What's new
By:

Ronald Reagan; Savior or Scum

Harambe

Harambe

Well-Known Member
Contributor
So I'm a pretty big Reagan hater.

Reaganomics is the biggest sham of the 20th century, and doomed our nation to the s***house we're in now.

The free market correcting itself is only a way for those at the top not to have to do anything to even the playing field for anyone else.

Here's a picture of a pin I'm soon to own

reaganpin.jpg


Let that sink in for a minute







Great, now that you feel like I just spat on your grandfather's grave after violating your grandmother, read this:

What do you do when you no longer need your slaves

The title is a little different than the end message is. It paints a picture that I've not quite seen so far. I feel like Yes, in times of excess labor/laborers, it should be the government's responsibility to provide jobs for the people, but only jobs that bring something back to the country(reforesting, better/safer road repair/maintenance, upkeep on government run tourist attractions). It makes perfect sense to me, as it's just short term, and we don't pay out the nose for it-- only enough to get people by until they can get back into their own field of expertise.

But then Reagan came along and was like "F this, lets jail the clearly inferior class of people that can't survive a depression with a job".

Ok, that's unfair even for me to say, and I have no evidence to prove this was his line of thinking. As much as I don't like Reagan, I don't believe he was downright evil enough(nor smart enough) to think what he was doing through to the end of once a criminal always a criminal, so instead of helping them lets make money off of them.

But this is not about me. This is about you.

Do you think there are people out there that live their lives capitalizing like this? Writing laws to put people in prison, so more prisons can exist, so the government will shell out more money to house them, so the wardens can pay the inmates dirt cheap and pocket the extra?
 
There are people in this world that have all different lines of thinking. Some might seem absolutely insane to us.

Reagan is neither my Savior nor is he scum.
 
I don't think laying the result of centuries of of policy at the feet of Reagan is fair. Jail is the new Jim Crow, but we had Jim Crow before Reagan was born.
 
If you want an end to ****ty presidents. End the presidency.

Many of our founding fathers were against it. I say down with our temporary kings.
 
If the answer is so obvious, and the democrats had complete control for two years, why was nothing done?

Either your wrong, or your party is pathetic.
 
green said:
If the answer is so obvious, and the democrats had complete control for two years, why was nothing done?

Either your wrong, or your party is pathetic.
Click to expand...

*You're.

Now, where was an answer given? In the article, I only saw that part of the problem was identified.

Or did you do exactly what I imagined everyone was going to do and respond before actually reviewing the article instead of my personal stance on Reagan?

To be fair and address your question, the Democrats did do something when they had all the Power; Obamacare. And look what happened. Instead of moving forward and trying to make it work(which it can, will, and is slowly proving itself to in California and New York), the GOP insists on trying to repeal it and failing 40 times. The part of "doing something" where healthcare is concerned, may end up wasting more taxpayer dollars than trying to pass it bipartisanly in the first place.

No imagine if the Democrats, who as you say had all the power, did more than that?
 
ElRoach0 said:
*You're.

Now, where was an answer given? In the article, I only saw that part of the problem was identified.

Or did you do exactly what I imagined everyone was going to do and respond before actually reviewing the article instead of my personal stance on Reagan?

To be fair and address your question, the Democrats did do something when they had all the Power; Obamacare. And look what happened. Instead of moving forward and trying to make it work(which it can, will, and is slowly proving itself to in California and New York), the GOP insists on trying to repeal it and failing 40 times. The part of "doing something" where healthcare is concerned, may end up wasting more taxpayer dollars than trying to pass it bipartisanly in the first place.

No imagine if the Democrats, who as you say had all the power, did more than that?
Click to expand...

First of all, your grammar sucks.

Second of all, if Obamacare is so great, why does Obama keep pushing the dates that parts of it begins past the next election?
 
Once thrown inside a for-profit prison, an inmate needs food, housing, healthcare and other services. This means huge profits for capitalists. They’re raking in tens of thousands of dollars per prisoner per year – hundreds of percent more than Roosevelt paid to simply put them back to work.
Click to expand...

Once thrown onto social security, an inmate needs food, housing, healthcare and other services. This means huge profits for capitalists at the expense of the working middle class and poor.



According to the Prison Policy Initiative, the minimum wage for a prisoner who works in the UNICOR program, the federal government’s prison industries program, is 23 cents an hour. The maximum UNICOR wage is $1.15 an hour.
Click to expand...

Yeah, because the cost of incarceration isn't included into the equation. This could have been a good article if it didn't jump to outlandish b.s. like implying incarceration is a way to get cheap labor, rather than having cheap labor help to pay for incarceration costs.
 
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size];638288 said:
How does this post contribute anything?
Click to expand...

Shows my opinion that the idealization and demonizing of Reagan by both sides is drama at its finest. Why does he have to be on or the other?

Also this is getting into a discussion I have no interest, or ability, to rationally discuss. So I bowed out till you quoted me.
 
Stoked said:
Shows my opinion that the idealization and demonizing of Reagan by both sides is drama at its finest. Why does he have to be on or the other?

Also this is getting into a discussion I have no interest, or ability, to rationally discuss. So I bowed out till you quoted me.
Click to expand...

Thanks for leaving a "fair and balanced" deuce before the inevitable bow-out
 
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size];638298 said:
Thanks for leaving a "fair and balanced" deuce before the inevitable bow-out
Click to expand...

So I should spew a bunch of crap, as you have and like to do? Especially after willingly admitting that I am uninformed on the subject?


Please feel free to continue contributing with your demonizing of Reagan. I need to pass the time and your posts work as well as anyone elses.
 
franklin said:
Once thrown onto social security, an inmate needs food, housing, healthcare and other services. This means huge profits for capitalists at the expense of the working middle class and poor.
Click to expand...
Incorrect. Poor people can not spend nearly as much on the outside as the government will spend to incarcerate them, and the profit margins are probably much higher on the government incarceration spending.
 
[size/HUGE] fixed [/size];638300 said:
I'm all for the Reagan Hate. But can we please have some Clinton Hate for dessert?
Click to expand...

No. My top five favorite presidents in order:

Obama
Karl Rove
Reagan
Clinton



Sr. might have made the list but he was too damn boring. We need to manufacture something to love-hate about him.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Share this page
Back
Top