"The gay movement is asking for recognition of an alternative lifestyle society cannot condone"

“My criticism is that isn't just asking for civil rights; it's asking for recognition and acceptance of an alternative lifestyle which I do not believe society can condone, nor can I.”

Ronald Reagan, uniting a "moral majority" country ready for a "different direction" against gays.

Is this why some people say he had a "successful" presidency?

I was wrong.

Still...hating Reagan works for me.

I never would have believed that I could detest a president more than Reagan, but * proved me wrong.

So there.

And most of them have found their (homophobic) man.

No one made an argument for Reagan's stand on the issues.

I know Obama didn't, but hey who cares about being accurate or truthful around here?

Why do it?

like Reagan did in '84 but do it with a progressive platform instead? Maybe giving some thought about how and why Reagan won two elections is a good way to figure out how Democrats can start winning elections too.

Putting our hands over our ears and screaming "Reagan Bad! Reagan Bad! Reagan Bad!" instead of having a discussion isn't going to help advance a progressive agenda.

Examining his ability in private or in academic discussion isn't any problem, but praising that ability to the public at large? Why do it? Are there no liberal or progressive examples? Why choose Reagan's ability for praise?

We are evaluating what Reagan did to win two presidencies by a wide margin, so maybe our side can take some lessons from how we did it so we can win a general president election for the first time since 1996.

And you can examine his electoral strategy without praising his success in public. There's no good reason for it.

You mean the guy who interred thousands of loyal Japanese citizens?

Did you just praise an evil man?

Even Lincoln shat all over the Constitution, no? I'd say FDR's a good sight better than Reagan. You? But then your base rhetorical simplicity comes as no surprise--why don't you say "Clinton did it!" for good measure? :rofl:

was as dispicable as Reagan's policies on AIDS victims.

"why don't you say "Clinton did it!" for good measure?"

You mean pointing out that Clinton does the same things as Obama does? In order to expose the hypocrisy of Obama detractors?

Why not indeed.

Absolutely laughable. Aren't you a bit ashamed of tying yourself in knots? Why don't you give yourself a rest for a while?

And FDR--better or worse than Reagan? Your answer? This should be good for another laugh.

:shrug:

Do you disagree? How many times can you dance away from the same point? I see you haven't yet had your fill of nonsense. :D

Have you no shame? Have you no sense of decency?

Which is why I'm mocking your illogical arguments.

Cause if you did, you'd know that saying "FDR is a more positive figure than Reagan" is nowhere close to saying "Internement of Japanese people was a positive thing".

*sigh*

We really should have basic logic courses in school.

A lot of people seem to have problems with the concept.

that does reassure me about your grasp of logic.

It's sad that your satire is so easily mistaken for actual argumentation... but the "arguments" on this board... well... I only wish more of them were satire.

I agree that it's bad when "actual argumentation" is so easily confused with bad jokes.

Because what Obama has done is take one aspect of Reagan's electoral success, his call for "change" and "hope," and separate it out from all the evil that was behind it. What was behind it? Excoriation of Carter, corrupt dealing, dirty tricks, etc. You can't look at Reagan's campaign without considering those factors--he didn't win solely due to his message of "hope" alone, in other words. You have to look at the whole.

Same goes with FDR. Internment was absolutely deplorable, yet FDR was not an absolutely deplorable president, as the whole is greater than one isolated part.

As far as Obama's comment being isolated unfairly, it was so vague and his history is so vague that definitively ascribing a context and motivation is a bit premature, unless you like and trust Obama a lot. I don't.

And I'm enjoying every minute of it. :D The way you've latched onto a single part of a politician's political history and pretend it may be examined in total isolation while ignoring its relation to the whole is exactly what Obama has done with Reagan. Happily I can condemn internment, yet still defend FDR as a positive example of change for the country. Would that you could be capable of such mental feats yourself.

:rofl:

"The way you've latched onto a single part of a politician's political history and pretend it may be examined in total isolation while ignoring its relation to the whole is exactly what Obama has done with Reagan."

No, it's exactly what Obama's detractors have been doing with Obama's comments on Reagan.

I refuse to do that with Edwards', Hillary's, Kucinich's, OR Obama's holding up Reagan as an example of ability. You, on the other hand, choose just one candidate's comments to defend.

Mercer?

who made such a dramatic shift and impact on the political climate of the country? Reagan. That's why.

-Hillary Clinton, on Ronald Reagan.

Those seem to be quite popular today.

in an essentially irrelevant argument?

But I consider those people irrelevant.

As what Obama said in that interview, sorry.