0
   

The Clear Vision of Ronald Reagan

 
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jul, 2005 11:14 pm
Lola wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
kickycan wrote:
Aaaah, horseshit.

I don't suppose you'd care to actually state why it's wrong, or what is wrong about it? One assumes that your argument is indefensible beyond the level of darting in for a little exclamation.


well for one thing, Reagan didn't write it. Someone else did......Reagan was the actor.......alzheimers was already upon him. It feels good to some to think of Reagan as the one, but really he was just working off the foundation of Death Valley Days and Twenty Mule Team Borax.....such as it was........that's one reason, there are others.

The line is a little like a horoscope.....it could apply to almost anything one might wish. Being There............(that's Jerzey Kosinski style)

Well, that's really addressing the topic head on. Do you agree with his statement and my addition, or do you disagree?
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jul, 2005 11:15 pm
Lola wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
blatham wrote:
Quote:
Link or reference please.


I am more pleased than you can imagine that you've asked me for the link.

You folks always draw false conclusions with such an air of triumph. My request simply means that your quotation looks like a total crock. It looks like your best attack on the president is to put words in his mouth.

I note also that your refutation of Reagan's quotation didn't involve actually countering anything it contained. If you liberals are in the right, as you believe, then why do you have so much trouble attacking a conservative argument directly. Your little wisecracks in lieu of any on topic argument must certainly be regarded as a forfeit.

oh no! not a forfeit! Heaven forbid and pass the gravy.

How like a liberal - anything but addressing the logic of an opponent's argument. For God's sake, don't make any on topic arguments.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jul, 2005 11:39 pm
He was a mediocre actor at best..........admit it Bladimo.........or maybe you dont' know. How old are you anyway? The man had to have a comic book version of the daily report.......anything more complicated was too much for him. Republican presidents have been puppets since Reagan.........Clinton, bless his heart, was the only one with a real cock anyway.
0 Replies
 
Ethel2
 
  1  
Reply Tue 26 Jul, 2005 11:50 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:
Lola wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
blatham wrote:
Quote:
Link or reference please.


I am more pleased than you can imagine that you've asked me for the link.

You folks always draw false conclusions with such an air of triumph. My request simply means that your quotation looks like a total crock. It looks like your best attack on the president is to put words in his mouth.

I note also that your refutation of Reagan's quotation didn't involve actually countering anything it contained. If you liberals are in the right, as you believe, then why do you have so much trouble attacking a conservative argument directly. Your little wisecracks in lieu of any on topic argument must certainly be regarded as a forfeit.

oh no! not a forfeit! Heaven forbid and pass the gravy.


How like a liberal - anything but addressing the logic of an opponent's argument. For God's sake, don't make any on topic arguments.


an argument? We have a topic? And what would that be?..........the substance of a speech written for Reagan to deliver with all his Shakespearian skill and splendor? Ummmmmmmm......what's to be said other than,.........oh yeah, that was his best performance at the time..........I'm sure he was a nice man with good intentions. So are we all.
0 Replies
 
edgarblythe
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 04:40 am
It's not in the words so much as the execution we see the real man. That's where Reagans and bushes falter.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 06:21 am
Lola wrote:
He was a mediocre actor at best..........admit it Bladimo.........or maybe you dont' know. How old are you anyway? The man had to have a comic book version of the daily CIA report.......anything more complicated was too complex for him. Republican presidents have been puppets since Reagan.........Clinton, bless his heart, was the only one with a real cock anyway.


Rolling Eyes
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 07:32 am
Ronald Reagan was twice the man Clinton will ever be and will be noted in history along with the other great presidents we have had.
0 Replies
 
Bi-Polar Bear
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 07:37 am
McGentrix wrote:
Ronald Reagan was twice the man Clinton will ever be and will be noted in history along with the other great presidents we have had.


Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing Laughing

(of course, that's just my opinion :wink: )
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 08:20 am
Re: The Clear Vision of Ronald Reagan
Brandon9000 wrote:
Quote:
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

Ronald Reagan
40th president of US (1911 - 2004)


And by the way, that doesn't just refer to bringing domestic lawsuits, it also refers to employing the military against enemies in wars in which people die.


Brandon

Really, there is very little in your Reagan quote which is noteworthy or remarkable. Political speeches are constructed with just such elements of generalization and hopeful sentiment or dire warning as you see in that one.

