Arbor Update

Ann Arbor Area Community News

93 Years: President Reagan dies

5. June 2004 • Ari Paul
Email this article

Former President Ronald Reagan died today at his California home at the age of 93. Famous for many things, among the most notable were: illegally trading arms with the Iranian government, aiding terrorists in Central America, screwing aviation workers, bizarrely invading Grenada, and, of course, using Bruce Springsteen’s ‘Born in the U.S.A.’, ironically, for his rabidly anti-working class campaign. Today is sure to be a dark one for profiteers and war makers, but it may be a day of relief for working people and peace loving folk around the world.

While the death of any person is always sad, his death should not be exploited as an opportunity glorify his career and to skim over the very policies he created that left our country in shambles after 1988.

Ketchup is not a vegetable, and trees do not omit carbon dioxide.

  1. Ari,
    Your left wing diatribes are not fitting on such a sad day. You should honor a former President on the sad day of his death, instead of scarring his name with your shameful opinions. Ronald Reagan is a true American hero, but even if you do not believe this, which is understandable, you owe it to your country (one which I know you hate so much) to show him the proper respect. President Reagan deserves better than the poor excuse for a post you have given him.
       —Come on, Ari    Jun. 5 '04 - 08:42PM    #
  2. Ari,

    I can hardly see the death of a 93 year-old man suffering from Alzheimer’s being “a day of relief” for anyone. Was there some kind of grave danger from this man to you that has now been eradicated?? Many of your points regarding Reagan’s presidency are valid, but your cynicism is not appropriate. While politically and philosophically, I too stand in disagreement with Reagan in many aspects, I’m not prepared to stomp on his grave. Keep in mind that this is a man who honorably served his country, while in a way not adherent to your and mine ideals, still extremely faithful to his own. He certainly had faults, the extent of which might even be great, but he was an extremely popular president who easily carried 49 states in his re-election effort in 1984. To the vast majority on both sides of the political spectrum, this death will mean a day of great sadness rather than one of relief. You may question Reagan’s politics, but to throw cheap shots at a man’s name within a few hours of his death isn’t proper. If anyone is exploiting his death, it’s you.
       —Andrew Yahkind    Jun. 5 '04 - 10:07PM    #
  3. Ari and Rob’s sickening displays today have proven even further that liberalism is nothing more than a sickness and a perversion.
       —T.J.    Jun. 5 '04 - 10:12PM    #
  4. Avoiding partisan commentary: it will be interesting to see how Reagan is commented on/remembered for D-Day celebrations, the election campaign, etc. A lot of people will try to draw on his name in some fashion, I imagine…
       —David Boyle    Jun. 5 '04 - 10:19PM    #
  5. t.j.,
    to clarify, rob had nothing to do with the post, if you saw it eariler with his name, that was only because i screwed up and accidently used his tag, so the ‘sickening display’ was just me…

    taking the credit,
    ari p.
       —Ari P.    Jun. 5 '04 - 10:33PM    #
  6. My apologies to Rob then.
       —T.J.    Jun. 5 '04 - 11:01PM    #
  7. Well, I sure am happy!!

    Firing the air traffic controllers tops my list. I wonder how that felt, to do that to all those people. He was a “great man” – for sure, got lots of prime real estate to sell ya…
       —Mark    Jun. 6 '04 - 02:21AM    #
  8. Classy.

    Imagine this were your dad. Imagine a bunch of spoiled, classless, ignorant pricks were dancing on his grave within hours of his death.

    I realize that you are just saying it to get a rise out of people, because anyone who would celebrate the death of a great man, one of the most popular figures in American history, is sick and twisted.
       —T.J.    Jun. 6 '04 - 03:50AM    #
  9. Ronald Reagan, rotten
       —Mark    Jun. 6 '04 - 04:28AM    #
  10. Ari,

    You seem to share’s allure for distateful reflections. Paul Wellstone was a valiant warrior in death, sayeth the Left, who should be remembered in even the most partisan tones, without criticism; but Reagan, the pillar of conservative populism, the bane of government-enforced egalitarian populism, must be remembered like that? (sorry for the run-on sentence, it’s late and I’m tired)

    I’m not the biggest supporter of Reagan policies on the planet, but he was a good man who believed in the battles he fought, and was appealing to all people. He fought-and won!-a bloodless war against the most murderous government since (probably, not a world history buff) the Romans, and united Americans like no leaders since probably Lincoln. You site 2 snapshots of mistake (The Boss is fair game), and one federally-mandated decision he had no option but to take. How tasteless and vile of you; and you have the audacity to claim that the right is the more vitriolic.

