Ed Brayton is a journalist, commentator and speaker. He is the co-founder and president of 
My thanks to Michael Heath for finding a link to the speech Ronald Reagan gave to school kids around the country in 1986. I suggest putting your irony meters away before you read this. Unlike the bland pep talk Obama is giving, Reagan actually did exactly what the fantasists of the lunatic right have been claiming Obama was going to do, pushing specific policies and lauding how great his administration had been for the country.
As you know, my remarks are being broadcast live over radio and television to high school students throughout the country...We've been working to take an economy that was in bad shape and get it moving and growing again; take our national defense and make it first-rate again after a long period of decline; and to restore reason, respect, and reality to our foreign policy. And I think it's fair to say that we've made a good deal of progress.
Only 5 years ago our economy suffered from high inflation, high interest rates, mushrooming government spending, and steadily increasing unemployment. A lot of people couldn't find jobs, and people on fixed incomes were finding it harder to buy the basics, such as food and shelter. Well, we got inflation down, interest rates down, and our economy created over 1\1/2\ million new jobs just last year alone. The poor are now increasingly able to dig themselves out of poverty, and that's been good economic news.
The good news in defense is that our Armed Forces, which were suffering from neglect and low funding, have now made a comeback. Morale is up in the services, and the quality of our men and women in uniform has never been better -- and I mean never. As a matter of fact, we have the highest percentage of high school graduates in uniform today than we've ever had in the history of our nation, even back when we had the compulsory draft. In addition, our nation has encouraged a more realistic sense of defense needs.
In foreign affairs we've kept our friends close and the lines of communication with our adversaries open. We've tried to give the world the sense that the United States has a coherent and logical foreign policy that reflects our respect for freedom and our opposition to tyranny...
We have to remain economically competitive, and that means being aware of two things: first, what makes economies tick, and second, what works in other societies. We've been trying very hard in Washington to make America even more economically fit by really overhauling our entire tax structure. When we came into office, the top personal tax rate that the Federal Government could put on your income was 70 percent. Now, you can understand, I think, that if you were getting up in those brackets -- there were 14 different tax brackets, depending on the amount of money in each bracket you earned. And when you could look and say, ``If I earn another dollar, I only get to keep 30 cents out of it,'' you can imagine the lack of incentive there. Well, we lowered it to 50 percent, and the economy really took off. Now we're trying to lower it yet again so that families can keep more of their money and so the national economy will be lean and trim and fit for the future.
I want to see just one of these lunatics throwing a fit about Obama's speech admit that their hero Reagan did exactly what they've falsely accused Obama of doing. But I'm not holding my breath until it happens. They are as immune to intellectual honesty as it is possible to be.
Politics
Comments
General rule of thumb:
Whatever awful things the right wing accuses others of doing are things the right already has done.
Posted by: Don K | September 8, 2009 9:40 AM
Hat tip to madrocketscientist who left the original bread crumb in the form of a link at his comment @ 6 in Ed's yesterday evening post linking to the Obama student speech. The loaf was indeed delicious.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 8, 2009 9:56 AM
According to Media Matters, he also made a speech to middle school kids in 1988, "schooling" them on reaganomics and flawed conservative tax policy. http://mediamatters.org/blog/200909030020
Posted by: Michelle | September 8, 2009 11:54 AM
Your liberal distractions can't fool me!
Obama is so strong in the ways of the Force he's managed to mind control Bill O'Reilly!!!
It doesn't matter what he says out loud, his powers are strong. He's still forcing socialism on those children!
Ed: The problem with trying to force the nutjobs to admit that Reagan did what they feared Obama might do is they see nothing wrong with Reagan doing it. They view far right insanity as the gospel truth. No matter how batshit crazy the statement coming from the far right, it should be treated as if the person were merely pointing out that water is wet. The baseline is so conservative at this point that not acting like a crazy asshole is considered tacit approval of socialism and FEMA death camps. Or whatever the hell Glenn Beck is crying about this week.
Personally, I'd just like to see a couple of them come right out and admit they don't want their kids getting advice of any kind from a black man. We all know it's true, I just want to hear a couple of 'em admit it.
