Preach the word, Ron Jr.!

[Ivan the Terrible]

The article seems decent enough as an editorial of Bush's tenure.  The problem I see is that it suffers the same barriers in use of language and assumptions as the right-wing radio guys.  It's message appeals to the believers, ticks off the non-believers, and bores the rest of the folks who say, "I don't want to read something that long."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

True enough. 'Preaching to the choir' and all that....but this was a beautiful sermon.

[Nartwak]

Then don't reply to the thread. Problem solved.

 

No. It's strangle myself with my intestines. Problem solved.

 

So far, the worst of my sins in this thread has consisted of being a bit sarcastic, but you act like I just peed in your Cheerios. RELAX.

 

The sound of people getting off to their favorite rhetoric is making me crazy angry. Expect civil unrest around November.

Edited August 6, 2004 by Nartwak

[Ivan the Terrible]

Then don't reply to the thread. Problem solved.

 

No. It's strangle myself with my intestines. Problem solved

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

It's an election year with a very controversial President. Frankly, if you're politically apathetic, you have two choices: learn to tune all this stuff out or lock yourself up in a cave until after November.

[Nartwak]

The cave! WHERE IS IT. :angry:

[Ivan the Terrible]

The sound of people getting off to their favorite rhetoric is making me crazy angry. Expect civil unrest around November.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Ironically, I just put myself on hiatus from another message board because all the political arguing was getting to me. The inevitable result of each and every argument is each side walking away convinced they won and more pissed off then ever.

 

And yet I posted this. Why?

 

Passion. I've never in my life been more passionately certain that something needs to be done. Sitting ideally by on the sidelines is thus like passively watching as the Captain drives the ship into the iceberg; I just can't do it, even if my arguments convince no one who isn't already convinced and any articles I post are 'preaching to the choir.' Practically just looking at Bush's face, with that smug **** grin, sets my blood to boiling nowadays.

['JN]

The article seems decent enough as an editorial of Bush's tenure.  The problem I see is that it suffers the same barriers in use of language and assumptions as the right-wing radio guys.  It's message appeals to the believers, ticks off the non-believers, and bores the rest of the folks who say, "I don't want to read something that long."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was wondering where you were.

[Cantousent]

If this article were written by Joe Nobody, would you have posted it here? How about the thousands upon thousands of similar articles written over the past four years? What about the thousands upon thousands of similar articles written in the four years preceding Bush's presidency?

 

This article has received press because of the author. That's not an attack on Ron Reagan. He has every right to express his opinion. He does so forcefully and sometimes eloquently.

 

Still, he is just another example of someone whose voice is derived entirely by circumstances.

 

One thing I will say, Ron Reagan has a good understanding of policy. Agree or disagree, he makes an argument based on the situation at hand. Like most folks who follow policy, he has strong convictions. ...just like George Bush. ...just like John Kerry.

 

I think much of the article is valid. I think much of it is personal bias. It is clear that some of it argues against itself. Still, I don't begrudge the former president's son the opportunity to express his convictions. All too often, folks don't take that opportunity.

 

We could have an entirely new thread about actors and their particular brand of advocacy.

[Ivan the Terrible]

If this article were written by Joe Nobody, would you have posted it here?  How about the thousands upon thousands of similar articles written over the past four years?  What about the thousands upon thousands of similar articles written in the four years preceding Bush's presidency?

 

Yes, I would have. I've posted plenty of political articles on other message boards I frequent, not because of their author, but because I agree with their message and like to see my esteemed political opponents try and deal with their points.

 

I agree with the sentiment that Ron Reagan Jr. wouldn't have so much attention if it weren't for his daddy, to an extent. But if that's important to the world at large, it means nothing to me.

['JN]

Yes, I would have. I've posted plenty of political articles on other message boards I frequent, not because of their author, but because I agree with their message and like to see my esteemed political opponents try and deal with their points.

 

That didn't work very well this time did it?

 

You wouldn't have posted the article if it wasn't written by Ronald Reagan's son, because you wouldn't have known about it. The only reason it was in that magazine to begin with was the author.

[DB Cooper]

The article seems decent enough as an editorial of Bush's tenure.  The problem I see is that it suffers the same barriers in use of language and assumptions as the right-wing radio guys.  It's message appeals to the believers, ticks off the non-believers, and bores the rest of the folks who say, "I don't want to read something that long."

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I was wondering where you were.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I am in San Francisco.

['JN]

We could have an entirely new thread about actors and their particular brand of advocacy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You could just quote one and have him speak for everyone.

 

"Americans are like wild dogs, obedient to anyone who feeds them and hostile towards everyone else. Now excuse me while I go kiss some ass at a book signing, have a thousand-dollar meal and liposuction all the fat out before today's Leno taping".

[Ivan the Terrible]

You wouldn't have posted the article if it wasn't written by Ronald Reagan's son, because you wouldn't have known about it. The only reason it was in that magazine to begin with was the author.

 

Again, we aren't talking about some random celebrity suddenly getting it in their heads that they want to write a political article and only getting it printed because of their name, only to fade back into obscurity. Ron Jr. has been a Liberal political activist for years and years.

