Michael Reagan is right

In yesterday`s local paper there was a piece written by Michael Reagan...our former great president`s son. He made a mockery (like they need help) of the democratic party without rhetoric...just solid facts. I highly recommend reading it....republicans because we know...and democrats because it`ll help them to see what a mess their party is and maybe help them join the 21st century. If they (democrats) could come around to what the majority of the country is thinking...this country and the rest of the world as well would be a better place. I haven`t written this thread to offend...and I hope I haven`t. Enlightenment...

 

Though one probably could search for it, but do you know of a link or provide one?

 

The piece titled "Not So Fast John Edwards" appeared in the Medina Journal-Register. I`m not sure if they have a web version of the paper or not. I am sure though that it must have appeared in other publications as well. Gannet Newspapers though are pretty much far left so they may not have it. I`ll see if I can`t track it down.

 

Is this the article?

 

"Enlightenment"? Please. The US has has a long way to go until it can be compared with the renaissance, although the governing styles appear to be getting quite similar to those of the Medici and the rest.

I'm not knocking the republican party, but I am questioning the fact you think the democrats need to reflect what the country thinks, rather then what they think. Maybe an influx of principles into the political system would help somewhat. And wouldn't it be nice to be voting for politicians that have their own ideas, not just the ones they are paid to have?

And I don't see how the democrats becoming more like the republicans will help the world any.

As a matter of fact, his article contains rhetoric. Almost any publication you read will do, to some degree, unless you are reading a manual. (definition of rhetoric: http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=rhetoric ) What is important is that he backs up his arguments with facts, which he did, and I won't fault him for that. However, I will question the notion of 'biased media' which he uses, when directly at the end of the article, it is stated that he "[size=-1]is heard on more than 200 talk radio stations nationally as part of the Radio America Network[/size]". That is quite a lot, and there are many others. To be honest, this 'biased' media is one of the great american myths, and you will have to understand that democrats have equal opportunity to complain about the it too. Look at Fox! If you think that's 'fair and balanced', you really need a reality check. I don't understand how he moves on his argument about freedom to the Iraq war. Other examples of emotive language is his calling Hussein a terrorist. Whatever else he may be (genocidal, vicious, sadisitc dictator), Hussein is by no means a terrorist.

I really am sorry to rant, but both sides of the american political debate irritate me.

 

i'd have to disagree and say that Saddam is definetely a terrorist... now labeling him does not by any means include him in the "war on terror" but just look at the definition of terrorism:

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=terrorism

n : the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians in order to attain goals that are political or religious or ideological in nature; this is done through intimindation or coercion or instilling fear

I'd say his gassing of the Kurds and his countless barbaric acts against his own civilians qualify as "intimidation" and "instilling fear" to attain political goals, namely silencing any dissentors...

 

Fair point, I have to concede that. But do not the British bombing of Dresden in WW2 and the nuclear bombs dropped by the allies in Japan therefore also come under the definition of terrorism?

And what about MAD in the cold war? Targeting cities that had limited military value with ICBM's could also be seen as intimidation

 

You need to go back a study your history again, and I'm not talking about the jaundice view put forth in your HS history text. Yes, the British bombed Dresden, the US bombed Berlin, the Germans bombed London. The US and not the Allies dropped Nulclear bombs on Japan. President Turman made that descision without consulting our Allies. At no time were cities targeted with ICBM's during the cold war. There were specific targets of miltary value that were targeted within those cities. It is a fine line but a distinct one. The purpose on MAD was to make a nuclear war unwinnable, therefore nether side would be stupid enough to start one.

Now the Topic of this thread is "Michael Reagan is right" so let's get back to that.

I found Michael Reagan's article to be remarkable on target. The "Democrats" need to be reminded that they were elected to represent the interest of the people and the states the are from. They were not elected to fulfill their own self-serving interests. And that statement applies to all politicians in the U.S., does not matter what party they are from.

 

Without meaning to be overly offensive...once again...wait, I`d better not say what I was thinking. The truth of the matter is...Michael Reagan used FACTS. Not rhetoric. As far as the remarks about "Fair and balanced" reporting...FOX is head and shoulders above the liberal left wing press that has been attempting for years to soften the resolve of a powerful nation...that is trying to...and should continue to...protect it`s own. Terrorism is a horrible fact of life...and one that the present administration....unlike the limp-wristed last one....has made HUGE strides in eradicating. It offends me personally as a veteran to hear people bitch about the casualties in Iraq. Guess what? The military is an all volunteer one. How many steel workers were killed in this country last year? How many people are killed on our highways...or in our so called civilized cities? Eat my shorts. The thing in Iraq...as painful as it may be, is necessary...and the casualty levels...well...read the article.

