![[mccookgazette.com]](http://www.mccookgazette.com/images/nameplate31.png)
|
|
Fair ~ |
|
|
 Email link
 Read comments (36)
 Blog archive
 Share link
Remember ReykjavikPosted Wednesday, July 8, 2009, at 12:52 PM
Ronald Reagan had a remarkable staff of talented people, and like Reagan, they truly had the best interest of the United States at heart. Folks like Defense Secretary Casper Weinberger, and Ambassador Jeanne Kilpatrick, and Secretary of State George Shultz. These were solid folks, and they fought for the best interest of not only America, but the world. "The Press" at the time was silly and ridiculed Reagan repeatedly. Their contempt for Reagan was never more clearly on display than when the talks ended at Reykjavik, Iceland. The media showed a stern faced President Reagan leaving the talks, and pounded the President for being "out of touch" and "not willing to seriously negotiate" with Gorby. The talking heads at ABC, NBC and CBS knew better...they thought. They speculated they Reagan had to appeal to his "hard right" base. "The Press" repeatedly told how Gorby lectured Reagan as the two men parted company. "Mr. President," Gorby said when they reached the car, "you have missed a unique chance of going down in history as a great president who paved the way for nuclear disarmament." Reagan merely said: "That applies to both of us". I was watching one Republican Convention, in which Reagan had secured the nomination. Tom Brokaw, brash and stupid as ever, opined during his unbiased "news reporting" that the Republicans needed to force Reagan to take on Jerry Ford as VP to get Reagan from starting nuclear war. Yet, it was only two years or so after Reagan walked away from the summit in Iceland, refusing to sell America down the river, that the Iron Curtain came down. Reagan knew what he was doing, and the people around him knew what they were doing, and Tom Brokaw was wrong. So was Dan Rather, Peter Jennings, Sam Danaldson, and all the "experts" who spent years trying to convince the American people that Reagan was an idiot. Now we have Hopey Change, over in Russia, ready to give away anything and everything to appease his far left nutty base. Hopey Change could not even acknowledge our victory in the cold war. In a little less than twenty three years we have gone from a President fierce for Americas' security, Reagan, to a dope with hatred of America as his banner, Obama. It is beyond beleif. We get lectures from young leftists, who were still sleeping with the light on and their thumb in their mouth, when Reagan was fighting to defend America. I have been a witness to "The Press" and their growing power in American politics. AND, like their comrades in the Democrat Party, they are always wrong. Wrong about America, and on the wrong side of the debate. Hopey Change is poised to give away all that Reagan, and other Presidents who loved their country, did to secure America. You don't want to hear it do you? Quick, you better get back in front of the television and watch some more coverage of Michael Jackson. Be a good little sheep now, don't question dear leader. Comments Showing comments in chronological order [Show most recent comments first] |
Hot topics Risking My Life Is The Bravest Thing You Do(77 ~ 12:03 PM, Oct 30)
Hayseed
Paybacks and Nuttiness
I Am Ready For REFORM!
Lib Kicker
|
Facebook
Twitter
del.icio.us
Digg
StumbleUpon
Technorati
Newsvine
Reddit
Google
![[Feed icon]](http://www.mccookgazette.com/images/icons/feed-icon-14x14.png){kind=icon}
Sam is now a fortune teller and Steffanie is to busy editing other peoples posts to take the time to edit her own.
You don't have to be a psychic to tell that Barack Hussein Obama (Hopey Change) is going down in flames. He's trying to get through every spending package he can before the 2010 elections because the Republicans are going to kick butt!! As far as his foriegn policy is concerned.......What foreign policy?? All he does is fly around the world, on our dime, and apologize for the USA!! We've got NOTHING to apologize for!! With the possible exception of electing a rookie for a president!!
Sam,
For everyone's sake, return to your roots.
Writing of life and work on the road, the people and places along the long-haul routes.
An expert on Reagan you ain't.
I was there when he ran for Governor in California the first time.
Nearly 70 "representatives of the press" along on the two full coach busses touring the state non-stop.
Not one reporter got one word published by their newspapers. The state's daily newspaper publishers printed only "Official press releases" from the Reagan campaign's L.A. headquarters.
How much money did Reagan's backers provide him?
