's art is another man's porn. Great works of art have been banned or destroyed because they could be considered "porn" by some. Even some passages in the Bible can be considered "pornographic."
>>now we have to actively protect our children on line and at book stores rather then society protecting them.
Now you WANT society to protect our children where, in a previous post, you complained about sex education, which protects our children from unwanted pregnancies & STD's. Make up your mind.
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
What is the sex education that protects children.
The only known effective method of preventing disease and pregnancy for the young is abstinence.
There is NO SUCH thing as safe sex. According to Consumers Reports condoms with normal usage have a failure rate of 1 in 15. There are STD's that go right through the wall of a condom.
How is this safe sex? Telling our youth that it is has had a lot of girls getting pregnant and both boys and girls getting STD's. I told my daughter these facts and she chose to believe the lie of safe sex. She got herpes and pregnant and now believes me. My 11 year old grandson is the result.
Reply-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Your whole post just reaffirms the need for sex education. How exactly are the children supposed to learn any of this if they're not taught? Most parents don't have a clue about some of what you're saying. If they're not taught in school, they'll learn the hard way.
Reply -
-
-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Where did I curse at you? Why that biblical quote? I just said that all cursing was wrong.
Porn. The sex magazines and the sex acts shown on the internet is what I am talking about and you want to talk about Michelango's David. By the way I saw the original and it is flawed. He doesn't have a circumcision. LOL
Reply-
Neutral
PapaWolf1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
>>Where did I curse at you?
I wasn't talking about you condemning me; I was talking about my former coworker who was condemning me for the one while he was busy doing the other - hence the Biblical quote.
>>Porn. The sex magazines and the sex acts shown on the internet is what I am talking about and you want to talk about Michelango's David.
That's the problem. Some don't see the difference, so 1 man's art....
>>By the way I saw the original and it is flawed. He doesn't have a circumcision. LOL
Now THAT's funny.
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
It is sad that you think pictures of people having sex is art. And you claim to be a Christian. That is very sad.
The ACLU and people like you are pushing the morals of the Bible out and saying do your own thing and nothing should be considered immoral. And here I thought the Orthodox Church believed that the Bible is the word of God. Either they have changed or you are rejecting their teachings.
Pornography (people having sex)
Handing out condoms in school means saying it is OK to have sex outside marriage and condoms are safe.
Homosexuality is good
Abortion on demand
Prostitution is acceptable
These and more are totally against Gods word and you defend them. Think about what the Bible says and then think about your knee jerk defense of these things that God says are wrong.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
You're just describing social liberties versus civil liberties versus political correctness. Wide range there.
A real social liberal supports the death penalty for heinous
crimes, but a civil libertarian is more concerned with the criminal's rights.
Libertarians support the right to prostitution, but liberals find it demeaning to women..
Civil libertarians (and libertarians)support the nazi's right to march in Skokie, where social liberals would protest..So, your blur is not all painted with the same brush.
When you toss libertarian's in there you really confuse the immigration and military issues..They oppose open borders and any military actions outside of our borders..
Libertarians are against government( so the conservatives love them) but they oppose having a military (so the conservatives don't like them)..Ron Paul is a Libertarian.
So, there is no "evolution" of liberalism..They are still distinctly different factions.
Reply-
-
Neutral
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
So now BinLaden is one of your moral allies?
How can you bring his pro-rape, pro-back whipping,
pro-murdering of gays and
pro-suicide bombing ass into this conversation to make your case?
Need more??
Ever see what they do to a women who don't cover their legs in public?
So you and he are prudes to the other extreme?
BinLaden hates us because of Israel and our military power,
our over consumption of world resources and the international abuse of same, not just because of MTV..
Nice try though!
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
I am stating what bin Laden says is the reason for calling us the Great Satan and worthy of being attacked like he has done for many years. Why do you people ignore what he gives as the reason for the many attacks he has made on us culminating in 9/11.
They are also an assault on Christian morality. That was the morality of the country until the 60's when the assault on these moral beliefs was started. The Muslims see this and react. Dinesh D'Souza's family in Pakistan tell him this is the view the world gets of the US.
The excesses of Muslims is repugnant to me. But that does not change what has happened to the concept of Christian morality in the US.
Reply-
Neutral
MRCOFFEECAKE1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Please..you are so far off..
binLaden doesn't care about R rated movies and American tv or the prostitutes in the streets, or sex education..
You have lost your mind if you really believe those were even in the top 200 reasons why he plans anti-American assaults.
1) Support for Israel
2) American military presence in Saudi Arabia
3) clearly amongst the top three is American support for secular Arab leaders
4) our support of the IMF and the new world order
5) and a VERY VERY DISTANT 5th is American overconsumption of goods leading to pollution
Pornography,?? sex education?? You're kidding, right?
Now you sound like Jerry Falwell (that's no compliment)
The world sees American Big Business Exxon, United fruit,
ADM, Monsanto, Boeing, Halliburton, Mobil, McDonalds, banks,
as the great satan..not Harvey's adult bookstore or middle school sex ed..PLEASE!
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
Why do you deny what the man himself has stated as his reason. He has said it over and over. Do you make yourself deaf when he says those things?
You are pushing the liberal view of what the terrorists are fighting for. There is the concept of the "People of the Book" that they are to honor to a limited extent. The items stated by them say that the US is no longer a "People of the Book" that they are to respect. Therefore it is convert or die in their minds. You don't understand Muslim theology obviously. There are religious reasons for them stating those things not the ones you are stating. This is a religious conflict and you fail to recognize that fact by your denial of what bin Laden said.
Reply
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Neutral
Will13131 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
The result is now we have to actively protect our children on line and at book stores rather then society protecting them.
---
why should society protect your children are you saying it takes a village...
if you don't want to raise them .. keep it in your pants..
Reply-
Neutral
Endoscopy1 year, 7 months ago
This comment is below the standard viewing threshold View It »
There is a difference from when I was in school and now. Perversion is a way of life shown on TV, in movies, in magazines, on the internet. Morals are out the window and ridiculed. That is a constant in the US at the moment. Show me where I am wrong. When I was in high school in the early 60's none of that was happening. Am I supposed to take my kids places and put blindfolds on them. Am I supposed to keep the TV turned off. Do I have to hold both of their hands when I take them to a book store. My parents didn't have to worry about those things. Why should I? That is the problem. The internet is even worse.
Look at the post below and think.
Reply
-
Add a Comment
Sign In With Your Propeller Account
Please keep your comments relevant to this story.
To create a live link, simply type the URL (including http://) or email address and we will make it a live link for you. You can put up to 3 URLs in your comments. Line breaks and paragraphs are automatically converted — no need to use <p> or <br /> tags.