 

Isn't it amazing how when a news organization promotes something you believe in, you call them "fair and balanced", but if they promote something you disagree with, they become either "left-wing fanatics" or "right-wing fanatics"?

If they are reporting what you believe, then they must be right, but if they're reporting what you don't believe, then they must be wrong.

 

i'll be honest... i watch Fox News channel because the female anchors are SEXY and i like the channel's inferface/layout... i don't consider myself a republican or democrat nor a conservative or liberal... i mostly watch teh ticker and the morning/afternoon shows to hear facts about what's going on around the world, pieces of information that can't be disputed...

now... late at night when the primetime shows come on, that's where you can get into the biased/opinionated news portion of the network... and for that you simply have to not soak up what is presented like a sponge, but just keep an open mind and choose to agree or disagree with whoever is debating...

the reason Bill O'Reilly has the number 1 cable news show in the nation is because you've got just as many people who hate him watching his show as people who like him.... i enjoy the show Hannity & Colmes because you've got a conservative republican and a liberal democrat hosting the show, so you get both sides of the debate...

 

I'm not commenting on the politics, but I will make a general statement.

All 'facts' regardless of how much they may based on cold, hard evidence, can and are often are, used in a biased or rhetorical manner to support or refute a particular argument(s).

Now that is a fact.

 

At least it is right now . . . . . . You can throw your polls and rhetoric out the window - Nothing like a rapid decline in military enlistment to show you where the true sentiment of the country lies.

 

@SPD So the government exists to do what the people tell them to? If that is the case, then what ends up is unequal distribution of power, with people that have greater access to those in power getting more control, which is a movement away from democratic governance. But this is an issue about representitive democracy which hasn't been resolved in over 100 years. (I personally find the Burkean interpretation the fairest, but that's just my opinion).

In ay case, your point about just the US dropping the nukes doesn't detract from my argument, which is that many acts by the allies (which the US can be included in) can be construed as acts of terrorism. And according to this ( http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/warplan ) independant assessment of the USA's SIOP, (specifically chapter 5 http://www.nrdc.org/nuclear/warplan/warplan_ch5.pdf ) which includes the statement

Examples of this are : the '48 war plan FLEETWOOD, and TROJAN

Does this look like to intimidation of civillians to you?

@Sasquatch: did you even read what I wrote? Any argument contains rhetoric to some extent, look at the definition I provided. He did give facts, but only insofar as they backed up his argument. That is acceptable, since he is not purporting to report 'news'.
I am also quite interested to hear your explanation about how the war in Iraq is 'protecting the US's' own, and is necessary for the US.

 

I say "liberal left wing press" because they have a history...long standing...of blasting anything republicans say or do while extolling the "virtues" of the democrats. While it is true I`m a registered republican, I`m a moderate in my views. It has nothing to do with ME attaching a label on them...they`ve done that themselves.
As far as the war in Iraq protecting ours...by hindering terrorism...in any way...which the war has so obviously done...we are protecting our own. Iraq and Syria have long been supportive of terrorist activities...and perhaps a quick trip into Syria would be appropriate too. Too many innocent people died on 9/11 because this country did little to eradicate...or even say it this way...EXTERMINATE the vermin responsible before it happened. That cream puff womanizer Clinton could have had Bin Laden in Nigeria 16 months before the cowardly 9/11 attacks....but he was too busy chasing skirts and combing his hair to do so.

 

This tread is called "Michael Reagan is right" not US Government and not US Foriegn Policy. If you want to discuss those issues then start your own thread.

 

@S77: Im sure you know more about the American press then I do, but be aware there are two sides to every story.
You say Clinton could have got Bin Laden in Nigeria? Before 11/9? Fair enough, but GWB has had the opportunity to apprehend Bin Laden after 11/9, and instead of getting US troops to do it, he allowed Laden to slip through the Pakistani's fingers. However, all greeat men have their foibles, I'm sure he was busy choking on a pretzel or something.
I don't see how the war in Iraq has hindered terrorism in any way. All that's happened is that the US has engendered more anti-US feeling in the middle east; you may laud the achievements that have occurred, such as elections, but the fact of the matter is that the US and her allies are still trapped in a combat situation, and the Iraq state appears that it could self destruct. People ask whay the suicide bombers are targeting other Iraqi's; the fact of the matter is that it's because they are of a slightly different sect of Islam.

