Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
She warbles a macho fantasy about our 40th president. But the real Reagan wanted a world free of nuclear arms
Listening to Sarah Palin, it is often difficult to determine whether her remarks demonstrate ignorance or dishonesty. She frequently waxes on about Ronald Reagan, for instance, revered ancestor of today's far right, whose real record bears little resemblance to the fantasies of extremists like her.
While attacking President Obama's nuclear weapons policies the other day -- and the strategic arms reduction treaty that he signed with Russia -- Palin said, "We miss Ronald Reagan, who used to say, when he would look at our enemies, he would say: 'No. You lose. We win.' That's what we miss. And that is what we have to get back to."
Well, this is the conundrum for her supporters isn't it? She terrific at delivering a tagline or two, but, not so good at looking at the larger picture - the nuance of a situation, if you will.
What I find most interesting is the willingness by so many to accept this simplification and misinterpretation of Reagan's rather complex views on this subject, essentially making him out to be a simpleton with no understanding of a global world view. Fine way to treat an icon.
however Liberals now seem to forget that RRs plan to achieve that was via a posture of utter strength.
Liberals try to suggest that Obama is no different than RR, however BHO believes in negotiating from a position of weakness instead of strength.
Simply because 2 people have the same goal, does not make them equals. Even Sarah Palin understands that. Liberals who knock Palin on this point prove they are less intelligent than the woman they revile for her doltishness.
Well, you know what they say about a person who answers a question with a question. I did read it before I posted in this thread.
Here's a question for you:
In what way would you say that today's world differs from the world during the Reagan era?
In what context?
Nuclear threat, the existence of terrorism, economy, pollution, fashion styles?
Th nuclear threat is more from terrorist oganizations getting their hands on weapons than Russia throwing bombs at us. The cold war is over. Russia ceased to be a nuclear threat when the Soviet Union collapsed. We are not emptying our nuclear arsenal, we're reducing it by a third. Ronald Reagan wanted a Nuke-free world. His first goal was to reduce the arsenal by a third.
In Reagan's era, we weren't going through a world-wide recession as we are now.
Pollution is worse, especially coming from the mouths of pundits who do not do their homework.
Fashion styles, well, let's say I'm glad the shoulder pads are out. Made women look like linebackers.
"Listening to Sarah Palin, it is often difficult to determine whether her remarks demonstrate ignorance or dishonesty."
"...fantasies of extremists like her."
"Now, Palin usually sounds bereft of even the most basic knowledge of history, let alone diplomacy..."
"...for the edification not only of Palin but of the many right-wing politicians and commentators who blather on in the same clueless (or disingenuous) way."
This article reeks of an op-ed piece presented as "news".
Why some of you read this drivel, and still have the audacity to come on this forum and demonize fox news is beyond me.
Talk about hypocritical.
Beyond that, and looking past the elitist nature of the authors article. Apples to oranges to anybody that has half a brain to evaluate the situation. Reagan called for the reduction in nuclear capable weapons of both the US and the Soviet union on the heels of the cold war. The number of armaments was no longer required, and was a gester of diplomacy to the end of the hostility during those times.
Here is the difference. Reagan never said that he wouldn't use the nukes. He didn't waiver at the thought of protecting this country at all cost, including reacting with use of nuclear arms against would be attackers home nation. Reagan didn't say "we won't retaliate with nukes" in response to a chemical attack. Why would he? Thats ignorant. Thats like saying "I wont fight back if you try to rob me and beat me to nearly death". The ignorance in the face of the world problems to make such a pac, and the arrogance to say those kind of things because of interest in winning a world popularity contest (such as Obama) simply makes us less safe.
Reagan would have no part of that.
Nice try though Salon... it appears the author is the one that needs to not only refresh his history, but also his logic.
One who ignores their enemies do so at their peril. I listen to the The Big Fat idiot to gather my arguments against know-nothings like Palin and Limbaugh so I can set the rednecks straight when the opportunity arises. Since its all talking points and only right wingers need to be reminded regularly what to think, its not much of a challenge. In any event, friends close, enemies closer and all that. Dig it. The RIGHT is in decline. They just have more gasbags per/1000.
Nice contribution. Basically "Im a tough guy elitist who knows all" but doesn't have the cajones to actually discuss the topic.
"Listening to Sarah Palin, it is often difficult to determine whether her remarks demonstrate ignorance or dishonesty."
"...fantasies of extremists like her."
"Now, Palin usually sounds bereft of even the most basic knowledge of history, let alone diplomacy..."
"...for the edification not only of Palin but of the many right-wing politicians and commentators who blather on in the same clueless (or disingenuous) way."
This article reeks of an op-ed piece presented as "news".
Why some of you read this drivel, and still have the audacity to come on this forum and demonize fox news is beyond me.
Talk about hypocritical.
Beyond that, and looking past the elitist nature of the authors article. Apples to oranges to anybody that has half a brain to evaluate the situation. Reagan called for the reduction in nuclear capable weapons of both the US and the Soviet union on the heels of the cold war. The number of armaments was no longer required, and was a gester of diplomacy to the end of the hostility during those times.
Here is the difference. Reagan never said that he wouldn't use the nukes. He didn't waiver at the thought of protecting this country at all cost, including reacting with use of nuclear arms against would be attackers home nation. Reagan didn't say "we won't retaliate with nukes" in response to a chemical attack. Why would he? Thats ignorant. Thats like saying "I wont fight back if you try to rob me and beat me to nearly death". The ignorance in the face of the world problems to make such a pac, and the arrogance to say those kind of things because of interest in winning a world popularity contest (such as Obama) simply makes us less safe.
Reagan would have no part of that.
Nice try though Salon... it appears the author is the one that needs to not only refresh his history, but also his logic.
Click the news tab at the top, scroll about a quarter of the way down the "More in News" section and there it is.
Nowhere in the article does it say "Op-Ed" or "Opinion" or anything else.
Salon is a joke.
Want to address my other points?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