Posted by: JThompson | September 8, 2009 1:10 PM
How 'bout this: Dems investigated when Bush #1 did this.
http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/blogs/beltway-confidential/When-Bush-spoke-to-students-Democrats-investigated-held-hearings-57694347.html
Posted by: Dude | September 8, 2009 1:51 PM
Dude. Good find. And it demonstrates something we've seen here (Ed seems particularly good at pointing these out): the revarsal of 'scripts' when the other party is in power.
All it does is point out the hypocrisy on both sides of the political aisle in the US. If you think many of the readers here will be surprised, or come rushing to the defense of the dems, you're (mostly) wrong. What we will continue to point out, however, is that both parties are just as hypocritical as the other. Right now, it's mostly the R's turn. And to be fair the R's are a lot more hysterical than the D's. The D's have the most boring hearings, the R's have Orly Taitz and Glen Bek.
Posted by: FastLane | September 8, 2009 2:04 PM
The thing about Regan's speech - it was directed to high school kids not elementary and junior high. I'm okay with our President's doing PSA's to encourage kids to stay in school, work hard, set goals, find a mentor etc. I'm not okay with any of our President's using up 30-45 minutes of class time to their rhetoric (using language effectively to please or persuade).
As for the one comment from JThompson about getting advice from a blac man - it's time for people to grow up and quit throwing the race card everytime someone doesn't agree with your perspective. I (and many others) don't care if the President is pink with yellow dots, male or female. For people to suggest that just because we don't agree with the President's way of doing things is because of race is imature and totally out of touch with reality.
I do care if they try to change the structure of our nation to something that will match up with all the nations of the world. We are not the world, we were created on the foundation that our Republic would stand on different principals, values, and character.
Personally JThompson, I'd just like to see a couple of you come right out and admit that we have people in this current administration that want to see the entire structure of our country changed. My soulution to that is maybe the United States of America is not the country they should be living in. Quit trying to change our foundational principals and go live where your happy with the way the government controls everything.
Posted by: Pam | September 8, 2009 2:07 PM
Pam, could you be a little more specific about what "the entire structure of our country" means? I presume that changing it would, at the very least, involve a large number of Constitutional amendments, but I haven't seen any offered.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | September 8, 2009 2:13 PM
@Pam: Gee, defensive much?
Of course, you demand you not be referred to as a racist, then you trot out its slightly more socially acceptable cousin xenophobia for all to see. So I'm thinking my remark might've hit a bit too close to home.I did say "A couple of 'em" not "Everyone that disagrees with the president is a racist.". If you think absolutely no one hates the president just because he's black that doesn't make you a racist, it makes you an idiot.
Posted by: JThompson | September 8, 2009 3:01 PM
What you people weren't around during that recovery. Obama has already cost us 2.5 million jobs. Reagan gave us the greatest job growth in the world...Oh, that's "failed economics!?!" Get real.
Posted by: Ron Robinson | September 8, 2009 3:08 PM
Oh, Ron, take a second look. Reagan gave us a sharp recession, then moderate (but prolonged) growth fueled primarily by unsustainable deficit spending. Clinton, OTOH, paid down Reagan's debt while overseeing better growth. And most of our debt load right now is not a result of Obama's policies, but of Bush's ever-so-much-moreso Reaganomics.
Posted by: Scott Hanley | September 8, 2009 3:30 PM
Pam @ 7:
Nice global insult, be specific about exactly who is trying to do what that would have government controlling "everything" in a manner that divorces us from our foundational principles. Otherwise your rant comes across as cowardly, i.e., you want to hurl insults but possess neither the evidence or the intellect to make a coherent argument.
Pam @ 7:
In case you missed it, about 120 countries have joined the USA since the start of the 20th century in terms of creating some form of liberal democracy like our constitutional republic. And while we were and continue to be the standard-bearer on many elements of these forms of our government; some countries have figured out how to exceed our performance in certain areas. Your argument resonates like an old-style dying company seeing losing market share in one of its divisions and responding with, "I don't want to improve, I just wish things would go back the way they were".
I've got news for you, you either thrive, stagnate, or die. Nothing ever stays the same. Benchmarking best practices and being smart about about adopting new strategies in some modified form that would work in our unique context is what differentiates winners from losers. I prefer the U.S. be a winner. You are actually advocating our being losers for some ideal I would argue never existed except in the eyes of the ignorant and delusional.