"Freedom is at risk and we need to keep watch for the loss of it." Sure.

"It is a product of our institutions and not our genes." Yes.

"If we lose freedoms, we'd likely tell our kids about it." Yup.

But as an earlier bright post said to you, this is rather like a horoscope or a tea-leaf reading where many agreeable things can be read by many different readers. Or, think of those aphorism signs we sometimes see out on the roadside in front of a diner - "Divided we fall", etc.

For example, you apparently see a justification for warfare (perhaps Iraq) in Reagan's words. But our concept of political 'freedom' relates not just to keeping our sovereignty safe from external attack, but it also relates to what we've come to consider the fundamental right of citizens to be free from the coercion by the powerful or the state - as when feudal lords forced the peasants to fight some battle to increase that lord's territories or power. Thus one can find historical and cultural justification for dissenting a war too, or for refusing to join in it, or even for seeking to bring down a power structure (a government administration) which one perceives is moving in such a direction.

If you wish to study really quality speeches, then turn to Lincoln.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 08:33 am
The big problem with this discussion, is what Reagan meant with these words.

With the support of Reagan, entire Mayan villages were destroyed with men women and children slaughtered as part of the Guatemalan "scortched earth policy" during the war. This is only one example of the brutal excesses that were accepted and supported by the Reagan administration.

If the term "fight for freedom" means speaking out against the excesses of government, voting, protesting and even engaging in civil disobedience when the government acts against the good of the people, I am all for it.

But it seems that when Reagan vision of "fight for freedom" included killing women and children, dropping bombs, torturing prisoners and doing anything from bribery to murder to keep people from chosing the "wrong" government.

I don't support this.
0 Replies
 
woiyo
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 08:36 am
You don't support anything the US govt does E.

You support the rights of illegal aliens and abusive dictatorships.
0 Replies
 
blatham
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 08:43 am
Don't bother, ebrown. The fellow apparently can't have a thought in his head that isn't a false dilemma.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 08:44 am
Ad hominem.

I support countless things the US government does-- from funding for public education, to research, to collecting taxes, to Social Security, to NASA to the protection of the court to protecting the rights of illegal aliens. The things I oppose are few but important.

Sure I support the rights of illegal aliens.

It was Reagan who supported the rights of abusive dictatorships-- including overturning a democratically elected government in favor of an abusive dictatorship.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 10:00 am
Re: The Clear Vision of Ronald Reagan
blatham wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:
Quote:
Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free.

Ronald Reagan
40th president of US (1911 - 2004)


And by the way, that doesn't just refer to bringing domestic lawsuits, it also refers to employing the military against enemies in wars in which people die.


Brandon

Really, there is very little in your Reagan quote which is noteworthy or remarkable. Political speeches are constructed with just such elements of generalization and hopeful sentiment or dire warning as you see in that one.

"Freedom is at risk and we need to keep watch for the loss of it." Sure.

"It is a product of our institutions and not our genes." Yes.

"If we lose freedoms, we'd likely tell our kids about it." Yup.

But as an earlier bright post said to you, this is rather like a horoscope or a tea-leaf reading where many agreeable things can be read by many different readers. Or, think of those aphorism signs we sometimes see out on the roadside in front of a diner - "Divided we fall", etc.

For example, you apparently see a justification for warfare (perhaps Iraq) in Reagan's words. But our concept of political 'freedom' relates not just to keeping our sovereignty safe from external attack, but it also relates to what we've come to consider the fundamental right of citizens to be free from the coercion by the powerful or the state - as when feudal lords forced the peasants to fight some battle to increase that lord's territories or power. Thus one can find historical and cultural justification for dissenting a war too, or for refusing to join in it, or even for seeking to bring down a power structure (a government administration) which one perceives is moving in such a direction.

If you wish to study really quality speeches, then turn to Lincoln.

I think his comment contained the non-trivial idea: "Don't assume American freedom or sovereignty are permanent, because they aren't unless you're willing to defend them."

So, do you believe that freedom and the need to defend ourselves should be balanced, or do you believe that no danger justifies the tiniest abridgement of liberty?
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 02:44 pm
Re: The Clear Vision of Ronald Reagan
here is the key

Brandon9000 wrote:
I think his comment contained


You don't know what it contained more than anyone else who is interpreting what a speechwriter wrote.

That is why I initially asked you if it had been documented what Reagan said it meant.

