The Original Gay Porn Community - Free Gay Movies and Photos, Gay Porn Site Reviews and Adult Gay Forums

  • Welcome To Just Us Boys - The World's Largest Gay Message Board Community

    In order to comply with recent US Supreme Court rulings regarding adult content, we will be making changes in the future to require that you log into your account to view adult content on the site.
    If you do not have an account, please register.
    REGISTER HERE - 100% FREE / We Will Never Sell Your Info

    To register, turn off your VPN; you can re-enable the VPN after registration. You must maintain an active email address on your account: disposable email addresses cannot be used to register.

Obama hails President Ronald Reagan

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?


Every leader unites people.

That's one of the reasons Bush's claim and now Obama's that they're uniters is so absurd. Every leader unites people.

The difference between leaders is who they're uniting and what it achieves.

Among others, Reagan united liars and cheaters and neocons (Iran-Contra) and gay haters (failing to even mention AIDS for years).
 
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.

He also didn't say it was bad. And he did imply it was good by saying, "Republicans were the party of ideas" in an approving tone.

If he'd said Reagan set us on a bad trajectory and they were the party of bad ideas, it would have been a very different comment.

Of course next he's going to "clarify" what he meant, which is the next step of using Reagan as a strategy -- which, for him, is not altogether a bad idea if he can pull it off. But it is disingenuous. And it is revealing, how people responded. Gay men actually defending Reagan -- I mean, back in 1982, 84, 86, could you have remotely imagined it happening?!


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.

He chose Reagan deliberately and for good reason, and it has nothing to do with being an example in living memory.


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

No, he was being clever about getting Reagan's iconic image to endorse an Obama candidacy.
 
Compassionate conservative was after Reagan.
I think you are confusing daddy's inane "thousand points of light" with RR's Compassionate Conservative lie. Remember his "benign neglect" idea for his way of dealing with serious economic problems on Indian reservations? It was just that attitude that caused the Indians to realize they had a right given in their treaties to generate their own economies, hence the hundreds of casinos on Indian lands all over the country. Yeah, RR was a great thinker and humanitarian.

I called your comment that RR started AIDs stupid. I got warned once before by Mods about that word in the context in which it was used. So since I'm not banned, maybe the Mods agree with me this time.
 
He also didn't say it was bad. And he did imply it was good by saying, "Republicans were the party of ideas" in an approving tone.

If he'd said Reagan set us on a bad trajectory and they were the party of bad ideas, it would have been a very different comment.

Of course next he's going to "clarify" what he meant, which is the next step of using Reagan as a strategy -- which, for him, is not altogether a bad idea if he can pull it off. But it is disingenuous. And it is revealing, how people responded. Gay men actually defending Reagan -- I mean, back in 1982, 84, 86, could you have remotely imagined it happening?!




He chose Reagan deliberately and for good reason, and it has nothing to do with being an example in living memory.




No, he was being clever about getting Reagan's iconic image to endorse an Obama candidacy.


In short, Obama's words were full of .............

authenticity

and

accuracy

he's trying to branch out with his support - less niche - more broad

Reagan Dems

Doris Kearns Goodwin had it right - it was gracious

and ur right Nick - it was political

and it worked

and when u kick the tires - watch the whole thing - not just a soundbite or 2 - u understand what he is saying - u may not wanna hear it - but u get it - and it's similar to what Bill Clinton said in 1992

so

get over it

he got over on hillary/edwards

he's a big boy now

playing in the big game (like the Giants - woo hoo)

and it appears that he is up to the task

strap on ur boots
 
I think you are confusing daddy's inane "thousand points of light" with RR's Compassionate Conservative lie.

I think your just confused. And the mods took no action you should certainly assumed because that which would have been insulted (namely me) indicated it was rather childish but in no way a violation in my view. Feel free to explore the links below and post anything that referrences RR with the terminology Compassionate conservatism.

