The "holier-than-thou" party has spent an awful lot of time on their knees the past few years, but they haven't been doing a lot of praying.


//wide stance

Oh us liberals have cracked down on the other side of free speech as well. QQ's for everyone.

Both parties do that. The left comes up with rights that take away our right to free association (anti-discrimination laws), take away our property rights (no smoking in restaurants laws), etc.

No more than the liberals have twisted the "General Welfare" clause to mean everything under the sun.

/hates both parties.

So that's why it's so difficult to obtain pornography these days...It's Reagan's fault

/Ken Mondshein blows the lid off a national scandal. Ric Romero would be proud

/Obvious

This strategy would continue up until the World Wide Web made policing the public morality next to impossible. But that's a story for next month. n°

well THAT'S a ripoff...

What a liberal revisionist perspective of history. Judge the results of the action - not the action itself. It's simple, compare America in Regan's era to post Clinton America; there's a drastic difference in the attitudes, ethics, and productivity of the populace. Regan's efforts built an America on firm moral standings - an America that represented to the rest of the world exactly what a civilized society could accomplish. Clinton's 90s decimated that vision and degraded this country to the point it is at now. The results speak for themselves.... It's a scary thought to consider what the children of this era will grow up to (and what their children will turn into.) I'll take Regan's vision of America over this any day of the week.

But hey, who cares if we're destroying our country - we have the "rights" to do so, according to the left.

Conservatives . . . to crack down on free speech . . .

Are you crazy??? It's the freakin' liberals who are screaming "Fairness Doctrine!!!!" Stubby's on drugs.

Laws (rules) can only limit acts. Rights are rhetoric.

Nuup: What a liberal revisionist perspective of history. Judge the results of the action - not the action itself. It's simple, compare America in Regan's era to post Clinton America; there's a drastic difference in the attitudes, ethics, and productivity of the populace. Regan's efforts built an America on firm moral standings - an America that represented to the rest of the world exactly what a civilized society could accomplish. Clinton's 90s decimated that vision and degraded this country to the point it is at now. The results speak for themselves.... It's a scary thought to consider what the children of this era will grow up to (and what their children will turn into.) I'll take Regan's vision of America over this any day of the week.

But hey, who cares if we're destroying our country - we have the "rights" to do so, according to the left.

Reagan was moral? I call BS on that.

Nuup: I'll take Regan's vision of America over this any day of the week.

you can have it. His vision is about 6 feet below ground.


I'll get you a shovel.

tony41454: Conservatives . . . to crack down on free speech . . .

Are you crazy??? It's the freakin' liberals who are screaming "Fairness Doctrine!!!!" Stubby's on drugs.

It's not going to happen, stop being paranoid.

Nuup: I'll take Regan's vision of America over this any day of the week.

Just an FYI, it was Reagan's courting of the religious whackadoodles that was partially responsible for the US becoming a laughing stock during the Monica fiasco. If it weren't for them causing so much of a fuss about it that it became international news the rest of the world wouldn't have been made aware of just how comical you lot can be when one of your lead politicians gets involved in a sex "scandal".

Tripp Johnston Private Eye: I'll take Regan's vision of America over this any day of the week.

So you'll take lies; treason (Iran/contra); hypocrisy (public christianity vs. private consultations with psychics); bogus morality (divorces and 2nd marriages for conservative leaders vs. "family values" for everyone else); failed abstinence policies on drugs and sexual education (which allow their supporters to feel smugly moral while silently sacrificing kids -- "for the children", indeed); a massive transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest; and a historically unprecedented ballooning of the public debt that we'll be paying off for generations (was that "for the children" too?)...

...as your model of "a civilized society"?

Personally, I'll take the Clinton era's peace, prosperity, and budget surpluses.

But given that you can't even manage to spell "Reagan", I'm going to give you just 2/10.

Murkanen: Just an FYI, it was Reagan's courting of the religious whackadoodles that was partially responsible for the US becoming a laughing stock during the Monica fiasco. If it weren't for them causing so much of a fuss about it that it became international news the rest of the world wouldn't have been made aware of just how comical you lot can be when one of your lead politicians gets involved in a sex "scandal".

there you go what with your "liberal revisionist perspective of history" and what nots.

