Ronald Reagan...socialist???

[Hayabusa Rider]

OK, I read that. What is it saying that is different than what the "scoundrel in chief" is saying? Why do I somehow have the same understanding of the Buffett rule that I came away with after hearing Obama discuss it?

What it does is dispel the lie being repeated, and that is the wealthy pay less. Some do, but a great many pay far more. Somehow that's been ignored entirely in the conversation. He's not obliged to point out the facts of taxation and he doesn't, but neither did Bush claim that Saddam was responsible for terrorism in America. If a falsehood works then let's just repeat it.

Question. After all is said and done, how much will Warren Buffett pay?

 

[Ausm]

And we watch as both parties pour gas over the nation and set the fire. Pass the violins, Rome burns again.

Both parties equally? I wouldn't go that far just look at the Teapublicans hell bent on ruling the majority with the Minority.

 

[cwjerome]

I had no respect for Reagan. In that regard he and Obama are the same. He's all smoke and mirrors, and Romney? Why should he be any better? Even the "buffet rule" is an election ploy. What today's scoundrel in chief isn't saying can be found here.

Some truth for a change.

If someone from DC says anything assume it's a lie.

Look, I'm not here to defend Reagan. I can care less about what people like Jhhnn say, people who've adapted their own colorful new anti-conservative vocabulary and are so trapped in their own disturbing memes and rhetoric it's the height of hypocrisy when they speak about rightwing mind-control. Whatever. But Phokusnut is right, if Reagan were to run today he's be booed off as a moderate.

I am principled and I am conservative. I live my life according to my values which I take seriously... and no, I'm not religious. My conservatism also makes me a moderate... I'm generally too conservative to take ideological or political extremes. In this way, I believe I'm like *gasp* Reagan... a moderate by today's standards. The dude did raise taxes. He did quite a few things that would make Reps today red with anger. It's not because he was a douche or weak, it's because he basically had a moderates mentality. He believed we were in in this together. He new that agreement was not tantamount to surrender. He was calm and pragmatic. He didn't bluster, he had a sense of humor. He didn't hate his opponents, he disagreed with them.

Moderation used to be seen as a virtue, but today it's considered boring. Everything is extreme, our culture and politics say go big or go home. Today, attention spans are in milliseconds, passions unbriddled, and appetites are enormous. Today fanaticism is the new conviction and compromise is traitorous to principle. Talking heads on 24-hour news and radio set the tone for discourse. Talk to the people around here enamored with their own certitude and rigidity... boring as hell.

Paradox surrounds us, big and small. We want leadership with personal integrity and strong beliefs yet is responsive to the people. We want lives that are meaningful yet love superficial thrills. We can find paradox in almost anything we do, and having the moderates mentality is part of that. It's not being wishy washy, it's making decisions based on the facts and context every time and not answering according to some pre-ordained body of thought. There used to be more room for that and I believe it's crucial.

 

[Jhhnn]

Look, I'm not here to defend Reagan. I can care less about what people like Jhhnn say, people who've adapted their own colorful new anti-conservative vocabulary and are so trapped in their own disturbing memes and rhetoric it's the height of hypocrisy when they speak about rightwing mind-control. Whatever. But Phokusnut is right, if Reagan were to run today he's be booed off as a moderate.

I am principled and I am conservative. I live my life according to my values which I take seriously... and no, I'm not religious. My conservatism also makes me a moderate... I'm generally too conservative to take ideological or political extremes. In this way, I believe I'm like *gasp* Reagan... a moderate by today's standards. The dude did raise taxes. He did quite a few things that would make Reps today red with anger. It's not because he was a douche or weak, it's because he basically had a moderates mentality. He believed we were in in this together. He new that agreement was not tantamount to surrender. He was calm and pragmatic. He didn't bluster, he had a sense of humor. He didn't hate his opponents, he disagreed with them.

Moderation used to be seen as a virtue, but today it's considered boring. Everything is extreme, our culture and politics say go big or go home. Today, attention spans are in milliseconds, passions unbriddled, and appetites are enormous. Today fanaticism is the new conviction and compromise is traitorous to principle. Talking heads on 24-hour news and radio set the tone for discourse. Talk to the people around here enamored with their own certitude and rigidity... boring as hell.

Paradox surrounds us, big and small. We want leadership with personal integrity and strong beliefs yet is responsive to the people. We want lives that are meaningful yet love superficial thrills. We can find paradox in almost anything we do, and having the moderates mentality is part of that. It's not being wishy washy, it's making decisions based on the facts and context every time and not answering according to some pre-ordained body of thought. There used to be more room for that and I believe it's crucial.

Still clinging to your mental image of what the Republican party once was, rather than what it is and who it truly represents today.

It's not like Dems have really changed their positions much at all since Reagan, other than to follow Repubs at a distance as they charged off to the nether regions of Wingnutlandia.

Repub leaders have staked out a position based purely on an ideology that already failed the American people in 2008, where only a complete reversal avoided economic catastrophe. In the wake of 2 failed military adventures, they rave for another in Iran. In the face of extremely low federal revenues, they advocate more tax cuts for America's wealthiest. In the face of increasing poverty, they advocate cuts in social welfare. In the face of desperate need for responsive govt, they paralyze it with filibusters & secret holds in the US Senate.

You basically admit as much, then deny it in the same breath.

If you find my rhetoric disturbing, you'd do well to look at yourself, at what you believe & why, because all I'm trying to do is help you break the chains of denial, cast off the misperceptions planted in your mind by decades of relentless right wing rhetoric.

 

[Ausm]

Still clinging to your mental image of what the Republican party once was, rather than what it is and who it truly represents today.

It's not like Dems have really changed their positions much at all since Reagan, other than to follow Repubs at a distance as they charged off to the nether regions of Wingnutlandia.

Repub leaders have staked out a position based purely on an ideology that already failed the American people in 2008, where only a complete reversal avoided economic catastrophe. In the wake of 2 failed military adventures, they rave for another in Iran. In the face of extremely low federal revenues, they advocate more tax cuts for America's wealthiest. In the face of increasing poverty, they advocate cuts in social welfare. In the face of desperate need for responsive govt, they paralyze it with filibusters & secret holds in the US Senate.

You basically admit as much, then deny it in the same breath.

If you find my rhetoric disturbing, you'd do well to look at yourself, at what you believe & why, because all I'm trying to do is help you break the chains of denial, cast off the misperceptions planted in your mind by decades of relentless right wing rhetoric.

That dude sounds like my oldman, not willing to accept his party for what it really is and also blindly voting against his best interests.

 

[Siddhartha]

Here is Saint Ronnie touting the virtues of the proposed Buffet Rule.

Riddle me this what does the Buffet rule have in common with

individual mandate for health insurance
cap and trade
biofuels

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rnpG6qCltCw

Most of the pre-2009 GOP would be considered "socialist" by current Republican party.

 

[cwjerome]

Still clinging to your mental image of what the Republican party once was, rather than what it is and who it truly represents today.

That dude sounds like my oldman, not willing to accept his party for what it really is and also blindly voting against his best interests.

I've got no use for the Republican party, never have. My comments have to do with approach. "An open mind, a willing ear, and an unjaundiced eye." Something you political tools severely lack.