More than six months of two full 55 passenger coaches rolling constantly, with the "campaign" paying all expenses.
At least $200 daily each for at least 65 news people who did nothing but provide a middle-aged and younger white male audience at every stop, with local TV creating NEW video minutes for distribution statewide.
About $100,000 weekly for months to provide a look to the campaign
That's $13,000 daily in 1966 to haul a bunch of spectators around.
The "LIBERAL PRESS" was much like the American people -- better educated, with broader experience than the average voter.
However, there were super conservatives, conservatives, moderates and varying shades of liberals.
One new editor for a conservative San Diego publisher, just arrived from the Phillie/Jersey area grew bored of writing and getting nothing published.
So he began "stringing" reports to his East Coast contacts with several of the major dailies.
Everything was fine until we were returning from far northern California along the Central Valley.
Then the busses pulled up to the single stop sign in one little town about 70 miles north of Sacramento. That reporter was told by the campaign staff to bring his typewriter. He climbed off the rear bus prepared to join Reagan for an interview up front.
The next thing any of us knew, the busses were pulling away and he was standing with his suitcase and typewriter beside a stop sign.
Seems Nancy had found one of his uncomplimentary reports in an eastern paper delivered to her at Red Bluff, CA.
The funny thing -- we had four more stops that afternoon before arriving at the Garden Court Motel on the north side of Sacramento. The "marrooned reporter" was waiting in the main dining room. He had paid a kid with a pickup to drive him into the motel, checked into the room previously assigned him, had dinner as usual and signed for it. He remained with the other reporters while George Liberace (the brother) and his five piece band started playing for the evening. As I recall, he signed for every ticket with his room number before heading to bed.
He had taken a taxi to the airport the next morning before we were awake and ready to board the busses again.
Clearly the fat cats backing Reagan were footing these enormous bills. More than $100,000 weekly for bus seats, motels, meals and bar tabs for reporters who were not being published.
Reagan started that governor's race with more money than the top presidential campaigns had in the 1960s.
The tragedy, he was unable to answer a single question about state policies, things he hoped to do as governor, his philosophy and values.
He relied strictly upon short speeches written for him, relying upon a photographic, fast read memory to absorb each speech wile playing pinochle for 20 mintues before arriving for a speech.
Gee, Hank, with all that background and knowledge you have, why don't you comment on Hopey Change's staged "Town Hall Meetings"??
Hmm... I think Hank was actually thinking of the Obama plane from this last election.
Haha, I love these McCook bloggers, they remind me of poop pinatas. When you hit them with a bit of truth, all these small nuggets come falling out of them. No counter argument or opposing commentary to the story whatsoever. Just a bunch of undereducated goofballs tossing out personal attacks like they mean something. Good work Hank, keep swinging that truth stick, if for no other reason to watch these fools suffer.
GI - isn't your post a bit of the pot calling the kettle black? Where is your 'educated' refutation, rife with statistics, charts and footnotes.
I thought not. Nice focus on fecality however.
It's still unbelievable that you give sole credit to saint Reagan for the fall of the Communism. He was the right president at the right time. Reagan is not responsible.
The Soviet Union had vastly overstepped what they could do and they fell under their own weight.
What is beyond belief is your continued hatred for a president so deep that you would commit treason every time you mention him.
You call yourself a "real" American (by YOUR definition), but it's interesting that as a "real" American you find yourself solely able to continually trash and demean the President of the United States. Do you understand why countries hate us? It's not because they hate our freedoms it's because we individuals such as you, Mr. Eldridge, that think it is perfectly fine, to not only question the patriotism of those Americans that disagree with you, but openly trash at every opportunity the President.
You should be ashamed, but you are so full of yourself that you probably deem yourself a hero. As for the rest, go ahead and trash me for attacking, but I've tired of people like Mr. Eldridge that somehow think it is their mission to trash Americans who disagree with them.
I know this is off the subject, but I believe it is something we should all ponder!!