    And lastly, Ari, how many times must I correct your fractured view on his firing of the ATCs? For the last time, with feeling: They signed an oath, binding to federal law, stating that they would not and could not strike, as national safety and economic security were dependent on their jobs. Also, he had binding arbitration according to at LEAST federal law (if not the Constitution…not quite sure), in federal labor matters.

    Have some taste, not to mention common sense,
       —Ruben    Jun. 6 '04 - 04:38AM    #
  11. Ari: Thank you for being brave enough to speak the truth. Those craven enough to believe Reagan was a great man ignore his war on working-class people around the world, his support for terrorists and anti-democratic forces in the Third World even while he spouted hypocritical polemics against communism, and his attempts to subvert democratic practices in this country. He is an embarassment to all who believe in the power of democracy and if the fact that he carried 49 states in 1984 is an indication of anything it is simply that the American voter is astonishingly favorable to jingoistic appeals. He may not have been a threat himself but the world is certainly less safe because of the policies he pursued and the hateful breed of politicians (see GWB) he spawned.
       —I.N.    Jun. 6 '04 - 02:26PM    #
  12. As opposed to the hateful breed of liberals that encompass not only the candidates but the “people” like you, Mark and Ari, who feel justified to attack a great man within hours of his death.

    Liberalism is a sickness. It’s depressing that there are scum like you on the face of this planet, but thankfully you have no power.
       —T.J.    Jun. 6 '04 - 03:19PM    #
  13. “It’s depressing that there are scum like you on the face of this planet, but thankfully you have no power.” el teejito

    i-we-are obviously powerful enough for you to be so upset to devote your entire existence to denouncing us…it may not a power over politics, but it is apparently a power over you…

    ari p.
       —Ari P.    Jun. 6 '04 - 03:38PM    #
  14. clarification for teej: my last comment was actually my girlfriend’s comment (who was reading over my shoulder) partial credit to her…

    behind a great man, is a great woman,
    ari p.
       —Ari P.    Jun. 6 '04 - 03:40PM    #
  15. Ari,
    It isn’t even that I don’t agree with your assessment of Reagan’s presidency, but was it really necessary to make a post like that? This sort of smart-ass, partisan, know-it-all bullshit that is what turns so many people off from “progressive” politics on campus and elsewhere.

       —Brandon    Jun. 6 '04 - 05:54PM    #
  16. I made a longer post that didn’t appear for whatever reason, but, basically, Ruben, TJ, and Brandon hit the nail right on the head.

    People like Ari turn so many people off to liberalism (because no one is good in their minds unless they belong to the same student groups)that we should just let them talk and ruin their own causes.

    You only make yourself look foolish and insensitive by posting this in response to Reagan’s death, Ari. Not that those things matter, of course, since you’re “right” about this and every thing else, but it’s a consideration you may want to keep in mind.
       —James Dickson    Jun. 6 '04 - 06:54PM    #
  17. Ari,

    You have no power over me or anywhere else in life for that matter.

    You judge people based on your own self-perception, so it’s telling that you consider posting on a website to be a “life’s devotion.” Is that really what you plan to do with your life? Is that what your life’s about, to insult anyone whose political affiliation is different than yours and to celebrate the deaths of people whose outlook differs from yours?

    Dickson is right, you are making an ass of yourself. If I remember correctly, Brandon has never been able to stand me and to align himself with my view, even in part, says a lot about how he feels about this issue. It would have been much easier for him to just keep quiet, but he chose to respond to let you know what an idiot you are making yourself out to be.

