View Full Version : Bush by Reagan (OT)
Richard
10-18-2007, 12:04 PM
The following was sent to me and I am curious...has anyone read the cited diary? Is this really in it?
"A moment I've been dreading. George brought his ne're-do-well son around this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one who lives in Florida. The one who hangs around here all the time looking shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a real job. Maybe I'll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they'll hire him as a contributing editor or something. That looks like easy work."
-- Ronald Reagan in his recently published diaries, May 17, 1986
William
10-18-2007, 12:11 PM
The following was sent to me and I am curious...has anyone read the cited diary? Is this really in it?
"A moment I've been dreading. George brought his ne're-do-well son around this morning and asked me to find the kid a job. Not the political one who lives in Florida. The one who hangs around here all the time looking shiftless. This so-called kid is already almost 40 and has never had a real job. Maybe I'll call Kinsley over at The New Republic and see if they'll hire him as a contributing editor or something. That looks like easy work."
-- Ronald Reagan in his recently published diaries, May 17, 1986
No, that was D!ck Chaney who said that.
William ;)
dauwhe
10-18-2007, 12:11 PM
Not true:
http://www.snopes.com/politics/satire/kinsley.asp
And not a good forum topic. Let's let this one go...
Dave
fiamme red
10-18-2007, 12:11 PM
No, it's not in the diary.
http://belowthebeltway.com/2007/08/20/the-reagan-quote-is-a-fake/
fiamme red
10-18-2007, 12:14 PM
No, that was D!ck Chaney who said that.
William ;) :p :D :)
jhcakilmer
10-18-2007, 12:17 PM
Definitely not what Regan would write or say, he had class. I think he's probably turning circles now, considering the road that his party has gone down though.......definitely not Regan Republicans anymore.
Kevan
10-18-2007, 12:19 PM
There's no "Well,....".
Richard
10-18-2007, 12:20 PM
Thanks for the links. Methinks that there is nothing wrong with the post or I wouldn't have posted it. I'll let you know if the administrators contact me.
Louis
10-18-2007, 01:04 PM
Definitely not what Regan would write or say, he had class.
Now that's a joke.
I guess in the circles where he hung out race-baiting did not disqualify him from having class...
mcteague
10-18-2007, 01:07 PM
Definitely not what Regan would write or say, he had class. I think he's probably turning circles now, considering the road that his party has gone down though.......definitely not Regan Republicans anymore.
Yeah, class. I guess he was the first compassionate conservative.
"We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry every night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet."
--Ronald Reagan, TV speech, October 27, 1964
Tim McTeague
Tobias
10-18-2007, 02:07 PM
Yeah, class. I guess he was the first compassionate conservative.
"We were told four years ago that 17 million people went to bed hungry every night. Well, that was probably true. They were all on a diet."
--Ronald Reagan, TV speech, October 27, 1964
Tim McTeague
Fat belly evidence to the contrary, it’s very doubtful 17 million Americans go hungry every night.
I doubt we could find 17 million underweight Americans. Outside the US that’s another matter.
If we had all 300 million Americans go hungry every other night we’d probably be healthier.
Fixed
10-18-2007, 03:18 PM
ne're-do-well" is a contraction of "never do well"
cheers
Yeah, class. I guess he was the first compassionate conservative.
There have been recent news reports claiming two facts that seem to go against typical assumptions (including mine):
1) Liberals in general make more money than conservatives.
2) Conservatives give more of their income to charities.
I don’t know who is fudging the numbers, but it is obvious that the gap must not be so great as to make “compassionate conservative” an oxymoron.
It shouldn’t have been a complete surprise to me if I had compared the average income of states that generally vote Republican versus those who vote Democratic.
1centaur
10-18-2007, 06:20 PM
That's the first time I have seen a claim that liberals make more than conservatives after years of seeing the opposite statistics (Republicans vs. Democrats usually), with Republicans coming off as older, richer, better educated (all those go together, and let's remember that one really rich person can really pull on the averages). I'd wait for several more studies before changing my beliefs.
As for the state breakdown, I think that big cities dominate that skew, with urban populations voting heavily for Democrats. States that are rich tend to have big cities.
LegendRider
10-18-2007, 06:52 PM
From The Chronicle of Philanthropy:
In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others.
I've seen statistics that red states generally have notably higher rates of divorce than blue states. Which would seem to go against the whole family values part of the Republican base. I don't know if it's the social conservatives that have high rates of divorce or other types of Republicans, but it skews pretty heavily to the south, which is pretty socially conservative. I've seen the same statistics regarding obesity, but I don't sniff any hypocrisy there because I don't think there's anything in the platform about eating healthy food or staying in shape.
Also, I know that the older, richer, and better educated one is, the more likely he or she is to be conservative, but I think that's a pretty small slice of the base these days. They tend to be fiscally conservative, but not socially. I think the social conservatives come at least as much from the the less wealthy and less educated demographic.
I'm actually not trying to be critical here - I know we liberals have plenty of contradictions to live down too. Just find these types of facts (if they are factual) interesting.
-Ray
J.Greene
10-18-2007, 08:57 PM
I've seen statistics that red states generally have notably higher rates of divorce than blue states. Which would seem to go against the whole family values part of the Republican base. I don't know if it's the social conservatives that have high rates of divorce or other types of Republicans, but it skews pretty heavily to the south, which is pretty socially conservative.