With no disrespect intended to the Jackson family, this sure does reveal
something about our value system in this country.
by MIKE aka Mr. Brutally Honest
While the focus today, tomorrow and for the next God-knows-how-many-days will be the death of a pop culture icon; while many will mourn, wail and quite literally make fools of themselves over it and while as many will speak endlessly about it, allow me, if only for a moment, to remind us all that others have died this month; others whose lives were cut short; others who leave behind loved ones and whose families will dearly miss them; families who'll suffer with much more dignity and honor than we'll be exposed to on the tube in the coming days.
Yes... it's true... we've suffered a loss... but forgive me while I tell you that I'm not talking about the king of pop music.
These American military members died in Iraq this month:
Sergeant Justin J. Duffy
Specialist Christopher M. Kurth
Specialist Charles D. Parrish
Lance Corporal Robert D. Ulmer
Staff Sergeant Edmond L. Lo
Sergeant Joshua W. Soto
Captain Kafele H. Sims
Specialist Chancellor A. Keesling
And these members of our U.S. Armed Forces died in Afghanistan this month:
Sergeant Jones, Ricky D.
Specialist Munguia Rivas, Rodrigo A.
Command Master Chief Petty Officer Garber, Jeffrey J.
1st Sergeant Blair, John D.
Sergeant Smith, Paul G.
Staff Sergeant Melton, Joshua
Sergeant 1st Class Dupont, Kevin A.
Specialist O'Neill, Jonathan C.
Chief Warrant Officer Richardson Jr., Ricky L.
Specialist Silva, Eduardo S.
Lance Corporal Whittle, Joshua R.
Major Barnes, Rocco M.
Major Jenrette, Kevin M.
Staff Sergeant Beale, John C.
Specialist Jordan, Jeffrey W.
Specialist Griemel, Jarrett P.
Specialist Hernandez I, Roberto A.
Sergeant Obakrairur, Jasper K.
Staff Sergeant Hall, Jeffrey A.
Private 1st Class Ogden, Matthew D.
Private 1st Class Wilson, Matthew W.
~~~~~~~
Let's remember and honor this day those whose deaths are truly impacting.
What is also beyond belief, Mr. Eldridge is your absolute lie about President Obama. I don't know where you get your news, but you obviously watched or listened to an edited version of Obama's answer and then poured your outrage to the rest of us.
What Obama actually did was give credit to Democratic and Republican presidents alike in gaining the upper hand in the Cold War. But for the "Good News Reporter" as you like to call yourself, you chose to only listen to those like you in outrage instead of simply doing some research in finding his real answer.
You don't have a clue what journalism is.
"GI - isn't your post a bit of the pot calling the kettle black? Where is your 'educated' refutation, rife with statistics, charts and footnotes."
Mickel,
I am happy to contribute to a substantive debate. I am happy to spend a good amount of time gathering information and pouring through various sources to back up claims that I make. But in this case, without a counter-argument to Hank's post, just stupid accusations of drug use because nobody is smart enough, or nobody cares enough to spend the time to construct a reasonable opposing commentary...you get poop get jokes...you know, so as not to confuse the locals.
Mike
"It's not because they hate our freedoms it's because we individuals such as you, Mr. Eldridge, that think it is perfectly fine, to not only question the patriotism of those Americans that disagree with you, but openly trash at every opportunity the President."
So I guess the reason we are hated is because of groups like Move On, Code Pink, Fox News,snd MSNBC, amongst others?
Your post is another example of the ridiculousness of the situation Mike. It's terrible for Sam to denigrate the President, which I agree it is terrible, but it's fine for liberal groups to denigrate Presidents that they don't agree with. Didn't you just have a rant about hypocrisy?
I don't think it's fine for any group to denigrate a president, but the level at which we are seeing the right absolutely denigrate and trash President Obama is unparalleled. Yes, President Bush saw plenty of hatred directed his way during his presidency from ultra-liberal groups.
Bush was ridiculed after he took office for not being an elected president but an appointed one.
Obama has been ridiculed since he began his run for office as not even being American (all the while, some of the same groups going after Obama wanted the Constitution changed so that Arnold Swartzenegger could run for president).
The very same Republicans who voted for a Bush stimulus package in late 2008, decried a very similar stimulus package three months later, backed by Obama.
But that's besides the point. The hatred from the extreme right for Obama is so deep that they will stop at nothing for a moment to absolutely trash him and denegrate him, and then they consider themselves good honest "true" Americans.