    You know how pro-AA people at UM still can’t stand BAMN? Do you know why? It’s because the WAY they convey their message turns people off to AA and effectively shoots the movement in the foot. You are doing the same thing.

    In other words, with your childish and ignorant comments, you are not drawing anybody toward your brand of idiot liberalism, you are pushing people away and making even your allies laugh at you.

    And you wonder why you were picked on in high school. You’re a shithead. That’s why.
       —T.J.    Jun. 6 '04 - 07:26PM    #
  18. “In other words, with your childish and ignorant comments” -teej

    “You’re a shithead.” -teej

    that is all,
    ari p.
       —Ari P.    Jun. 6 '04 - 08:44PM    #
  19. t.j. this is a commentary sight, not a slanging match, but if thats how you want to play this….

    “You have no power over me or anywhere else in life for that matter”

    -and yet your’re still angered enough by ari’s opinions to sit at your computer arguing with them, that is power to ari enough in it and of itself

    “You judge people based on your own self-perception”

    -i’d be interested to hear how you come to feel able to judge people on any other basis

    “Is that what your life’s about, to insult anyone whose political affiliation is different than yours ”

    -is what you do really that different, i believe you did just call ari a “shit head”, or was that merely friendly jesting…?

    “to celebrate the deaths of people whose outlook differs from yours?”

    -the post was not a celebration, as far as i can see this was merely a reaction to the manner in which the media immediately chose to gloify Regan’s less than glorious political career

    “the WAY they convey their message turns people off to AA and effectively shoots the movement in the foot. You are doing the same thing”

    -human nature suggests that anyone who presents an opinion contrary to one’s own, will have immense difficuly in changing the mindset of the second person, and is more likely to offend them… is this not the way in which most debates (perhaps somewhat tragically) proceed?

    t.j. you do not appear to be making intellectual arguments, rather, you pick upon someone with strong beliefs that are contrary to your own, and attempt, often failing, to make them appear idiotic in your own quest for attention….

    think before you type,

       —Lynn    Jun. 6 '04 - 09:05PM    #
  20. following the death of a public figure, it’s not necessarily in bad taste to write reflections on that person’s life and legacy that are less than hagiographic. ran two pieces on reagan that were largely critical of his presidency. if you haven’t read them, both are worthwhile:

    these pieces were tasteful because they were respectful in tone and because their criticism was even-handed.

    ari, your post was in poor taste not because it failed to “glorify” reagan, but because it was shrill, mean-spirited and unfair. a better writer could have expressed roughly the same point without resorting to this kind of Limbaugh-esque rhetoric.
       —donn    Jun. 6 '04 - 10:41PM    #
  21. Lynn,

    Wow, a liberal claiming that a conservative is not intelligent. That’s original.

    There’s no need for an intellectual debate with Ari, his comments had no intellectual value.

    I’m not going to respond to Steele with Steinbeck.
       —T.J.    Jun. 6 '04 - 11:29PM    #
  22. TJ,

    The more I deal with Ann Arbor liberals like the ones who conceived this blog and post on the main page, the more I realize how utterly useless it is to interact with them.

    Ari and the rest of the intolerant left aren’t even worth the time responding to. There are times when one make it clear that they aren’t even worth debating, and Ari’s post showed me a lot about him and precisely why his kind is a group my ears have been completely closed to for the last two years on campus.

    If those of the idiot left expect lockstep compliance from the rest of the world and continue to exhibit an inability to see people as they see themselves, it’s THEM who lose out, not us.

    I may not vote for John Kerry but I certainly know where he’s coming from, and our opponents refuse to extend that courtesy to Republicans.

    Let’s let them organize meaningless protests to their hearts’ content while we make changes that actually matter.
       —James Dickson    Jun. 7 '04 - 12:54AM    #
  23. t.j.

    hm, well, i suppose i can see why you would assume that i am left wing, but let me assure you, i am a moderate; i cannot chose to stand by one political viewpoint and disregard common sense….

    i find it strange that you would say that ari’s comments have no intellectual value, and that they are not worth arguing, when that is precisely what you are doing, and not very intellectually at that.
       —Lynn    Jun. 7 '04 - 01:02AM    #
  24. Lynn,

    Again, I am not going to respond to Steele with Steinbeck. I don’t understand what, exactly, about this concept that you don’t understand.

