Obama hails President Ronald Reagan

[smelter]

So Reagan lead all these groups? He must have had alot more energy than folks let on

It couldnt have anything to do with the cutlure of America that defined all of those peoples hatred? COuld it?

The President is supposed to provide leadership .... it comes with the job. The culture of renewed hatred against gays was fueled by his silence on the issue. Spin it any way you want but don't expect me to buy into it!

 

[chance1]

Kudos Kennyworth, the nail was hit on the head by your post. My memories of his Slimy administration exactly as I lived through it.

save the kudos

when u call an ex president - who is no longer with us - a scumbag

there's a word for that

but it's not kudos

 

[LaloGS]

So Reagan lead all these groups? He must have had alot more energy than folks let on

It couldnt have anything to do with the cutlure of America that defined all of those peoples hatred? COuld it?

Who is your next hero; Hitler?

 

[LaloGS]

save the kudos

when u call an ex president - who is no longer with us - a scumbag

there's a word for that

but it's not kudos

Ronald Reagan was a scumbag. Some of us lived through his administration and know of what we speak. He'll go down in history as a scumbag, and will always be remembered as a scumbag. Being an ex president offers no protection. There's been a few others who are scumbags as well, and interesting enough they have almost all been Repugs. There is something seriously wrong with Repug thinking. They generally don't have the good of the people or the country at heart as they should.

 

[Kulindahr]

What's wrong with people earning ten times the minimum wage? Is there some rule that says blue collar workers should not be allowed to make a damn good living? Or is that just a priviledge afforded the CEO's who earn hundreds of times more than what they pay their workers..

Blue collar workers should be ridiculed and called greedy because their skilled labor allows them to buy the things rammed down our throats on tv?I wonder how many CEO'S kids are driving $500.00 cars.

The idea of a minimum wage, according to union-style philosophy, is that it's a "living wage". What's wrong with making ten times that? Well, when there are people trying to scrape by on that, and you're making products that they need, you're stealing from them. You're saying, "I don't care if my labor costs so much it shoves prices up above where people at the bottom can't afford them; I want as much as I can get".

That's greed.

If people are living on unpaved streets thats all the more reason to join a union.If people are working a full week and can't make ends meet, who's to blame?The worker or the greedy corporation that begrudes them the means to make even a modest living? Me,I'd have to go with the greedy corporation who don't give a shit about their workers living conditions and dont care if they ever see a doctor or not..Remember, these are the same people that brought you child labor and dark to dark working hours..

Anyone who drives up prices is to blame. The highest cost of most products these days is labor, not materials. If the unions care about the working conditions of all workers (a lie), why aren't they giving 15% of their wages to help those workers at the bottom?

I'm not sure why unions forced you to bounce from job to job, but perhaps if you had joined one in a profession you enjoy you would be well compensated until you retire..

Because if I'd paid their extortion (that 15%), I wouldn't have been able to afford to live anywhere. Let's see -- be union, and have to go homeless, or keep switching jobs.... it's a no-brainer.
And after hearing the incredible corruption and greed of the union officials and then the union members where my cousin was, there was no way you could have gotten me into a union job. Visiting Detroit didn't help, either; I met people who were living like kings and whining they couldn't make it on "only" $140,000 a year. That told me very graphically that what unions are is bunches of leeches, parasites interested only in more, more, more....

I'm sorry your freind is allowing himself to be exploited by his employer, but it gives rise to wonder just what are they paying him? You say that union members earned more in 6 hours than he earned in 3 weeks?

Lets say the union guys made $50.00 an (which they probably don't) so after 6 hours they would have earned $300.00..

So, if your freind works 40 hrs a week that comes out to $2.50 an hour, or $100.00 a week..

If he allows himself to be screwed over like that,that is no fault of the union workers who demand a salary that will allow them a lifestyle a few notches above peasant farmers..

"Exploited".... and you don't see that applies to the unions? They're exploiting their positions and skills to drive up prices for everyone.

The bill from two union guys was $3600+ from six hours of labor. It showed 2 @ $1200 for labor, specifically.

Maybe they charged the moment they left the shop? and for the time driving back?
Best I can figure, they were getting $150/hr, if they were getting paid for driving, too.

 

[construct]

I heard Sen. Obama's remarks on Meet the Press this morning, and I really must make some observations.

I am certainly old enough to remember Pres. Reagans' first campaign in 1980. I graduated college that year and started seminary. What Sen. Obama said was fairly innocuous. He said that Reagan put the country on a different trajectory. He did not say that the trajectory was good. Most of us recognize that it wasn't. But most of the posts here show that it was, in fact, a new trajectory much more radically different from what had gone on before than most presidents noted for changing the direction of the country. All of the negative posts about Reagan in this thread are evidence that what Obama said was correct. The changes Reagan and his administration brought about were more profound than those brought about by Nixon or even Clinton. That is hardly praising Reagan for the content of those changes.

