Reagan biases?

Just wondering, did they include Regan telling Reagan to "Speed it up"?



Reagan was a weak-minded puppet of the corporate-power block. They preyed on his beliefs, manipulating him like a marionette to do their bidding. They convinced Reagan, and a gullible public, to provide financial aid to millionaires, at the cost of American workers, the poor, and ultimately the economy itself.

Thirty-some years later and they're still at it, entrenched in politics, as-it-were. Sooner or later someone's gonna need to napalm the suckers, if we want them out of politics.

(lights a cigarette)..eh, there are other ways to 'smoke' these suckers out...like tracing the money they 'make' through their contemptuous and illicit political maneuverings.

 

No need to feel sorry for the way I feel.

You've pretty much summed up my point and I hope you didn't take it too much as an attack on Reagan from me as it wasn't intended that way.

There are facts in life. We'll die for example.

However, when it comes to things such as politics and history a lot of it really comes down to reporting and interpretation.

Facts (if they are) get skewed by one's interpretation.

Now if we assume that anyone goes to school of any form to learn then they will be presented with "facts".

To me being exposed to three different views of "facts" was quite refreshing and certainly not the "facts" that were presented in high school.

But it's not up to you and that statement is scary honestly.

Reading to me was about forming my own opinions and still is. If one doesn't agree fine but you're bordering on eliminating freedom of speech because you don't like it.

I'm pretty sure that's not how it's supposed to work.

 

You need to read that again. I am doing nothing with " eliminating freedom of speech". My feelings or even likes (nor yours, for that matter) have nothing to do with anyone's freedom. However, I would do all I could to discourage anyone from attending any school practicing such lies. Reading slanted facts can easily be interpolated to come to proper conclusions because the basic are there. Giving me only false statements cannot lead to good conclusions.

 

Fair enough but it's all in one's interpretation isn't it?

You interpret it as lies therefore bad, therefore no one should be allowed to read it in a learning atmosphere.

You would fight this. You should be free to do so and last I checked you can.

Seriously though. Do you think for some reason there has NEVER been a "slanted fact" in ANY text book?

Wake up please. We read "slanted facts" every day.

They're based on interpretation.

 

Clembo, please read my comments again. I 100% differentiated between "slanted facts" and "lies".

 

I've got a better idea rlm.

Quote yourself and "share with the class".

Show me how you differentiate between what you are calling "slanted truth" and "lies".

THEN show me it's not your interpretation.

You can't.

 

OMG, who peed in your cornflakes? It is in simple English. You usually have intelligent comments. What happened to you?

 

Cheerios actually and I could say the same for you.

 

Aaaaaaand another dodge. Lame. Really Lame Moron RLM I get that now.

 

And more insults from the peanut (gallery?). Facts a problem again?

 

Mostly for those lacking them. Get your weak excuse for grey matter wrapped around the 21st century.

 

Really Lame Moron

 

2/21/2014

South Carolina College Sophomore Appalled to Have Her Idiot Beliefs Challenged in College:
Imagine the horror: Anna Chapman, a sophomore at the University of South Carolina who is a proud Republican, was sitting in her dorm, doing her homework for social work class, reading the textbook, Introduction to Social Work & Social Welfare: Critical Thinking Perspectives by Karen K. Kirst-Ashman. Think about poor, innocent Anna, filled with her ideas about how the world works, how noble conservatives are attempting to make this a great nation, how the sainted Ronald Reagan never did anything bad ever, and then she comes across this passage: "Reagan...ascribed to women ‘primarily domestic functions’ and failed to appoint many women to significant positions of power during his presidency."

The historical and political outrages mounted. The book said that Reagan "discounted the importance of racism and discrimination, and maintained that, if they tried, African-Americans, Hispanics and Native Americans could become just as successful as whites," and poverty and homelessness increased under his beneficent, guiding hand. And she also had to read that conservatives "‘tend to take a basically pessimistic view of human nature. People are conceived of as being, self-centered, lazy and incapable of true charity.'" By God, Kirst-Ashman was quoting sources that were very unkind to conservatives, who are generally noted as sympathetic bleeding-hearts on issues like social welfare.

Anna was angry. So angry that she contacted Campus Reform, the clearinghouse for angry conservative students who have to listen to commie-liberal-progressive professors spout their commie-liberal-progressive beliefs. Anna's anger at having a textbook in a class that she was taking tell her things that she did not absolutely agree with was so profound that it struck a chord in the conservative nutzoidosphere. One of Breitbart's portly, skeevy masturbators ejaculated all over Chapman's tale. The Blaze, Glenn Beck's Geyser of Shit, was spouting about it.