And another thing, we were progressive in our approach right from the very beginning, in spite of hefty opposition (e.g., the anti-Federalists). The first administration under Alexander Hamilton's leadership and with political cover from President Washington came right out of the gates with two major initiatives - creating financial liquidity and a financial center with a federal banking system along with implementing policies to favor the development of a manufacturing industry in spite of the South's concerns about our losing our pastoral splendor and agri-centric economy. Our political liberty coupled to emerging case law in bankruptcy and limited rights for Corporations created capital liquidity that vaulted the U.S. into a global force with some competitive advantages relative to others in the industrial revolution.
One of the biggest opponents of this strategy, Thomas Jefferson, soon joined Washington's legacy during his own tenure as President by turning imperialist in working to more largely control the contintent, in spite of his acknowledgment his progressive policies in this area were most likely unconstitutional.
The pattern was that both Administrations had a keen understanding of our place in the world and our opportunities and weaknesses, and acted aggressively. We could use far more of that today than a whiny, blubbery, "but I don't want to change, boo hoo hoo."
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 8, 2009 3:31 PM
Oopsie! You linked from, and even excerpted Reagan's speech, which provides even the casual observer everything they need to conclude that your assertion is false.
The only question I have is, do you think your readers are too lazy to click through to the actual speech, or to even read the excerpts you include right in this article? Or are you counting on them not being able to comprehend that your characterization of the speech is inaccurate?
Posted by: Tony | September 8, 2009 3:32 PM
And, as expected from a right-wing nutjob, Ron Robinson has completely forgotten the entire Bush administration. In his mind, the years between Clinton and Obama, during which the recession started, never happened. There's just a big hole. The bailouts, authorized by Bush, magically become Obama's doing.
It's amazing, the godlike powers right-wingers ascribe to Obama, like his supposed absolute control of every aspect of the government before he even started his campaign.
Posted by: phantomreader42 | September 8, 2009 3:34 PM
Ron Robinson @ 10 - get a clue. Unemployment is a lagging indicator of economic activity. If you want to blame an Administration as if it alone is entirely responsible for job growth and losses (it isn't) , the Bush Administration has the worst jobs record in my lifetime and owns this recession and nearly all of this year's deficit rather than the Obama Administration.
And while Reagan inherited a horrible economy partly resulting from poor stewardship by Nixon, Carter, and Congress (but not Ford), his initial efforts to implement what has now been proven to be a failed economic policy, supply side economics, which caused the worst unemployment in my lifetime (about 2 years after his inauguration) when it soared to 10.8% in Nov. of 1982, stayed above 7.5% until Aug-84, and failed to achieve the natural rate of unemployment (4.4%), which didn't happen to until 1998.
But Reagan deserves kudos for adapting his policies (though never his rhetoric) after his initial failures by reverting to some fiscal discipline and providing political cover for Fed Chairman Volcker to ignore the conservatives in his own Administration and implement sound Monetarist principles.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 8, 2009 3:53 PM
Tony @ 13 - in order for me to join you in your delusional fantasy (which I hear is kinda like Oxycontin though I've never experienced either), please quote Ed precisely in where his statements do not match the Reagan speech. I find an exact correlation.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 8, 2009 3:58 PM
Reagan actually did exactly what the fantasists of the lunatic right have been claiming Obama was going to do, pushing specific policies and lauding how great his administration had been for the country.
Absolutely, Mr. Brayton. Especially in the last excerpted paragraph where Reagan explained his tax philosophy.
Too partisan; totally inappropriate.
But the Democrat criticism and congressional investigation about GHW Bush's address to the kids in 1991 can't be waved away with a tu quoque of Glenn Beck and especially Orly Taitz, neither of who are officeholders. It's a substantive rebuttal.
As for President Obama's speech, it seems nice and uncontroversial. It was the Dept of Education's talking points ["how can I help the president," etc.] that were inappropriate.
And according to a right-wing advocacy group, perhaps illegal.
A press release from Liberty Counsel stated that federal law expressly prohibits the Secretary of Education or any Administration officer from exercising "any direction, supervision, or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, administration, or personnel of any educational institution, school, or school system" (20 U.S.C. § 3403).