    As for being moderate so as not to stand by one political viewpoint out of common sense, well, it is common sense that leads me to be a conservative.
       —T.J.    Jun. 7 '04 - 02:19AM    #
  25. James,

    Notice how they always spend all their time talking about how bad the Conservatives are instead of talking about all the good their people do. Heh. I wonder why.

    When your candidate is Kerry, I guess you kind of HAVE TO talk about how bad the alternative is (which is seldom fruitful when the alternative is a man who has done so much good – Bush – they are forced to outright lie about him to have anything substantial to criticize)
       —T.J.    Jun. 7 '04 - 02:21AM    #
  26. t.j., about this:

    “Liberalism is a sickness. It’s depressing that there are scum like you on the face of this planet, but thankfully you have no power.”

    you do know what liberalism is, right?
       —donn    Jun. 7 '04 - 02:49AM    #
  27. Donn,

    I graduated from the University of Michigan. How could anyone graduate from UM and NOT know everything there is to know about liberalism? It’s forced down your throat every single day. There’s no way around it.
       —T.J.    Jun. 7 '04 - 08:03AM    #
  28. From The most popular president ever:

    “They can grieve. They can do the creepy Lenin thing, displaying the body at the Capitol for a few days.

    “But we’re not going to let them make shit up.”
       —Brian    Jun. 7 '04 - 09:06AM    #
  29. Ronald Reagan was good enough for 49 states, but not for Ari Paul.

    Nuff said.
       —James Dickson    Jun. 7 '04 - 10:11AM    #
  30. t.j.

    i would understand your concept perfectly, were it not for you so vehmently arguing that you are not going to grace ari’s comments with an argument…. see my point yet?

    as for common sense making you conservative; are you willing to say that all conservative viewpoints follow common sense, that no right-wing policy is ever a mistake?

    you are entitled to your political leanings as i am mine, but i learnt a long time ago that i could never be so arrogant as to declare myself a ‘liberal’, when they, and all other political orientations, have both their strengths and their weaknesses
       —Lynn    Jun. 7 '04 - 11:18AM    #
  31. Lynn,

    I didn’t say I wasn’t going to argue with Ari. I said that there was no need to combat his arguments with intellectual debate when his arguments lack any intellectual value whatsoever.

    No, I am not going to fall into your trap. I said that common sense made me a conservative, I am not saying that I believe in EVERY conservative policy.

    Conservatives, in general, stand up for what’s right. Some conservative policies are things I don’t agree with, but they are small prices to pay for the things I DO believe in.

