The play for 2016

keycocker · Joined: 10 Jul 2005 Posts: 3598

Uhh....
He did not mean you were religious.
He meant you hold those beliefs religiously. Mac is not always clear in his long posts, but I have a friend who uses religious with that meaning all the time.

An example would be to say the libs here are afraid of voter ID.
Then they tell you their real opinions which are entirely different and you tell them they are.....
Afraid of voter ID.
When you hold on to an idea long past any possibility of truth, you are believing it religiously.

nw30 · Posted: Fri Oct 24, 2014 8:01 pm Post subject:

Okay, then for both of you, and this is aside from me not being a religious person.
To even go down that religious road is a very, very, very bigoted thing to do. What's the point that you are trying to make?

There is a huge difference between 'religion' and 'plain old conviction'.
You guys have to broaden your brains.

boggsman1 · Joined: 24 Jun 2002 Posts: 9120 Location: at a computer

NW I don't think so. Why didn't Bush Senior benefit from the lower rates? The economy grew quite rapidly during the 80's....are you saying it slowed down for 6 years, then reignited from 1995-2000 because of Ronny? No, sir. We were in the middle of a massive technology explosion, and as Mac stated huge deregulation as well as Nafta and cap gains cuts in 1998.
I think Hill will be a good prez.... Much better than Obama...

swchandler · Joined: 08 Nov 1993 Posts: 10588

NW30, aren't you forgetting that George H.W. Bush rightfully had to raise taxes during his presidency. The fact that he did though, arguably cost him a second term.

Bush Sr. stands alone over the last 30+ years as a practical Republican that understood the need to raise taxes. I think it's fair to say that Bush Sr. had an important role to play in setting the stage for success during the Clinton years.

nw30 · Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2014 12:32 am Post subject:

I don't care about the Bush's, never did. Sorry.

MalibuGuru · Joined: 11 Nov 1993 Posts: 9300

boggsman1 · Joined: 24 Jun 2002 Posts: 9120 Location: at a computer

pueno · Joined: 03 Mar 2007 Posts: 2807

mac · Posted: Sat Oct 25, 2014 11:47 am Post subject:

NW--thank you for again demonstrating that the forum has an unlimited capacity to reward us with irony in unexpected places. There are things that you take on faith, without proof. The rightness of the right, suspicion of scientists, and the sainthood of Ronald Reagan. While your spiritual and religious journey and values are your own business, your upholding Ronnie as a proto-saint is absolutely food for parody.

The right continues to hold certain views of Reagan in a quasi-religious, or faith based way, where they ignore all contrary evidence. Did Ronald Reagan commit crimes in authorizing the sale of weapons and lying to Congress about it? Yes. Was Ronald Reagan seriously compromised mentally by the end of his term in office, such that Nancy and her astrologer were running the country? Yes. Was Ronnie a spy and fink against union members in the acting union? So go the stories. Was Ronald Reagan the chief author (while his wits were still about him) of the existing immigration laws? Yes. Was Ronnie far more moderate on taxes and the role of government than the current crop of righties? You betcha. Does the right wing understand these legacies of Ronnie? There is virtually no evidence of that.

If you want to make an argument about the role of tax policies under Ronnie and not have it made fun of, make an actual argument. Not a showing of faith. There is in fact a deep literature on this question. Try reading some of it and then making an argument. By the way, the same criticism of American communists has been made in their support for the Soviet Union. Trusting the Soviet Union during the 1930's and 1940's as a model for socialism, or anything else, required a triumph of faith over reason. It has been described--in serious literature--as a religion. But I guess you might have had to read more broadly to know that.

Halloween is indeed on its way.