Posted by: tom van dyke | September 8, 2009 4:16 PM
TVD, that is wholly contingent on whether or not the Dept.Ed even did anything to compel teachers to use these plans (other than making them available, which any teacher knows is no coercion - you either use them, or you don't). I'm an English teacher at a small rural high school and the head of my "department" (simply by virtue of being the only full-time high school English faculty), and I didn't get a single thing from Dept.Ed about the speech, even with the ton of mail I get regularly. (I opted not to have my students watch it because of time constraints and short notice, although the class I had that hour did ask me to watch it.) So in light of positive evidence suggesting that Arne Duncan or anyone from that department did anything to direct, supervise, or control the curriculum of any school district, I call BS.
Posted by: Mr. B | September 8, 2009 4:44 PM
Once again, in the context of the lesson plan, "help the president" did not refer to what you think it did. It referred to the president's uncontroversial goals regarding students and their education. Apparently they figured people would be smart enough to read the entire thing, rather than just cherry pick a particular sentence that sounds bad out-of-context -- and when people did it anyway, they changed it to reflect their concerns and clarify the meaning.
No one is ever going to bother to take you seriously if you keep lying, time and time again, after its been explained to you.
Posted by: Sean Micheal | September 8, 2009 4:46 PM
To clarify, my previous post @19 was in response to tom van dyke @17. Also, Liberty Counsel? Seriously?
Posted by: Sean Michael | September 8, 2009 4:48 PM
Don't fall into the genetic fallacy, Sean Michael. And I also clearly labeled them as a right-wing advocacy group. It doesn't mean they're necessarily wrong.
Mr. B, this stuff from the Department of Education
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2009/09/obamas-back-to-school-message----scribbled-with-some-controversy.html
could be viewed as "direction."
The stronger point is that Democrat officeholders went after GHWBush in 1991, and Orly Taitz doesn't change that. And I already agreed with Ed that the Reagan thing was "totally inappropriate."
But Reagan's dead and Obama's president, so dredging up tu quoques from decades ago isn't gonna swing it. Or, mebbe it will. Depends on the audience.
Posted by: tom van dyke | September 8, 2009 5:04 PM
Tom Van Dyke wrote:
I think the response of the Democrats in 1991 was every bit as politically expedient and politically motivated as Bush's speech itself was (and Obama's was as well). But there is still one difference between the two reactions: no one then, so far as I know, and certainly no one with any real influence, tried to accuse him of "brainwashing" or compared him to Hitler, Mao or Stalin.
A press release I have already responded to. Matt Staver is an utter moron and his argument is breathtakingly stupid.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 8, 2009 5:24 PM
Talk about a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" scenario: The Dept. of Ed puts out some supplementary material that have poor wording and gets criticized for the language. They change the wording to be less objectionable and get accused of "directing" the curriculum, when everything involved in this speech has been optional the whole time. The speech isn't being required by any schools that I know of, and teachers are free to use the provided lesson plans, their own plans, or no plans at all (the kids could be expected to take the speech at face value and not reflect on it further as a class). The whole thing is absolutely asinine.
Posted by: Mr. B | September 8, 2009 5:24 PM
I think the response of the Democrats in 1991 was every bit as politically expedient and politically motivated as Bush's speech itself was (and Obama's was as well)
We agree again, Ed. The question becomes whether these criticisms are legitimate or should be discarded as absurd.
As for suspicion of the administration's "mind control," perhaps we'll hear more about the charge that the National Endowment for the Arts tried to enlist artists to further Obamaism. The charges are of the same fabric.
http://bighollywood.breitbart.com/pcourrielche/2009/08/31/contradictions-are-revealing-politicizing-the-nea/
Or perhaps we won't hear much more about it. The epistemological problem here is that the leftosphere or the mainstream media don't find a story "newsworthy," it doesn't exist, like Van Jones [who was he?]. But I do think he fit your threshold of a person with "real influence." In fact, he was in the administration, not just on cable TV.
A press release I have already responded to. Matt Staver is an utter moron and his argument is breathtakingly stupid.
Responded to, yes, with ridicule. Rebutted, no. But the Dept of Ed handout was not kosher: certainly none of your regular commenters would be quiet about a government "lesson plan" asking how a Bush or Reagan "inspired" them. Lordy.