 

Would we know about his political activism if it weren't for his father? Beats me. He certainly writes well enough that I think he makes a good editorial columnist, no matter who his dad is. As such, we're dealing with pointless historical revisionism; given his eloquence, it isn't 100% clear that he's only being listened to because of daddy, so why waste time even thinking about it?

['JN]

Again, we aren't talking about some random celebrity suddenly getting it in their heads that they want to write a political article and only getting it printed because of their name, only to fade back into obscurity. Ron Jr. has been a Liberal political activist for years and years.

 

Would we know about his political activism if it weren't for his father? Beats me. He certainly writes well enough that I think he makes a good editorial columnist, no matter who his dad is. As such, we're dealing with pointless historical revisionism; given his eloquence, it isn't 100% clear that he's only being listened to because of daddy, so why waste time even thinking about it?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You are missing the point. So what if he speaks well? That's only surprising because he's a celebrity (or something like that). Wrong is still wrong, and when it's been wrong for a very long time, it certainly isn't interesting. Why waste time thinking about it? Good question.

['JN]

I am in San Francisco.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Of all places to land, right? Anyway, good job, I love your work.

[Ivan the Terrible]

Wrong is still wrong, and when it's been wrong for a very long time, it certainly isn't interesting. Why waste time thinking about it? Good question.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

So, in other words, you disagree with him, don't want to deal with it point by point, so save yourself some time and write him off as a snotty celebrity know-it-all. Am I reading you correctly?

[DB Cooper]

I am in San Francisco.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Of all places to land, right? Anyway, good job, I love your work.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Somebody has to hold the fort

['JN]

So, in other words, you disagree with him, don't want to deal with it point by point, so save yourself some time and write him off as a snotty celebrity know-it-all. Am I reading you correctly?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Haha. Yeah, let's deal with a bunch of regurgitated points for the umpteenth time when the author isn't even around to defend himself.

 

If he is just one of the guys, you go send him an e-mail or something and get him to come here and say his piece. Until he does, you can blow that article out your ass.

[Ivan the Terrible]

Haha. Yeah, let's deal with a bunch of regurgitated points for the umpteenth time when the author isn't even around to defend himself.

 

If he is just one of the guys, you go send him an e-mail or something and get him to come here and say his piece. Until he does, you can blow that article out your ass.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I'll take that as a 'yes.'

 

(And I think all know who really owes everything to being Daddy's little boy.)

[DB Cooper]

Ivan, in regards to the topic, that is a bit of a low-blow, isn't it? If brother Mike had written a summary of the Bush, Jr. years would you take the same stance?

['JN]

Ivan, in regards to the topic, that is a bit of a low-blow, isn't it?  If brother Mike had written a summary of the Bush, Jr. years would you take the same stance?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That would sound better wouldn't it? Preach the word, brother Mike! The topic has to be flexible too, because we all know that it has NOTHING to do with the author...

[Ivan the Terrible]

Ivan, in regards to the topic, that is a bit of a low-blow, isn't it?  If brother Mike had written a summary of the Bush, Jr. years would you take the same stance?

 

Actually, I agree I should've named the topic something else....but I was feeling the rush the article gave me, so a bit of enthusiasm didn't seem out of order.

[taks]

Still, I don't begrudge the former president's son the opportunity to express his convictions.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

nor do i begrudge him the right to do so... however, the reason i mentioned this in the first place is simply that the ONLY reason anyone takes him seriously is because he is the son of a president. liberals like to parade ron jr. about saying "see, look, your great president's son doesn't think this way." kind of a conundrum they put themselves in actually. in order to lend credibility to ron jr., they have to ride on the coattails of sr. in the first place...

 

and sorry whitemithrandir, clever wit as a comeback serves only a purpose of laughter. not really any argument. admittedly funny as it was ivan

 

oh, and btw, i doubt he would have been quite the political activist had it not been for his father's political career in the first place.

 

taks

[Phosphor]

It's a good article, but as was pointed out he's preaching to the choir with it. It's far too long an article for most people to pore through, and certainly no Bush supporter is going to read all, let alone say "You know, he's right" and change his support.

I think his being the son of Regan does carry some weight, but only in the sense that any president or presidential candidate likes to haul out their kids. It's kind of interesting to see the kid contradict the parent in that regard.

[tripleRRR]

Well it sounds good enough until he starts ranting at every group that supports Bush, good grief everybody complains about gay marriage and abortion while the US economy keeps going downhill.

 

 

TripleRRR

[Errantry]

It's a good article, but as was pointed out he's preaching to the choir with it. It's far too long an article for most people to pore through, and certainly no Bush supporter is going to read all, let alone say "You know, he's right" and change his support.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

However, the problem with this point is that not all people are drastically left or right-wing. (Granted, plenty are.) If he could persuade one person that was fairly neutral, wouldn't it be enough to make the article worth it, at least for that one person? Then that one person could side with his opinion during a political argument, and possibly persuade -another- person. In perspective, it's better to persuade someone who's beliefs are not strong, because they have nothing to fall back to.