    I do have one positive thing to say for liberals, though… When I came to UM, I was undecided on a lot of issues. But to hear the ignorant, immature and downright idiotic arguments from the campus left opened my eyes a bit and helped me realize what I believe in.
       —T.J.    Jun. 7 '04 - 04:38PM    #
  32. Well, looks like I’m late to the party.
    And what a party it is. Ari fires a polemic off about Reagan’s death (something that I think the “blogosphere” has over-reacted to, seeings as it made all the regular news as well). Was he wrong to do so? Not really.
    But wait, goes the great cry from the conservative conniption congregation, but wait! Reagan was a great man, they say, falling over themselves to fawn.
    But wait, the man deserves respect on the eve of his passing!
    But wait, the truth must not be discussed because it is impolite and troubling! And because we already spent so much on the flowers…
    Bullshit. Let’s look at this honestly.
    Reagan’s dead. That’s a fact. He was popular during his life. That’s a fact.
    So far, we’re all up to speed.
    His administration traded arms illegally with Iran, that’s a fact. And it doesn’t hurt anyone to remember it truthfully. His administration financed fascists and kleptocrats throughout Central America, using the boogieman of communism to support death squads. That’s a fact. He did, in fact, screw over aviation workers (whether or not it was legal, he did screw them). That Ruben wants to disagree is, well, routine. A fish must swim, the Rube must justify the actions of Republicans.
    Reagan did invade Grenada, for no more real reason than Thatcher went to the Falklands. Thankfully, both have had about the same impact on global relations. That’s a fact.
    And Reagan did use “Born in the USA” as his campaign song, without ever listening to the words. That’s a fact.
    So, from these statements of fact (aranged, obviously, on one side and with bias), we get the screaming protestations of conservatives so desperate for legitimacy that they must actually unzip the dead man’s fly and fellate a corpse.
    Sure, he was popular. He won 49 states against, who? Mondale? Yeah.
    Bay City Rollers were popular about then. They’ve been rightly consigned to the dustbin of history.
    Reagan beat the Soviets? Yeah, kinda. But it was more the Soviet authoritarianism that did them in.
    Reagan got us out of an inflation? Yeah, unless you count all the people who got screwed by his deficit spending and drastic slashes in social programs.
    The most notable acheivement of his career? He made Americans accept a telegenic and inept president as a matter of course, clearing the way for even more surface, even less substance.
    And of course TJ is going to call liberalism a sickness. That’s what he does. Why? Well, I’d like to believe that it’s because he realizes how funny it makes him sound, but it’s more likely stemming from the immesurable bitterness he seems to feel about everything in his life and the drastic entitlements he feels he was denied. I mean, read any other post from TJ about anything. None of them are any different, really, except that sometimes he pretends that dating someone studying to be an engineer makes him an expert on all things nuclear.
    And yes, I’ll get attacked for this. But will I care? No, not really. It’ll just be more self-serving illogic from Ruben, more ad hominem bitterness from TJ, and I’m assuming that the new guy (James?) will only parrot what he’s written above.
    Reagan wasn’t an evil man, I believe. But he did set the mark for snowing the American public, and for making jingoism the linga franca of both conservative discourse, and American politics in general. Hey, sorry he died and all, but I’ll want people to be honest when I kick. And I’m being honest now.
       —js    Jun. 8 '04 - 12:16PM    #
  33. (out of a deficit. See, I preview, but I don’t read it…)
       —js    Jun. 8 '04 - 12:17PM    #
  34. JS’s post is an example of everything that’s wrong with Ann Arbor liberalism.

    The idea that one’s own interpretation of events is a FACT is precisely what I’m trying to argue against. It’s just as easy to say that it’s a FACT that the ATCs, for example, screwed themselves by not heeding an agreement they themselves made as it is that Reagan screwed them, but when you view the world through left-tinted glasses, you don’t allow for alternate interpretations.

    This conversation is an example of why half of my liberal friends have asked me about writing for the Michigan Review or otherwise indicated that they’ve become more conservative since coming to Michigan. It’s natural that they would given the absolute arrogance with which some people here choose to make their arguments: they are right, you are wrong, and there’s no middle ground.

    It’s almost as if your goal isn’t to be convincing, but polarizing, as you force everyone who differs from you in either opinion or in degree to move to the other camp just to not be surrounded by people who think they are right about everything.

    So, yes, JS, I will now parrot and will continue to parrot what I’ve written above, and your inability to take my points head on indicates to me that you either don’t understand them or that they apply to you as well.

    I’d just like a debate on something where we all act civilly, but maybe this board is more the place where being shrill, offensive, rude, and ideological is more the order of the day.
       —James Dickson    Jun. 8 '04 - 12:37PM    #
  35. “it’s more likely stemming from the immesurable bitterness he seems to feel about everything in his life”

    This, coming from the most bitter, insecure, most mentally unstable person ever to grace the internet (one only has to read your blog or any of your articles to realize the truth here).

    As for “pretending” to be dating a nuclear engineer, that’s funny. Read my blog, click the link, do a search at the UM directory. If I am “pretending” to date her, I must be doing a damn good job and must have people in high places. I mean, UM students are allowed to have many e-mail lists, but only one Uniqname. So apparently you are accusing me of having some sort of deal with ITD, whereby they allowed me to have a second uniqname which allowed me to have a second UM-hosted webpage for her stuff.