For most gay men my age and older, Reagan is evil incarnate. Say anything nice about him and we'll blow our tops. So, I guess the response here of older gay Clinton supporters should be perfectly understandable. I wish Sen. Obama had chosen Roosevelt as his example. It wouldn't have made as many waves, but if we're looking for an example within living memory of radical political change that endured, I don't guess we could find a more obvious example than Reagan.

This really ought to have been a tempest in a teapot. Sen. Obama was not endorsing Reaganite policies.

 

[chance1]

Who is your next hero; Hitler?

congratulations

u continue to outdo urself

but it's not in a good way

 

[chance1]

I heard Sen. Obama's remarks on Meet the Press this morning, and I really must make some observations.

I am certainly old enough to remember Pres. Reagans' first campaign in 1980. I graduated college that year and started seminary. What Sen. Obama said was fairly innocuous. He said that Reagan put the country on a different trajectory. He did not say that the trajectory was good. Most of us recognize that it wasn't. But most of the posts here show that it was, in fact, a new trajectory much more radically different from what had gone on before than most presidents noted for changing the direction of the country. All of the negative posts about Reagan in this thread are evidence that what Obama said was correct. The changes Reagan and his administration brought about were more profound than those brought about by Nixon or even Clinton. That is hardly praising Reagan for the content of those changes.

For most gay men my age and older, Reagan is evil incarnate. Say anything nice about him and we'll blow our tops. So, I guess the response here of older gay Clinton supporters should be perfectly understandable. I wish Sen. Obama had chosen Roosevelt as his example. It wouldn't have made as many waves, but if we're looking for an example within living memory of radical political change that endured, I don't guess we could find a more obvious example than Reagan.

This really ought to have been a tempest in a teapot. Sen. Obama was not endorsing Reaganite policies.

AMEN

but why let the facts get in the way of a good story - that Edwards and Hillary can use to their advantage

Loved Doris Kearns Goodwin's take on it

And even better were the quotes from Bill Clinton from years back saying virtually the same thing then fast forwarding to this week when he slammed Obama for saying what he said

Bill Clinton is getting out of control

either way - Obama's remarks were fine - and true

but the freakazoids here - about 80% of the board - would rather suggest Obama was saying something entirely different

yeah

nice job guys

 

[JayHawk]

The only spinning I see are your heads.

lol

 

[construct]

Everything that Kenny and Smelter and Nick and the rest are saying about Reagan is true. His lackluster response to AIDS and his installation of the religious right as shapers of policy were inexcusable.

 

[ryankeith]

$18 an hour is not an unreasonable wage to strike for. If those $9/hr workers unionized and demanded more, I'd have no problem with it.

It's when they're sucking in $125,000 per year plus excellent benefits, and think it isn't enough -- as where my cousin worked -- that I call them evil. And I have no other word for it: the unions here whose members are getting ten times minimum wage are evil, and any of their member who decided to strike for more are also evil. The only reason they might "need more" is because they've been totally wasteful and irresponsible with the wealth they'd already achieved. At that point, they're no different than the evil men who run corporations and their employees into the ground while amassing ever more riches and hiding behind the fiction of corporate "personhood".

Greedy CEO, greedy union member -- it's all the same.

I would like to know what Union Jobs get over 100,000 a year base pay...many confuse union workers with management of those companies who have unions but are not union.

As a union Firefighter, prior to becoming a union, my municipality only wanted to pay Firefighters $11 per hour, 50/50 on health insurance and no overtime pay or sick time. Now I make some more money and pay 40% on health insurance instead of 50%. I still need a second job to make ends meet. However those in management positions are making over $100,000 and are getting 100% health insurance. Their benefits also far exceed ours. There is still need of unions in this country, especially among companies or municipalities who pay huge amounts of money to management and want to screw the laborers, trying to save a buck and make their employees dispensable. I am sick of hearing the whole "where I work I don't get those benefits" or the infamous "You work for the government (Federal, state or local) so you must have it made, get great benefits." Bullshit...not usually true. How about you try my job for a little while, see how well you do.

It's not always the unions hurting us...its the greedy management that hurts us.

 

[khushibagh]

What Sen. Obama said was fairly innocuous. He said that Reagan put the country on a different trajectory. He did not say that the trajectory was good. Most of us recognize that it wasn't. But most of the posts here show that it was, in fact, a new trajectory much more radically different from what had gone on before than most presidents noted for changing the direction of the country. All of the negative posts about Reagan in this thread are evidence that what Obama said was correct. The changes Reagan and his administration brought about were more profound than those brought about by Nixon or even Clinton. That is hardly praising Reagan for the content of those changes.