@SPD: I was merely arguing my points because you saw fit, originally, to dispute the preceeding ones. My points originally pertained to the discussion. And the article M.R wrote also brought up US gov't and foreign policy, so if it's alright with you, I would also like to discuss the content of his article, not just sycophantically say 'oh yes, micheal Reagan is right, you democrats suxx0r'.

 

I have, in fact,in the past voted for Democrats. I suppose saying they ALL suck is unfairly stereotyping. But look at it this way...the best they could trot out was John Kerry? PUH-LEEZE...spare me

 

I am a registered republican, but that does not mean I blindly vote on party lines. Once I even actively campaigned for a Democratic running for President, I have voted for democratics in the past. What irritates me the most about the Democrat Party is that it has been 'Hijacked' by a group of people that are left of the american 'Main Stream' and are pushing the 'Moderates' out of the party. Let's face it people like Joe Lieberman are being marginalized by the left wing of the party.

 

Tell me...did you seriously consider John Kerry (or John Edwards, or Dick Gephart) "left wing"? Those of us who actually are left-wing do not.

And my personal opinion has always been (expressed more than once in person, on message boards, wherever) that ANYONE who blindly votes along party lines doesn't actually deserve to vote. If all anyone knows about their candidate is which party they're from, stay home. They are too misinformed to be allowed the privilege of deciding who runs their country.

 

COMMUNIST!!

sorry... I really am, I just needed a moment of levity ^^;

Have to agree with you there Sgt Tibbs. People should care more about the integrity and message of their candidate rather then their party affiliation.

 

Yes I considered the other candidates. However, I live in a state where I can't decide who is the best candidate for office in another party. The system would be much fairer and balanced if the registered voters, regardless of party affiliation, where allowed to cast ballots during party primary elections, choosing who they thought is the best candidate from that party. You would get a much better informed electorate, and the system would be less partisan and more balanced.

And If I could have voted in the Democratic Primary I would have voted for Joseph Lieberman.

 

but you could also have people who were completely partisan, voting for the worst candidate from one party just to advance their own one.

For me, proportional representation is the best way to go. But noone ever listens to me ""

 

I'm sorry...where did I say I was talking about the primaries?

I'm a registered Democrat, so I can only vote in the Democratic primary. However, when it comes to the actual election, I can (and do) vote for whomever I feel is the best candidate, regardless of party affiliation. As sizjam said, the reason why primaries are party-specific is so a bunch of Democrats don't vote for the worst Republican candidate (and vice versa) so their candidate has a better chance at winning.

My actual question, which you do not appear to have addressed, is if you honestly thought that any of the Democratic candidates were actually left-wing.

 

Yes, John Kerry

[EDIT] and John Edwards, and Howard Dean [/EDIT]

 

[font=Verdana,Arial,Helvetica]Traditionally, "Left wing" means that you favor the interests of the "people" meaning the ordinary people, traditionaly that means "the workers".

Both Kerry and Bush looks pretty similar on those policies...

And Sgt T, where can I find a copy of the Democrat's Manifesto? I looked on their website and it had nothing!
[/font]

 

T'was my point. John Kerry is nothing like "left wing" regardless of how his political opponents would like to paint the picture.

Hmmm...not sure, really. Lemme look.

Here ya go. It's a PDF.

 

Howard Dean isn`t left wing...he`s psychotic

 

LOL, you got me there.

 

Thanks Sgt T I would have thought they would have made it easier to find, though!

A good example of how left wing his message was is "Standing up for the American Middle Class", a title in the manifesto. I have to say, referring to that as even remotely socialist is going to crack me up.

 

sizjam

I kind of fell over this thread and followed the philosophical thingamebobs as far as i could.

It appeared to me that your relentess pointing out that the first duty of discourse is to pay tribute to truth, seemed to fall on stony ground.

Irrespective, indeed irreverently if possible, I would like to thank you for pointing out the sense of looking and learning before the pontification.