Posted by: tom van dyke | September 8, 2009 5:47 PM
You guys just aren't listening to the Obama speech the right way. If you play it backwards at 78 RPM, it says "Use Drugs, Have an Abortion, Eat the Rich!"
I know it's true cause Glen Beck told me so, and Caribou Barbie winked at me when she said it.
Posted by: BaldApe | September 8, 2009 7:23 PM
Ed said:
I think H.W.'s speech was warranted given the reality of test results at that time. I think the Democrat's response in '91 is even more ludicrous than the talking heads and loons that have currently been providing us with some comedic relief, even worse in wasted time to Congressmen working to promote birfer bills given they actually wasted precious Committee hearing time.
I'd love to see some economists measure the economic opportunity costs of Congress holding hearings regarding Bush giving a speech to school kids or when the GOP was in power, holding hearings on the Clinton White House sending out Christmas Cards, rather than actually doing the hard work of focusing on the federal impact to the country's interests.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 8, 2009 7:32 PM
tom van dyke:
Do you just deliberately ignore what other people write when it doesn't fit with your preconceptions? The lesson plans were only included as a suggestion, and that the only potentially objectionable thing is not actually objectionable -- in context, it's perfectly obvious that it wasn't politically-motivated.
To continue to repeat this claim is the height of dishonesty -- you're discrediting yourself every time you post nonsense like this, mention that NEA bullshit, or approvingly repeat Liberty Counsel nonsense. You're demonstrating that you have no interest in debating those of us in the real world. You should hang out with JD and mrroberts in Right-Wing Fantasyland.
Posted by: Sean Michael | September 8, 2009 8:49 PM
Actually I agreed with a bit of what other people wrote, especially Michael and Ed about Reagan's speech. Some of them even agreed with me a bit, sub rosa-like. As for what you call bullshit and/or nonsense, or "perfectly obvious," thank you for your opinion. If and when you discover any facts to back them up, I'm all ears.
Posted by: tom van dyke | September 8, 2009 9:19 PM
Sean Michael @27, re: Van Dork:
Yes. The sooner you and other people realize that he may not be as smart as heddle, but is at least as devious and dishonest, the better off you will be. Intellectual honesty, or honesty of any sort, is not something that works in his favor.
Vacuous Duck:
STFU.
Posted by: democommie | September 9, 2009 7:33 AM
tom van dyke wrote:
Ridicule is the only response required or warranted. The notion that a speech by the president aimed at schoolkids, one that is entirely voluntary for schools to show and came with suggestions for teachers on how to use the speech in their classrooms violates a law against federal control of school curriculum is beyond stupid. Matt Staver is already infamous for inventing legal arguments that would provoke laughter (I mean that quite literally) on the part of a judge when presented in court. This is just another example. If he turned in a brief making that argument in any law school other than the one he runs, he would receive a failing grade. The fact that this dolt actually is dean of a law school tells you all you need to know about that law school.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | September 9, 2009 9:41 AM
Mr. Brayton,
I am a conservative and was still in school when Reagan addressed us and finishing up college when Bush 1 addressed the school kids. Frankly, I can't remember a single thing either one of them said. I do know that there were hot concerns from the democratic side when Bush 1 addressed the kids....and yes, I do see problems with the Reagan speech...it was too partisan in my opinion and sounded like he was promoting parts of his political agenda.
I stand by my stance that because approx. 15 yrs.ago prayer was taken out of school....politics should be as well. A democratic or repub. president should address the kids on primetime and not in school....that would be fair to everyone. Thank you for letting us all post our thoughts...
Posted by: Terri N. -- Tennessee | September 9, 2009 12:24 PM
This makes absolutely no sense.
Prayer was never removed from public schools. What was removed was prayer led or endorsed by the government or its agents, including teachers. Your children are still quite free to pray at school if they want to.
This was a necessary and just step to take because of a certain amendment to the U.S. constitution that effectively bars the government from expressing religious opinions or preferences. However, there is no constitutional ban on the government being involved in politics, which would be a strange concept indeed.
Now, you might find it inappropriate for a politician to deliver a blatantly partisan speech directly to schoolchildren, but neither Obama nor Bush Sr. did that (Reagan most certainly did). What's left to object to? The mere involvement of government in public education? That's inevitable, by definition.