    Wow, you aren’t even a little bit sane, are you?
       —T.J.    Jun. 8 '04 - 01:55PM    #
  36. TJ, you first. “Except that sometimes he pretends that dating someone studying to be an engineer makes him an expert on all things nuclear.”
    I did not say that you were pretending to date an engineer. Learn to read.
    James, you second. The only thing you can come up with is the air traffic controllers? And that my treating the FACT of Reagan’s support for the Contras and the FACT of his administration selling arms to Iran in exchange for hostages as FACTS somehow makes me biased and arrogant? Aside from that, well, we have ad hominem attacks on the left as “lockstep” and how “we” are undermining our own arguments, without a single line of proof to that effect (aside from, well, that we seem to all agree that ketchup is not and has never been a vegetable, or that trees, in fact, are not the primary source of pollution).
    I guess I’m just a little too amused at how you think being correct is somehow arrogant. Must be why you guys bought the humble WMD canard.
    Man, if you guys are the best the young right has to offer, suddenly I’m less scared for “my” left.
    And aw-aaaaay we go.
       —js    Jun. 8 '04 - 04:14PM    #
  37. JS,

    I love how you believe your points are all valid enough to respond to but blithely pass over the fact that Reagan won 49 states.

    I could spend all day arguing you, but there’s no point.

    Your posts make it clear to me that you’ve willignly and choosingly missed every point that us on “the right” have tried to make, and, on that note, I’m done wasting my time.

    No more responding to Steele with Steinbeck, as a wise man once said.
       —James Dickson    Jun. 8 '04 - 04:50PM    #
  38. No, I addressed that one with “Sure, he was popular. He won 49 states against, who? Mondale? Yeah.
    Bay City Rollers were popular about then. They’ve been rightly consigned to the dustbin of history.”
    You must have missed that when you were reading the words of the “wise man” above.
    I must have missed all of those points that you on the right were making because they weren’t based on anything more than a fanciful fairy dance on the far side of historical revision.
       —js    Jun. 8 '04 - 06:09PM    #
  39. what part of “blithely passed over” did you take to mean “completely ignored”? Blithely passed over means just that, sweetie.
       —James Dickson    Jun. 8 '04 - 10:56PM    #
  40. James,

    He’s a liberal and he went to EMU. I am going to go ahead and say “blithely” was the past he had trouble with. From now on, use smaller words. You have to remember to talk down to your audience when necessary to communicate effectively.
       —T.J.    Jun. 9 '04 - 01:16AM    #
  41. TJ- Funny words from someone who can’t be bothered to comprehend half the comments here. Tell me, again, how I think that you’re pretending to date your girlfriend.
    James- I like how you’ve managed to work yourself into a tizzy around some conception of Reagan’s popularity as measure of his legacy. I addressed the topic with the flippancy it requires. When you have something better than “But everyone else jumped off a cliff for Reagan” lemme know.
       —js    Jun. 9 '04 - 01:33PM    #
  42. JS,

    I must have missed that comment as I blithely passed over your comments.
       —T.J.    Jun. 9 '04 - 06:38PM    #
  43. Reagan’s average job approval rating was 53 percent over his presidency. That’s below average for a U.S. president. However strongly he may have won the election, he was still mediocre as a president. You may be confusing his job approval numbers with his personal assessment. People like his personality, but not necessarily his job performance.

    Needing a mascotly yours (hint Teej),
       —Eric Goldberg    Jun. 9 '04 - 07:41PM    #
  44. Agreed with TJ re: orthodoxy at UM. I’m more conservative than 95% of the Michigan Review, and even wrote a very unpopular article against gay marriage, yet Ruben still asks me every week if I’ll vote for GW because I support affirmative action.

    We really need to get rid of litmus tests, either that or make the labels themselves less important. The fact that, to some people you need to be liberal in every way they are liberal to be considered “real” (same with any other group, really) is something that’s unnecessarily polarizing and becomes a complete turnoff. But, of course, these people are “right” about everything, so who am I to argue?
       —James Dickson    Jun. 9 '04 - 11:54PM    #
  45. hey, man, t.j. thinks he’s ‘right’ about everything, too, you know…

    i don’t believe in absolute truth…that whole reading neitzche thing screwed up that whole paradigm for me long ago…

    cogito ergo sum,
    ari p.
       —Ari P.    Jun. 10 '04 - 12:05AM    #
  46. Ari,

    I suppose you’re right about that, and I suppose to some extent the things I say are true of all of us, and many times myself as well.