As a political doctrine
The doctrine was invented by Dr. Marvin Olasky, who went on to memorialize it in his books Renewing American Compassion (1996) and Compassionate Conservatism: What it is, What it Does, and How it Can Transform America (2000), and Myron Magnet of the Manhattan Institute. Olasky has been called the "godfather of compassionate conservatism". The phrase was popularized when George W. Bush adopted it as one of his key slogans during his 2000 presidential campaign against Al Gore. Bush also wrote the foreword to Olasky's Compassionate Conservatism.
A compassionate conservative is someone who believes that conservatism and compassion complement each other, particularly in opposition to common conservative party platform planks such as advocating laissez-faire economic policies. A compassionate conservative might see the social problems of the United States, such as healthcare or immigration, as being issues to which conservatives can find better solutions than their opponents can, partly through cooperation with private companies, charities and religious institutions rather than directly through government departments. As former Bush chief speechwriter Michael Gerson put it, "Compassionate conservatism is the theory that the government should encourage the effective provision of social services without providing the service itself."[1]
Magnet and Olasky based their views on the Christian doctrine of original sin. Olasky writes: “Man is sinful and likely to want something for nothing. … Man’s sinful nature leads to indolence … appetite and lust and idleness.” (Olasky, Renewing American Compassion, 64, 41). They assume that poor peoples' sins are the root cause of their poverty and that, as such, traditional religion is ultimately the only cure for poverty.
In the words of Magnet,[2]
“Compassionate conservatives [...] offer a new way of thinking about the poor. They know that telling the poor that they are mere passive victims, whether of racism or of vast economic forces, is not only false but also destructive, paralyzing the poor with thoughts of their own helplessness and inadequacy. The poor need the larger society's moral support; they need to hear the message of personal responsibility and self-reliance, the optimistic assurance that if they try – as they must – they will make it. They need to know, too, that they can't blame "the system" for their own wrongdoing.”
Compassionate conservative philosophy argues for policies in support of traditional families, welfare reform to promote individual responsibility (cf. workfare), active policing, standards-based schools (cf. No Child Left Behind Act), and assistance (economic or otherwise) to poor countries around the world.
U.S. president George W. Bush said[3]:
“"It is compassionate to actively help our citizens in need. It is conservative to insist on accountability and results."”
Bush began his presidency hoping to make compassionate conservatism his centerpiece. After the attacks on September 11, 2001, he focused less on this theme, but its fundamental ideas became central in his rhetoric about the War on Terrorism.[4]
 
Newsflash - Ronald Reagan will not be on the ballot this November. Rather than distorting Obama's words and homing in on one aspect of Reagan's policies and arguing whether Reagan was oblivious or intentionally malicious, wouldn't it be more productive to try to figure out why he had so much crossover appeal to Democrats and working people and try to figure out how to deal with that going forward?
 
Mazda, putting aside the dispute of who deserves the handle of 'Compassionate Conservative' .... the question I have is a lot simpler:

After everything thats been posted about Ronald Reagan in this thread, has your opinion of him changed at all?
 
Mazda, there were public appeals, directly to Reagan, for help on the AIDs issue. He remained silent, because it was the Moral Majority that helped get him elected.

Meanwhile, 100s of thousands of gays died. Nero fiddled while Rome burned.

No need for hyperbole:

1. The real numbers are damning enough.
2. Not giving attention to one disease was irresponsible, but hardly constitutes "Rome burn[ing]".
 
Newsflash - Ronald Reagan will not be on the ballot this November. Rather than distorting Obama's words and homing in on one aspect of Reagan's policies and arguing whether Reagan was oblivious or intentionally malicious, wouldn't it be more productive to try to figure out why he had so much crossover appeal to Democrats and working people and try to figure out how to deal with that going forward?


well said/written :=D:

Obama's words when u look at the whole interview - r fine - and do not suggest his love for RR or conservatism or RR policies

why did the dems (some) vote for RR - what was so appealing about him - what was so unappealing about the dem party?

figure that out and there can never be a repub president

do the math
 
Kulin, right here in Nevada:

Non-union Northern Nevada gets paid about 35% less for doing the same job as Union Southern Nevada; the cost-of-living is similar in both areas.

Much more than enough to cover that 15%!

I could give more examples, but I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one, Kulin.

I don't see what there is to disagree about:

if I'd joined the union, I wouldn't have been able to afford to live anywhere except on the streets. There WAS no non-union wage; there was one wage, period. The only difference in wage was for the checkers, and they were getting more than three times what I was... in the same union. They had no problem with the 15% -- but it would have left me in a bad spot.
 
Back
Top