That's the hypocrisy I talk about. Calling yourself a Christian and then acting very un-Christ like and damning all those to hell that don't act in their interpretation of the Bible.
I could care less if you like President Obama, but he is the President and at least deserves that much respect. I did not like President Bush, but I gave him a chance after 9/11, but unfortunately in a time of great American unity, he decided to play partisan politics and play only to his base. That's when he lost me.
Unfortunately in 2004, the Democratic Party put up a horrible candidate in John Kerry, but still the Republican machine was able to pain a purple heart recipient as less patriotic than a man who didn't even see military action, and Bush still barely won. It was downhill from there. But even then I did not offer the utterly disparaging and disgusting comments about the president we see on a daily basis from the extreme right.
The hypocrisy I talk about is the same people that not a year ago that called anyone that dared criticize the government as un-patriotic and un-American now consider themselves heroes for trashing a president of the opposite party and applaud those who openly talk secession (which is clear in the Constitution that they suddenly want to uphold as treason) and those who openly talk about forcefully overthrowing the government.
They are right in one aspect, these are indeed scary times, and they are the ones that are causing it.
SWNebra, this was not an attack on you, because I do not believe that you fit into the extreme crowd, but an answer to your post.
Except that socialism has been a part of American life since 1776. I think that 'Johnny Come-Lately' is more apropos than 'hero.'
LOL how could that be an attack on me? Some people must be too sensitive, no worries here. By the way feel free to attack my comments and statements, just please don't attack the person aka, don't hate the playa, hate the game :)
I agree many of those examples you cite are instances of remarkable hypocrisy, and I don't make any efforts to depend such hypocrits. All I say is the label cuts both ways.
"The very same Republicans who voted for a Bush stimulus package in late 2008, decried a very similar stimulus package three months later, backed by Obama."
What about those Democrats who were opposed to the Bush stimulus in late 2008 but were ardent supporters of a very similar stimulas package three months later backed by Obama, are they not just as hypocritical?
Forgive me if I'm reading too much into your words but did you not "give him (Bush) a chance" the months of his presidency before 9/11? And if you are honest with yourself, I would imagine that even after 9/11 you weren't so much supporting Bush as having a knee jerk "patriotic" reaction like most of the country. I don't think Bush played partisan politics to play to his base, I think he actually believes everything he did was the right thing. And that his beliefs are fairly partisan in general and after all, he won so he gets to decide right? Where have I heard that before?
I hadn't planned on even recognizing Steffanie's disgusting comments calling Obama a pedophile for supposedly staring at an underage girl, because I thought she had made it up.
Then I actually watched the video, instead of simply judging from a picture, and what he was doing was looking at the ground as he helped the woman behind him down the stairs. The man next to Obama certainly was checking out the girl, but no Obama.
Nice try.
ROFL, sorry I missed that I just pass by Steffanies comments but had to go back and look.
If you wanted to Mike, you could easily use the comment.
"leafy is to hypocrite as B. Hussein Obama is to gawking at a 16 year old girls bottom"
If he wasn't gawking, you must not be a hypocrite. Although to be fair I see you as making hypocritical statements at times.
"Promote the general welfare, provide for the common defense..." "free and public education."
These are all in the constitution and they are all socialist principles...keep denying it until you expire it won't change truth and reality. Public education that is free is a socialist deal, pure and simple, and our founding fathers sought to establish this from French guidance and philosophy. You are a fool and a moron to think otherwise. Goodnight now.
Uh-oh, looks like Sceptre has Socialism and Communism mixed up again.
"The Soviet Union had vastly overstepped what they could do and they fell under their own weight." - ekimsitruc
So by doing the same thing, our governement is headed to the same fate right? So what happens as Obama keeps pushing for ObamaCare, another Stimulus, higher taxes, and socializing private industries.
And Liberals want to continue pushing for more governement programs?
It it curious to me that most of you conservatives are in denial about the strong ties to socialism that has governed the "free-market" for a century. Free and public education, a centralized federal government with authority over local governments, minimum wage, standardized work week, anyone with half a brain can find tons of examples of socialist principles in America that we have lived and thrived with for a very long time. You need to get over the stupid, "socialism is evil" crap. It isn't 1950 anymore, the world is very different.