So really, what are you going on about?
Posted by: DaveL | September 9, 2009 12:53 PM
Terri N.:
Prayer was not removed from the schools. Everybody but the government is able to pray. Students can even create prayer groups and pray, including using the resources of the school after- or before- school and in between classes. Prayer continues to be a popular activity in school. The only limitation on the student's right to pray is that it not disrupt school activities, which provides ample latitude for students to pray.
What has happened is the courts have finally defended each of our individual religious freedom rights from the government forcing us to participate in government-coerced prayer (teachers and administrators are the government). They've also defended our equal protection rights to not be treated as second class citizens by enforcing the Constitution's defense of our individual right by not allowing government prayer while some voluntarily ostracize themself from the government prayer, distinguishing those that government favors from those that they don't - as you advocate in your post. Via our Constitution, government has no numerated powers and in fact is explicitly prohibited from unequal protection of our rights.
Our founding framers in their wisdom also went so far in defending our religious freedom and other rights by delegating only numerated powers to the government, powers delegated not by some sects' definition of God, but instead power which is delegated by "We the People", which distinguished these framers across Western Civilization, i.e., the birth of secular Constitution and form of government that defends our religious freedom rights - individually, and not up to the temporal passions of the majority looking to ostracize and diminish 'the other'. That includes freethinkers like me who agree with the framers; the government has no delegated power to force me to participate in some form of government religion, even when the majority yearn for a theocratic state, nor are they able to treat me like a second class citizen.
Posted by: Michael Heath | September 9, 2009 1:07 PM
Responded to, yes, with ridicule. Rebutted, no.
Ridicule is the only response required or warranted. The notion that a speech by the president aimed at schoolkids, one that is entirely voluntary for schools to show and came with suggestions for teachers on how to use the speech in their classrooms violates a law against federal control of school curriculum is beyond stupid. Matt Staver is already infamous for...
Ridicule is not rebuttal, Mr. Brayton, I'm sorry I don't agree with your assumed authority to render summary judgments.
Matt Staver means nothing to me, and we would not want to succumb to genetic fallacies. Even if stopped clocks are only right twice a day, they are right on occasion and the argument must be judged on its merits, not its origins.
And per my previous, your readers would have been revolting in their outcry against the Dept of Ed asking students how they found a Reagan or Bush speech "inspiring." I doubt you find that assertion controversial.
Posted by: tom van dyke | September 10, 2009 12:06 AM
mr the dick:
if the ed department's recommendations for a speech by reagan or bush were MANDATORY in instructions to schools then yes, i believe uproar would be called for: perhaps not for the question, but for the requirement that schools implement the questions.
there was never any question of these being mandatory for obama's speech. whether you are too stupid to understand this, or are too dishonest to admit it, is up for question.
Posted by: dean | September 10, 2009 7:49 AM
I guess the difference is the use of pronouns. Reagan talked about "we" more that "I". I think it's more of a sign of the culture now, then in 1989. The classroom work suggested by the White House asked the kids, "What could they do to help President Obama?" That's were the concern comes another first person connection. If it had been worded as Kennedy did "Ask not what your country can do for you . . . ", I think teachers and parents would have welcomed the opportunity.
Posted by: amy | September 10, 2009 10:02 AM
#10 Ron Robinson:
You are misinformed if you think there was great job creation under Reagan. During Carter's last year in office, the unemployment rate was 7.1%. That was as high as it was under Carter when he came into office and no years were higher. During Reagan's first year the unemployment rate shot up to 7.6% and in his second year, following the tax cut, the rate climbed to 9.6%. It wasn't until Reagan's sixth year that the rate fell below the highest rate under Carter. It wasn't until Reagan's last year that the rate fell below Carter's lowest.
Average unemployment was higher under Reagan than Carter. I know this sounds hard to believe, since you've heard falsehoods repeated so many times, so here's the proof. The unemployment rates are in the second to last column.
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt
Posted by: creeksneakers2 | September 11, 2009 4:06 PM
He was one of the greatest presidents in the history of US and probably the most loved and respected by people in 20-th century. And that's not just my opinion.