Tripp Johnston Private Eye: It's not going to happen, stop being paranoid.

Being paranoid is more fun than being informed. If it weren't, then all the idiots screaming that the FD is censorship wouldn't be making themselves look like ignorant jackasses.

Nuup: What a liberal revisionist perspective of history. Judge the results of the action - not the action itself. It's simple, compare America in Regan's era to post Clinton America; there's a drastic difference in the attitudes, ethics, and productivity of the populace. Regan's efforts built an America on firm moral standings - an America that represented to the rest of the world exactly what a civilized society could accomplish. Clinton's 90s decimated that vision and degraded this country to the point it is at now. The results speak for themselves.... It's a scary thought to consider what the children of this era will grow up to (and what their children will turn into.) I'll take Regan's vision of America over this any day of the week.

But hey, who cares if we're destroying our country - we have the "rights" to do so, according to the left.

Look, I think Reagan was a righteous dude and Clinton was an ineffective prick, but even I know you're full of nonsense. Reagan's economic policy was almost as shiatty as some of his foreign policy was brilliant. Clinton's economic policy almost managed to one-up it by being mostly nonexistent.

log_jammin: "liberal revisionist perspective of history"

Eh? What part of that was historical revisionism? The part about the world being made aware of just how batshiat crazy America can be due to the Lewinsky thing? If that's the case, it's true that the US had a reputation for being puritan about sex but it was the media circus surrounding Clinton's affair that solidified it.

/unless you're being sarcastic in which case you can ignore the response

Did you people not live in the same country, known as America, in the 1980s that I did? Where are you getting this stuff from (@czetie)

How anyone can say where we're at now when we abandoned Regan's policies is better than the years spent under his leadership beyond me.

Nuup: How anyone can say where we're at now when we abandoned Regan's policies is better than the years spent under his leadership beyond me.

Republicans spent the entirety of Clinton's and Bush the Lesser's terms trying to deify him. They ignore that the only good thing that can be directly attributed to Reagan was the result of him keeping a guy Carter appointed.

czetie: Tripp Johnston Private Eye: I'll take Regan's vision of America over this any day of the week.

So you'll take lies; treason (Iran/contra); hypocrisy (public christianity vs. private consultations with psychics); bogus morality (divorces and 2nd marriages for conservative leaders vs. "family values" for everyone else); failed abstinence policies on drugs and sexual education (which allow their supporters to feel smugly moral while silently sacrificing kids -- "for the children", indeed); a massive transfer of wealth from the poorest to the richest; and a historically unprecedented ballooning of the public debt that we'll be paying off for generations (was that "for the children" too?)...

...as your model of "a civilized society"?

Personally, I'll take the Clinton era's peace, prosperity, and budget surpluses.

But given that you can't even manage to spell "Reagan", I'm going to give you just 2/10.

You're quoting the wrong guy, buddy.

ITT: But...but...libs!

Murkanen: /unless you're being sarcastic in which case you can ignore the response

*Ignores response*

Nuup: we abandoned Regan's policies

deficit spending while screaming about welfare queens?

Nuup: Did you people not live in the same country, known as America, in the 1980s that I did? Where are you getting this stuff from (@czetie)

How anyone can say where we're at now when we abandoned Regan's policies is better than the years spent under his leadership beyond me.

1/10. Now you're not even trying.

Tripp Johnston Private Eye: You're quoting the wrong guy, buddy.

...for which I unreservedly apologize. I have no idea how, I was intending to mock the Nuup job.

I think Nuup's initial post began with a correct sentence ("liberal revisionist perspective of history"), but immediately turned to plain nonsense. I think Reagan and his vision made many conservatives feel good, but I totally reject the idea that Reagan set the tone, much less the morals, of the country.

While there really was a phenomenon in the early 80's which one could arguably call porn addiction, and for all I know there may still be, I think the person in the White House has no effect on how many people are afflicted with it.