Finally, Chapman achieved right-wing nirvana. She was invited onto Fox "news" itself to talk with Megyn Kelly, the host so disdainfully blonde that she doesn't give a shit that her first name is misspelled, about the end of her innocence. Kelly wanted to know who is this professor who dared to assign reading that didn't adhere to strict national Reagan worship guidelines. She must be outed so we may Twitchy her with scorn.

Chapman said, "Well, it wasn't really about the professor. It was more about the textbook and the fact that we were required to read it." Yes, required. It wasn't an option to skip a section of the textbook like a creationist in a Louisiana biology classroom.

Still, Kelly pressed, "Does the professor stand behind this? Does she get up in class and say, 'Shhhh, they're bad and conservative'?" How evil is the professor.

So evil that Chapman had to contort her lack of action into something worth talking about: "She did not denounce this, which was something -- I was the only person to speak out about this, which is another thing that concerned me. I felt that if I wasn't in this class -- you know, would these kids really be buying it?" Anna Chapman was the last wall before the students fell into hedonistic spasms of damned leftism.

Another passage in the book said that the "wealthy find that having a social class of poor people is useful" because poor people do shit work and it makes rich people feel superior. For Chapman, this was an insult too far. She told Kelly, "And the part about demonizing wealthy people, it was something that really, really got my gears grinding, because it literally made no sense to say that wealthy people like having a class of poor people, so they can look down upon them? I mean, literally makes no logical sense."

And right there you see why perhaps Anna Chapman, college sophomore, should open her goddamned puny mind and entertain the idea that the beliefs that have been shoveled into it by Fox "news" might be deserving of questioning. It really makes no literal or logical sense to you that wealthy people like cheap labor? Maybe you should take an economics class.

Dear, dear Anna, if you are going to college just to get a degree to do a job, you may as well take online classes and get your diploma emailed to you. But part of college is exposure to ideas that you may have never considered. The Rude Pundit was a conservative until about midway through his freshman year of college when a political science teacher assigned us Locke and Rousseau. He could have very easily gotten in a huff and said, "How dare you tell me that inequality of wealth is a problem for humanity?" Instead, he listened, he debated, he changed. He didn't think his shit smelled like petunias and got angry if anyone told him differently.

And that was when the Great God Reagan was president, and, listen, no, really, put down the strawberry daiquiri and listen: Reagan was an asshole. He supported and signed into law actual things that harmed women, still harm them to this day. He may have appointed conservative women to positions, he may have nominated the first female Supreme Court Justice, but he hurt everyday women. Badly.

Here's some advice from Dr. Rude Pundit: Go to class. Argue with your professors and your fellow students. But listen to them, too. Consider it a privilege to hear differing viewpoints. If you graduate from the University of South Carolina believing the same troglodyte nonsense you do now, well, at least you can say you come by your bullshit beliefs honestly.
// posted by Rude One @ 12:00 PMShareThis

 

Reagan (and NATO) almost brought us to nuclear War, in 1983:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Able_Archer_83

Reagan (and NATO) basically "poked" at the USSR, escalating tensions to a point not seen since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

Reagan bias? Yeah, I have a certain bias about Reagan.

 

Reagan was a dull-witted puppet like Bush. They are tools worshipped by the Right. They spew empty platitudes and their equally dull-witted base eats it up. Their only emotion is anger towards the rest of us that aren't as gullible as they are. And angry they are. Vacillating between idiocy and anger pretty much defines their political prowess.

 

If a truth is altered in any way then it can no longer be the truth and that folks is the truth of the matter unless of course someone wishes to put a slant on it then in another reality that might then be the truth of the matter

 

You are absolutely wrong. The best example I can give was the lame street media's headlines several years ago. "Exxon's profits increased 300%" "Mobile's profits triple" Those are completely true and 100% accurate. The problem with them was the oil company profits were previously at record lows (like <2%) and they only increased to significantly below average for an normal company. Yet because of those stories, the oil companies were blamed by most for the high price of oil/gasoline.
BTW, Most of these "slants" come from omissions rather than true lies (or misstatements).

 

Sorry but did the profits increase or not by the given amount? if so regardless of what those profits were at the last 1/4 or whenever has no bearing on the validity of the statement. If on the other hand someone had then gone on to say that the profits rose by shall we say 275% or 350% when they had not that would be slanting the truth Ie a lie.
What you might class as a norm for a company is simply your take on it. The norm up to that point as far as profits went was determined by the market forces and not by what someone might have wished them to be. There fore my statement is correct.

 

You can handle the truth!

...

What was it, again?