Look what famous world leaders said about Ronald Reagan: http://www.tributespaid.com/quotes-on/ronald-reagan
Posted by: Dawood | November 22, 2009 7:15 AM
As a an american, a veteran, and one appreciative of those who before me gave their blood for our freedom I am concerned. I am concerned of the decline of family values and gowth of government power instead of "We the people". I am thankful for the teachings I received in 1st grade telling me of the hope our founding forfather's had in looking for a home in which they could be free. We learned about the true desires of the Pilgrams-freedom of religion, freedom of big government(King Henry). This instilled hope in me, "The American Spirit". Let's continue to let freedom ring!
Posted by: Eric | August 8, 2011 8:57 PM
Eric, why do post your bullshit comments on a nearly two-year old thread?
Be honest for a moment: Who pays for this crap? (I hope it's not too much.)
Posted by: Chris from Europe | August 8, 2011 9:21 PM
About what precisely? The fact that some of the morons who also spout your talking points are willing to run the economy off a cliff to gain political gain? That they are willing to hypocritically spend trillions on tax cuts and unnecessary wars and then, after building up massive debt, point to the other party and demand "responsibility."
Oh, silly me, I didn't realize you were going to ignore the real problems and create bullshit ones to wring your hands over. Carry on.
To enslave others and force them to work on the lands they stole from still others? Please, this faux patriotism really makes me ill. I can almost envision you playing "God Bless America" at top volume while writing this bullshit.
Except, of course, once they got a majority and declared all of those other religions false and exiled them if they didn't incarcerate them as heretics. You mean "that" freedom of religion? Also, there is the fact that they had virtually nothing to do with the government of the other 12 colonies and weren't in charge of the Massachusetts colony by the time of the Declaration of Independence. In other words they were a relatively minor group of hypocrites that had little to do with anything outside of the delusions of right-wing fucktards. If this is what your teacher taught you, they need to have their credentials revoked.
Henry? Which Henry? Henry VIII? You mean the guy who was dead more than 50 years before the "Pilgrims" were whining and bitching about religious freedom? Again, your teacher sucked.
This is just meaningless bullshit faux patriotic talking points based upon false assertions and shitty a-historical nonsense. I'd be embarrassed if one of my students seriously spouted this crap as anything but a joke.
Posted by: dogmeat | August 8, 2011 10:25 PM
I hold to the hope that are founding forefathers adhered to and were so moved as to place it on all the American curreny in "God we trust". When things get tough those who are wise know who is real and holds the times in His hands. Use all the adjetives you want, THIS IS A CHRISTIAN NATION UNDER GOD! And in God we still trust!
Posted by: Eric | August 8, 2011 11:00 PM
Eric, #42: I hold to the hope that are founding forefathers adhered to and were so moved as to place it on all the American curreny in "God we trust".
You're a Poe, right? Because you can't possibly not know that "are" [sic] Founding Fathers didn't put "in God we trust" on the currency.
Posted by: Chiroptera | August 8, 2011 11:14 PM
I hold to the hope that are founding forefathers adhered to and were so moved as to place it on all the American curreny in "God we trust". When things get tough those who are wise know who is real and holds the times in His hands. Use all the adjetives you want, THIS IS A CHRISTIAN NATION UNDER GOD! And in God we still trust!
Posted by: Eric | August 9, 2011 10:58 AM
Well, you can HOPE that the founding fathers were moved to place "In God We Trust" on all American currency.
But like many faiths, the reality disagrees with that interpretation.
Posted by: Wow | August 9, 2011 11:23 AM
Eric, you're repeating yourself. The founding fathers did not put "in god we trust" on the money; that was done about 80 years later.
Posted by: Ed Brayton | August 9, 2011 11:32 AM
Hey Eric - Matthew 6:24
Dingo
Posted by: DingoJack | August 9, 2011 11:44 AM
I declare that there is one God who created us all. I am not ashamed to announce that I believe in Jesus Christ. I know who I believe therefore speak. We are not just a piece of plasma that happned to evolve into suffisticated life form; no we were God breathed. We are created in His image. You have a spirit, who has a soul, which lives in a body. Unless you are born again Jesus said you will in no wise enter the kingdom of heaven. Read John chapter 3. Understand God loves us and has dealt with the sin problem. Will you believe. Recieve Jesus today!
Posted by: Eric | August 15, 2011 10:59 PM