Speaking as someone with liberal leanings, I nonetheless found TFA to shamelessly use all sorts of rhetorical tricks to play on liberal sympathies, without substantially challenging the Meese report. Pornographers consistently conflate Constitutional protection with National esteem, and it always comes out sounding like a whiny 5-year-old brat.

Nuup: I'll take Regan's vision of America over this any day of the week.

Regan's vision was too much like Goneril's. Cordelia's vision, although somewhat understated, was much better.

/And I still can't remember which one was responsible for the HUD scandal . . .

Nuup: What a liberal revisionist perspective of history. Judge the results of the action - not the action itself. It's simple, compare America in Regan's era to post Clinton America; there's a drastic difference in the attitudes, ethics, and productivity of the populace. Regan's efforts built an America on firm moral standings - an America that represented to the rest of the world exactly what a civilized society could accomplish. Clinton's 90s decimated that vision and degraded this country to the point it is at now. The results speak for themselves.... It's a scary thought to consider what the children of this era will grow up to (and what their children will turn into.) I'll take Regan's vision of America over this any day of the week.

But hey, who cares if we're destroying our country - we have the "rights" to do so, according to the left.

Yes! What's the point of rights if there's no country to grant and enforce them? You think freedom is free? You think rights are self-evident? Bullshiat, you're nothing without your country. Country first, people second.

I don't know how much Reagan's policies had to do with the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal, but to me as a parent that was just as bad as any pornography. I could monitor the TV and the internet fairly effectively, but to have them talking about blow jobs openly on the evening news was literally a sucker punch that you couldn't defend yourself from.

I really could have done without my six year old asking me "daddy, what's a blow job".

So Conservatives are against free speech now are they? Might want to shut the hell up about who is and who isn't for free speech so long as Liberals are establishing "Speech Codes" on college campuses across the country.

randomjsa: Might want to shut the hell up about who is and who isn't for free speech so long as Liberals are establishing "Speech Codes" on college campuses across the country.

Yeah, how dare they try to protect a person's right to get an education without being harassed by ignorant bigots.

HighOnCraic: Nuup: I'll take Regan's vision of America over this any day of the week.

Regan's vision was too much like Goneril's. Cordelia's vision, although somewhat understated, was much better.

/And I still can't remember which one was responsible for the HUD scandal . . .

Isn't Regan's vision was all about deals with the devil, and pea soup for all?

czetie: Tripp Johnston Private Eye: You're quoting the wrong guy, buddy.

...for which I unreservedly apologize. I have no idea how, I was intending to mock the Nuup job.

No problem, man. :)

God, with Reagan and Thatcher in power throughout most of the 80's, I can't even begin to imagine how terrifying it must have been for the entire planet.

/Thatcher was THE scariest politician I've ever seen.
/Watch a video of her on Youtube and you'll agree.

Tripp Johnston Private Eye: God, with Reagan and Thatcher in power throughout most of the 80's, I can't even begin to imagine how terrifying it must have been for the entire planet.

/Thatcher was THE scariest politician I've ever seen.
/Watch a video of her on Youtube and you'll agree.

Must correct myself: the scariest English speaking politician.

Tripp Johnston Private Eye: Thatcher was THE scariest politician I've ever seen.

I'll admit that she was ugly as sin, but was she really so bad that she frightened you with mere looks alone?

Murkanen: Tripp Johnston Private Eye: Thatcher was THE scariest politician I've ever seen.

I'll admit that she was ugly as sin, but was she really so bad that she frightened you with mere looks alone?

It wasn't her looks. It was her demeanor. That unswerving robotic confidence. I don't think I could look most world leaders in the eye face to face if I met them, but it makes me nervous even being around a picture or video of her.

/Was ugly though; I'll give you that.