I think this about sums up how most of America feels: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jeYscnFpE...
GI... its not the fact that we have lived in denial of socialism encroaching on our free-market, however we continue to see it encroaching in almost everything this administration is trying to implement.
The socialism programs you pointed out are a detriment to our society. Lets look at miniumum wage. Yes workers are making more money, but it costs businesses more money so in order to make up those loses they raise the cost of goods and services. Now when they raise their prices, the same people who struggled to make ends meet with the lower wages are even further behind because the cost of living increases further than the increase of income received.
If free and public schools are so great, how come the Obama's, Kennedy's and many other Liberals and Conservatives who can afford it are putting their kids through Private Schools? It reminds me of the health care that Kennedy's bill excludes members of congress from having to partake in it. What is good for us is not good enough for them.
Each of the socialized programs are designed to bring those who have tried to make something of themselves down to the level of those who think they are entitled to everything. If this happens we will all be miserable. As Andrew Wilkow puts it, this is all about the zero liablitiy voter. Those who expect everything handed to them but aren't willing to pay for it. The Democrats and even some Republicans want their votes.
Please do us a favor and answer the question I previously posted.
proudconservative,
You cannot possibly be thinking straight. A free and public education is a bad thing? A standardized work week is a bad thing? A minimum wage is a bad thing? Tell me this, how do conservatives reconcile shameless greed and manipulation that inevitably comes with pure capitalism and free markets, with their alleged love of Jesus. Do you worship God or the dollar?
It is socialism that has kept businesses honest and protected employees. Look at companies like Nike that go to foriegn shores and set up shop so that they can pay their workers a pitance just to make their bottom line a bit healthier. THAT is capitalism, but you cannot exploit people like that in America.
And to answer your previous question: it depends on the program.
"But more socialism when what socialism we have has bankrupted the country is stupidity."
In fact, my dear, it was DEregulation (capitalism) of the market that lead to the inevitable collapse. Clinton and Bush were among those responsible for this...our market is kind of like keeping a wild chimpanzee for a pet, the less supervised and regulated it is, the more likely it will be to tear your face off when nobody is looking.
"Are you gonna get your girlfriend to jump to your defense now? Or is it partner?"
I was thinking of asking you to be girlfriend/partner.
Thats ok, you are bit too militant anyway. I have a couple fairly butch lesbian friends, you would be a big hit with them.
Steffanie,
You sound interested.
Ill call Washington.
That is the weakest version of that part of history I have heard yet. Even Charlie Wilson's War did a better job of getting it right.
Another perspective: in Reagan's myopic attempt to defeat the Soviet Union in the cold war, he ended up training and arming an enemy that is more deceitful, harder to track, more motivated to kill innocents, and widely dispersed across the globe. At least with the Soviets, we knew who are enemy was, what uniform they wore, what weapons they had, and could fight them conventionally (or at least more so). Now, thanks in large part to Reagan's failed and criminal dealings in the middle east, we are locked into a Sisyphean struggle with an unknown enemy that is likely to endure forever, and maybe, just maybe, will result in nuclear holocaust. That is why liberals (at least this one) will never forgive Reagan.
"The enemy you know, is better than the enemy you don't know."
This is going to confuse you I am sure, because you see only in the intolerable tones of black and white, but my fight is on the side of America as well, specifically, protecting her children from the pure unfiltered craziness of people like G5/Sceptre. As I have said before...good luck with your revolution; or your sitting on your butt typing, or whatever it is you think you need to do to restore America to the 1950's. It won't happen, we will win, decency in commerce and society will win, but it certainly is entertaining watching the death throes of old school conservatism.
I hate to say I told you so, but I did predict correctly that G5/Sceptre could change his name, but his old and dying (hopefully sooner rather than later) brain would always give him away. Ill add this one to the archive too. I think that when I begin instructing classes this fall I will have my students read these posts. I won't need anything more than G5/Sceptre's own words to demonstrate what the extreme right looks like, and how incredibly bad it is for the US. Seriously, keep posting like this, you are making the marginalization of your philosophy very easy.