-Ray
One tangent to this is that senators from blue states are less likely to tap your foot under a bathroom stall. Just sayin'
JG
Tobias
10-18-2007, 09:22 PM
I've seen statistics that red states generally have notably higher rates of divorce than blue states. Which would seem to go against the whole family values part of the Republican base. I don't know if it's the social conservatives that have high rates of divorce or other types of Republicans, but it skews pretty heavily to the south, which is pretty socially conservative.
-Ray
Who knows what the real truth is? Could be something simpler like social Liberals are not getting married in the first place. It's hard to divorce if you were never married. :rolleyes:
Tobias
10-18-2007, 09:32 PM
Also, I know that the older, richer, and better educated one is, the more likely he or she is to be conservative, but I think that's a pretty small slice of the base these days.
Like the second riches man in the US, Warren Buffett? Isn't he a Democrat? What about all the rich movie star types? Practically all are to the left of center. I don't see much of a pattern except for one.
The very poor are liberals because they want the government to take care of them. The very rich can afford to be liberals because they can afford to be generous with their taxes. The working middle class is probably more likely to go Republican -- but what do I know, I prefer the high middle ground?
jhcakilmer
10-18-2007, 09:57 PM
I would find it very hard to believe that democratic voters are wealthier as a group, since the greater half of minorities tend to lean left.
I love the current political arena, it's almost laughable. The right is tapping conservative Christians (who considers themselves a CC), and family values.....what democrats, or independents don't believe in God or like their Family. So basically they are manipulating those voters that don't do their homework, and basically vote straight ticket.
I really wish we had a better system for educating voters. I think our government would look very different.
Most of the time I split in the middle with certain issues going right, and some left, but really I'll just be happy to have a change in the executive branch!!
I really wish we had a better system for educating voters. I think our government would look very different.
Can you imagine what it would look like if voters had to pass a simple political and fiscal IQ test before voting?
Many Americans interviewed on the streets outside late night shows like Leno couldn’t pass the Naturalization test required of immigrants, yet many of these people vote. Many can’t name their governors, senators, or the VP of the US but are permitted (actually encouraged) to vote for policies they can't possibly understand.
JohnS
10-19-2007, 09:56 AM
Can you imagine what it would look like if voters had to pass a simple political and fiscal IQ test before voting?
.
States can't even get an ID requirement for voting, so something common sense like this doesn't stand a chance. :crap:
ss-jimbo
10-19-2007, 10:13 AM
From The Chronicle of Philanthropy:
In Who Really Cares: The Surprising Truth About Compassionate Conservatism (Basic Books), Arthur C. Brooks finds that religious conservatives are far more charitable than secular liberals, and that those who support the idea that government should redistribute income are among the least likely to dig into their own wallets to help others.
How much of that money goes to their churches? I think that should be left out as a church is tax-deductible, but not a charity in the true sense of the word. I'm not saying that there aren't charitable churches, but in most cases the money given to one's church is for the running of the church, not charitable work.
LegendRider
10-19-2007, 11:35 AM
How much of that money goes to their churches? I think that should be left out as a church is tax-deductible, but not a charity in the true sense of the word. I'm not saying that there aren't charitable churches, but in most cases the money given to one's church is for the running of the church, not charitable work.
From the author:
Some people might object to my conflation here of religious and nonreligious charity. One might argue, for example, that religious charity is more likely to take place for non-altruistic reasons than is nonreligious giving and volunteering: Religious people might give because of social pressure, for personal gain (such as stashing away rewards in Heaven), or to finance the services that they themselves consume, such as sacramental activities. Therefore, disparities in charity might disappear when we only consider explicitly nonreligious giving and volunteering. The sccbs data do not support this hypothesis, however: Religious people are more generous than secular people with nonreligious causes as well as with religious ones.
Louis
10-19-2007, 02:07 PM
Can you imagine what it would look like if voters had to pass a simple political and fiscal IQ test before voting?
Why stop there? Bring back the Jim Crow laws - that will accomplish what you are really trying to do...
Serotta_James
10-19-2007, 02:17 PM
Everyone have a good weekend and please let this one die.
James
Why stop there? Bring back the Jim Crow laws - that will accomplish what you are really trying to do...
:confused: Exactly what am I trying to do in your opinion? :confused:
And Louis, what does it have to do with Jim Crow laws? :crap: What's the connection?
As a Naturalized American, I made a simple comment referring to the fact that people like me are required to pass a simple civics test before we were given the right to vote.
Personally, I don’t see that as a bad thing; nor do I think that it would be a bad thing if every American had to pass a simple test on a regular basis – just like a driver’s license test.
Why should people with advance Alzheimer’s, metal illness, or severe drug abuse be allowed to vote when they are not allowed to drive? Isn’t our democracy more important than driving? And if a person doesn't care enough about voting to study for a test, then they probably shouldn't IMHO.
I cared enough to study, and hope others do too.
Richard
10-19-2007, 09:01 PM
With all due respect, you should, as someone who was required to take a test, know the difference between an inalienable right and a regulated activity like driving.
vBulletin® v3.8.7, Copyright ©2000-2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.