Ok so honest question. Not trying to be snarky but what is so great about Reagan? I have been trying to figure it out. What did he do to deserve saint hood from conservatives. I mean before 1980 Reagan could not have been even remotely considered conservative. He is not even a Christan. He wasn't financially conservative. His spending record will show the opposite. He had Alzheimer's that was publicly admitted to be effecting him in 1984. So why now after his death is he still the patron saint of the religious conservative? Will the same thing happen to the Dub?

Reagan really cemented the GOP's "We are big business' biatch." philosophy.

Which frankly, I just never understood. I mean, you give a bunch of tax breaks and whatnot to big business and next thing they're opening up call centers in India and processor fabs in Germany or Taiwan.

They have no real home address, so the only loyalty they have is to their bottom line.

On the other hand, giving tax breaks to small start ups would immensely strengthen the economy overall, I think. Multiple strong local economies become very strong bricks in a very strong house.

nuup = crazy ass motherfarker.

ninjakirby: Oh us liberals have cracked down on the other side of free speech as well. QQ's for everyone.

fairness doctorines - 1st amendment
gun insurance - 2nd amendment
Bobby Rush's latest House bill - 2nd and 4th amendment

That's in 1 month that dems have put 3 amendments under the microscope, and yet Libs can still (and always) cry, piss and moan over Reagan, The Great Evil One!!!!!1

gimpmonkey: ninjakirby: Oh us liberals have cracked down on the other side of free speech as well. QQ's for everyone.

fairness doctorines - 1st amendment
gun insurance - 2nd amendment
Bobby Rush's latest House bill - 2nd and 4th amendment

That's in 1 month that dems have put 3 amendments under the microscope, and yet Libs can still (and always) cry, piss and moan over Reagan, The Great Evil One!!!!!1

Explain your love of Reagan please? Honest question.

rbabe1485: Ok so honest question. Not trying to be snarky but what is so great about Reagan? I have been trying to figure it out. What did he do to deserve saint hood from conservatives. I mean before 1980 Reagan could not have been even remotely considered conservative. He is not even a Christan. He wasn't financially conservative. His spending record will show the opposite. He had Alzheimer's that was publicly admitted to be effecting him in 1984. So why now after his death is he still the patron saint of the religious conservative? Will the same thing happen to the Dub?

Look who else they had to choose from:
GHW Bush, not worthy of sainthood.
Ford, tough to let someone you didn't elect be the hero.
Nixon, hell no.
Eisenhower, good guy except for railing against the military-industrial complex (aka the 21st century GOP base)

RminusQ: rbabe1485: Ok so honest question. Not trying to be snarky but what is so great about Reagan? I have been trying to figure it out. What did he do to deserve saint hood from conservatives. I mean before 1980 Reagan could not have been even remotely considered conservative. He is not even a Christan. He wasn't financially conservative. His spending record will show the opposite. He had Alzheimer's that was publicly admitted to be effecting him in 1984. So why now after his death is he still the patron saint of the religious conservative? Will the same thing happen to the Dub?

Look who else they had to choose from:
GHW Bush, not worthy of sainthood.
Ford, tough to let someone you didn't elect be the hero.
Nixon, hell no.
Eisenhower, good guy except for railing against the military-industrial complex (aka the 21st century GOP base)

Good point, so you are saying if I identified myself as a Religious conservative then my choices of heroes are understandably limited so it would likely be someone who was not religious or conservative. That would be fair. I mean I don't understand the draw but then again there are a lot of things I don't understand. Like why do people like salt in their foods so much?

RminusQ: Eisenhower, good guy except for railing against the military-industrial complex (aka the 21st century GOP base)

Plus, Ike was very unpopular in the Deep South (aka the 21st century GOP base).

There's one "right" that was created under the Bush administration that seems to be amplified after he's gone. The "right" to own a home. Now it's such a huge "right" that us renters are paying for it.

Just saying.

48 posts and no reference to Tipper Gore's nightmare of censorship? Fark's slipping

It's possibly because conservatives think about morality in ways that liberals don't.

inthrees: On the other hand, giving tax breaks to small start ups would immensely strengthen the economy overall, I think.

Would most likely result in churn, as companies proceed to re-incorporate as "new" companies to become "start-ups".