    However, because people do it does not make it right, and every time someone does act as if they possess the absolute truth or only plausible interpretation of something, it limits all of our ability to have an honest discussion about anything, which, I would imagine, is the purpose of a blog like this one.
       —James Dickson    Jun. 10 '04 - 10:46AM    #
  47. James,
    You hit the nail on the head. The purpose of blogs like this one is for a group of people who think they possess the absolute truth, people who think that everything they say is right (or, more accurately, “left”) to get together and bash people who disagree.

    Nobody seems interested in “honest discussion” and that couldn’t take place anyway with “people” like js and Ari around. JS and Ari are here to bait the right and sling personal insults, and they make sure that anyone on the right is drowned out by their noise. They just cannot stand to have someone disagree with them, and when they do, they are “stupid,” just like every conservative in history has been painted by every liberal.

    Then, they get to blame people like you and I for messing up their liberal utopia, as if I am the cause of it.

    It’s actually fascinating.
       —T.J.    Jun. 10 '04 - 12:05PM    #
  48. See, but Teej, the reason that you think I believe all conservatives to be idiots is because I believe you to be an idiot. That James addresses everything as if there’s a monolithic “left” doesn’t help his case for competent conservatism.
    But hell, I enjoy Safire and Will (though I often disagree), and I think Buffet is brilliant. And people like Snow and McCain are as admirable as politicians get.
    You have, and this should surprise no one, missed the point of this blog, TJ. It’s not for people with the “absolute truth.” That’s something that only right-wingers believe in anyway (thus the liberal sin of relativism). It’s for news and updates in the Ann Arbor area from a Progressive standpoint. I managed to figure that out, and hell, I’m not on the staff.
    As far as calling people “stupid,” you’d be surprised. In the PoliSci department, I am able to discuss politics with people from all sorts of perspectives. One of the classmates that I value most for his contribution to discussion is a right-leaning econ major. But that’s because he’s able to take a principle, back it up with fact, and extrapolate it into an argument. Stop whining just because your ten-gallon hat doesn’t fit on your five-gallon head, and understand that you being a moron has nothing to do with either any cogent conservative argument or my views on conservatism in general.
    When you can give me an insightful view into Burke and Locke, then I’ll listen to what you say. Until then, you’re just one more slope-browed goon with nothing to offer beyond undigested talking points.
    And what the hell? You’re not even in Ann Arbor. Can’t you troll Or the Freeper boards? They’ll like you there.
       —js    Jun. 10 '04 - 04:38PM    #
  49. “It’s not for people with the “absolute truth.” That’s something that only right-wingers believe in anyway”

    You have a gift for contradiction and hypocracy that would make John Kerry blush.

    I love it.

       —T.J.    Jun. 10 '04 - 05:14PM    #
  50. While I still refuse to address JS directly, I must give a big LOL to the quote TJ pointed out. It’s like people here don’t even read what they write.
       —James Dickson    Jun. 10 '04 - 05:37PM    #
  51. jd,
    eh, touche, but that would include el teejito…

    -ari p.
       —Ari P.    Jun. 10 '04 - 10:15PM    #
  52. TJ- You mean that you don’t believe in absolute truth?
    One of the hallmarks of the neo-conservative Straussian worldview is that there are certain inviolable axioms that include a belief in absolute good and absolute evil. Furthermore, the conservative movement is much more likely to both be driven by religious ideology and to incorporate religious themes into their speaking. On the other hand, one common complaint about liberals has long been that they are “relativists,” regarding differences as structurally based and cultural in origin.
    So, while it was a flippant comment that played more to generalities, it is true.
    I know you love to look for things to pick at instead of addressing pertinant points, but once again you’ve shown a general ignorance of political theory.
    Or, in other words, I am often both snarky and right. Get used to it.
       —js    Jun. 11 '04 - 12:56PM    #