Hey Sceptre,
There's a wonderful beach called Little Beach on the south shore of Maui. It's hard to get to because one must climb over a cliff that's not immediately visible from Big Beach, and once you're on little beach, you're in for a surprise. It's a uniquely American nude beach. Everyone looks the same there in their nakedness, and what's really wonderful is that there is diversity of ethnicity, language, sexual preference, color, education level, socioeconomic status, looks, gender, age, etc. There's also diversity expressed in people's political views. The only kind of language I have not heard in this body honest setting is the kind that you express here. Get some naked sun, man, and stop being such a bad tempered, anti-liberal, non-conservative, know-it-all whose butt cheeks haven't seen the light of day in decades. Aloha.
Sceptre,
I'm a fan of Ayn Rand too. I read her books when I was 16 or 17 and since then, I've learned that her view of the world is a bit myopic for the 21st century even though it is certainly inspiring. Great economies are not made at the expense of social goods or laws that strengthen both individuals and collective entities. There must be balance and progress, and those call for a pragmatic approach that draws out the best of what capitalism, socialism, communism, and individualism can offer. If you're offering to be today's metaphorical (or real) snake in the garden, then at least acknowledge that in today's world, your bad apple is not one that Eve is likely to bite into. Your politics are not likely to be helpful in any way, but they do serve to remind us of where we've been and how far we've come. President Obama may be of Kenyan background, but he is an American in this garden of ours, in which you are also allowed and encouraged to air your viewpoint because Eve (think Ayn Rand) allows for your individualism. There is no contempt or insult here--just indifference to talk that doesn't make much of an impact in a society that's taken a huge step forward since the last election.
Sceptre,
I appreciate your post and I'll reply briefly. The great minds of individuals such as Einstein, Hawkins, Curie, (dare I say, Obama?), Newton, YoYo Ma, Toni Morrison, and so on, were supported by institutions and governments that made possible the examination, creation, and implementation of their art and science. These people and their work would not have "made it" were it not for the intervention of government in support of individualism.
As to the rest of your argument, and I think others have said this, it's important to look to other economies, such as that of Norway or Sweden and even France where socialism is at work to get a better sense of what may or may not work or be suitable in the United States. Obviously, our health care and Wall Street woes belabor the point that different and/or more regulation is needed.
You're right: age has little to do with an effective argument, but some use it to evince one's authority as the ultimate truth. I'd rather read this month's Vanity Fair because it's so interesting and fair and says so much about our society and who we are economically, culturally, religiously, ethnically, and humorously. Read the article on capitalism there (page 83). It's short and a good read for any artifact of the past or present, senile or not.
But those European countries do not fail, and Norway is still considered by most measures to be the country with the world's highest standard of living. They make more per person than Americans, and they have cradle to grave health care for all of its citizens, and the health care system there ranks among the best in the world.
It is a shame that Europe can do this and the US cannot...well, we will, it is just a matter of time.
http://www.aftenposten.no/english/local/...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_Devel...
http://www.vg.no/vg/norway/
That is a good point, and Norway has a great deal of oil resources. But these statements...
"Norway or Sweden and even France" would certainly fail as all Socialism has in the past. We, in America, are chasing a broken dream."
...is not true. And the point is that if you look at the strongest countries in the world right now, (and even more so if you look at per capita GNP) every one boasts a balanced mix of socialism and capitalism. The US historically has had aspects of socialism injected into the capitalist system. China and India have taken the opposite road and injected (or rather, allowed the US to inject) capitalism into their socialist systems, and now they are becoming stronger. But the balance has to be there...deregulation of the banking and loan industries led to near financial ruin. Bush selling off US treasury bonds to Communist China to pay for war and tax cuts sunk us into an enormous debt with nothing to show for it. Socialism and smart regulations on our markets will heal the economy and make exploitative businesses more accountable and ultimately will stop capitalism from collapsing on itself when it gets too big. It has happened historically, and it is happening now.
The trick here is to take the successful models of socialism like Norway, Sweden, Germany, etc., and find an inventive and balanced way to coalesce those working aspects of socialism with the parts of capitalism that have failed here in the US. I have a great deal of faith that America has and will continue to lead the way in demonstrating to the world a successful balance of these two economic principles. If any large country can do it, I believe it is and should be the USA.