Your interpretation is simply that - no more, no less. As my interpretation is simply my reading of it.

Putting out your view of what freedom or war or terrorism or X is, without the Reagan speech quote, would probably have made a bit more sense. The Reagan quote simply muddied the water leaving OssoB to make the assessment of "what topic?"

There can be no right or wrong to "what did Reagan mean?" He's dead, and you haven't provided any indication that he discussed its meaning anywhere.

You wanted discussion of your views on something, but it doesn't really seem to have been about Reagan's speech - but your understanding of what freedom means in America today.
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 02:45 pm
Re: The Clear Vision of Ronald Reagan
ehBeth wrote:
here is the key

Brandon9000 wrote:
I think his comment contained


You don't know what it contained more than anyone else who is interpreting what a speechwriter wrote.

That is why I initially asked you if it had been documented what Reagan said it meant.

Your interpretation is simply that - no more, no less. As my interpretation is simply my reading of it.

Putting out your view of what freedom or war or terrorism or X is, without the Reagan speech quote, would probably have made a bit more sense. The Reagan quote simply muddied the water leaving OssoB to make the assessment of "what topic?"

There can be no right or wrong to "what did Reagan mean?" He's dead, and you haven't provided any indication that he discussed its meaning anywhere.

You wanted discussion of your views on something, but it doesn't really seem to have been about Reagan's speech - but your understanding of what freedom means in America today.

Okay, fine. I don't speak for Reagan. Granted. It seems you have precious little to say about the underlying topic.
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 03:00 pm
Quote:
"Don't assume American freedom or sovereignty are permanent, because they aren't unless you're willing to defend them."


I can agree with this statement. I object to your use of words to support your deeply flawed rhetoric.

What are the threats to our freedom and sovereignty.

The fact is there has been no threat to our sovereignty since the war of 1812. A threat to sovereignty would mean a danger that our government would be taken over by an external power. This is not what we are facing.

Since there is no threat to our sovereignty, there are no threats to our Freedom from any external powers. There is zero chance that any foreign government or group or idealogy will be able to take away any of our rights through force or impose any religion on us. This simply is not a real danger.

All threats to Freedom right now are internal. The only one who can take (or give) away are freedoms are the government supported by the people. Period, end of story... that is it.

I will not minimize the threat of terrorism. Terrorists have proven that they have the ability to kill. But this doesn't give them the ability to topple our government or our values. This is not going to take away our freedom unless we let it.

I am more than willing to defend Freedom. Right now this means speaking up against the Bush administration, organizing opposition to the Patriot Act, defending American citizens who are vulnerable because of their ancestry and supporting the ACLU and other groups who are on the forefront of defending freedom in America.

I don't know what you are doing Brandon. But, you ain't protecting Freedom.
0 Replies
 
ehBeth
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 03:01 pm
Brandon, I posted what I thought about the Reagan quote back on the second (?) page.

I'm one of the people who were of the "what topic?" persuasion. I'd post more to it, if I could figure out what you were asking about.

I noticed a similar problem on one of your other threads just a few minutes ago. You're telling people they're picking on the wrong things in your posts. Maybe it's how you present things that is causing mis-reading. Maybe you're presenting things awkwardly on purpose <shrug> I don't think that's what you're doing, but I don't want to presume about it either way.

In my last post, I was trying to suggest to you that you might have better luck with getting responses related to your topic if you presented your topic in a clearer way up front.

How are we to address the underlying topic? What the heck is it?
0 Replies
 
ebrown p
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 03:01 pm
The irony of this thread is that Reagan supported terrorists in his efforts to "defend Freedom".
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 27 Jul, 2005 03:03 pm
ehBeth wrote:
Brandon, I posted what I thought about the Reagan quote back on the second (?) page.

I'm one of the people who were of the "what topic?" persuasion. I'd post more to it, if I could figure out what you were asking about.

I noticed a similar problem on one of your other threads just a few minutes ago. You're telling people they're picking on the wrong things in your posts. Maybe it's how you present things that is causing mis-reading. Maybe you're presenting things awkwardly on purpose <shrug> I don't think that's what you're doing, but I don't want to presume about it either way.

In my last post, I was trying to suggest to you that you might have better luck with getting responses related to your topic if you presented your topic in a clearer way up front.

How are we to address the underlying topic? What the heck is it?

Okay, thanks.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 10/24/2021 at 07:37:24