This really ought to have been a tempest in a teapot. Sen. Obama was not endorsing Reaganite policies.

Bravo.

I think it is pretty clear that he was not endorsing Reagan's policies in general and certainly not endorsing the particular policies that seem to have gotten people riled up on this thread. However, he did do more than just note that Reagan put the country on a new trajectory, he also implicitly criticized the Democratic establishment of the time for having allowed Reagan to emerge by ignoring popular concerns about big unaccountable government and taxes and not having offered a viable alternative and he basically suggested that Clintonism was little more than Reaganism lite rather than a fresh approach.

I think it is really sad that the Hillary camp chose to misrepresent what Obama said because he actually said something very important - namely, that the Democrats cannot keep recycling old not terribly successful ideas and carping about the Republican ideas. If the Democrats want to set the country on a new trajectory they going to need to show a willingness to think creatively and exude a sense of optimism. I'm not sure if bitter battle scarred Hillary is the person to bring about transformational change and judging by the posts, it seems like a majority here want to get in the last word on an old debate.

I mean come on! Was Obama saying that Reagan's AIDS policy was wise? Is this election going to turn on whether Reagan did a good or bad job on AIDS 25 years ago? It's time to move on - Reagan happened and partly because of Carter's screw ups and partly because the Democrats had no appealing vision to offer. W's screw ups are giving the Democrats a historic opportunity, let's hope that they can capitalize on it and move the country to a place where come 2012 these Republicans will look like dinosaurs.

 

[LaloGS]

but the freakazoids here - about 80% of the board - would rather suggest Obama was saying something entirely different

I'd rather be a freakazoid that a filthy lying Repuglican any day. And I'd rather call a scumbag a scumbag rather than inflate his undeserved reputation by not knowing anything about him. And I'd rather get pissed at people who don't bother to grasp the truth about Ronald Reagan, but just mouth the party line about what a hero he was. He might have been a hero to the very wealthy, but he must have hated common people and especially gays, black and Hispanic folk from what he did to them and us. Like I said, is Hitler next?

 

[Spensed]

Reagan first publicly said the word "AIDS" during a 1987 speech at the Third International AIDS Conference in Washington, D.C. (Kaiser Daily HIV/AIDS Report, 6/7/01).

http://www.kaisernetwork.org/daily_reports/rep_index.cfm?DR_ID=10061

 

[Kulindahr]

For those who think Reagan could do no right:

I'm watching a CBS special on global warming. They're looking at all kinds of evidence, interviewing researchers. And they just noted that it was Ronald Reagan who got the U.S. government into the business of looking at climate change, and the research he got started has been instrumental in showing just how much has been happening.

 

[smelter]

For those who think Reagan could do no right:

I'm watching a CBS special on global warming. They're looking at all kinds of evidence, interviewing researchers. And they just noted that it was Ronald Reagan who got the U.S. government into the business of looking at climate change, and the research he got started has been instrumental in showing just how much has been happening.

Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while. *


*thats a joke son!

 

[JayHawk]

No single man or women will be able to give apt attention to all that is necessary. hence we change out that specific person every once in a while.

 

[Kulindahr]

Even a blind squirrel finds an acorn once in a while. *


*thats a joke son!

This special is making it plain that Bush is no Reagan.



Like we needed more evidence....


Bush has actually, they're saying, increased spending for climate change research -- but he won't let the results out!

 

[Kulindahr]

No single man or women will be able to give apt attention to all that is necessary. hence we change out that specific person every once in a while.

So we lurch from paying attention to one set of things and ignoring the rest, to paying attention to a different set of things....

yuck.


I'm not a fan of F.D.R.; he did irreparable damage to the American dream, but why can't we find a president who had his knack for picking men he could delegate things to without worrying whether the job would get done?






BTW, Mazda, the principle you observed, absent a man who really knows how to delegate (and find the right men to delegate to), is why large countries are inevitably, no matter their outward form of government, ends up as a "bureaucracy-cracy", rule by bureaucracy: the folks on top come and go, but the chair-warmers remain.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulin, how could you say such a thing? That's the first time I've ever seen you make a baldly disingenuous statement.

That 15% includes all medical benefits. Besides, the union wage that the 15% is taken from is a LOT more than the same non-union wage, where medical is being deducted.

The wage was the same, about $5.65. There was no non-union wage -- it was "join the union or go jobless after six months".

And what we were told, by the union rep, was that the medical benefit was only for work-related stuff.