How can you say "We need a commander and chief not a law professor!" and get applause? So what? The laws in this country aren't valuable but someone who makes bold idiotic decisions is? Wait, it all makes sense now!

p.s. Regan put us in a worse recession than Bush did, not something to celebrate.

>> ^Farhad2000
Talk about hyperbole.


OK, hyperbole is the act of taking a statement and exaggerating it to a ridiculous degree. Stuff like: "I'm so hungry I could eat a horse." Or, ""Saskatchewan is so flat, you can see your dog run away for 3 days!" Or, "I could time your hundred-yard-dash with a sundial."

Hyperbole has been defined as, "deliberate exaggeration of a person, thing, quality, event to emphasize a point external to the object of exaggeration; intentional exaggeration for rhetorical effect."

Brian Regan speaks well of the epitome of hyperbole and I believe it is worth seeking out.

Also, for those who wish to be in the know:

http://www.videojug.com/webvideo/how-to-pronounce-hyperbole-in-english

Thank you.

In reply to this comment by brycewi19:
Fixed that dead vid you found. Could only find a blocked one. Check it out perhaps?

http://www.videosift.com/video/Brian-Regan-Butterfly-Pavilion

Fixed that dead vid you found. Could only find a blocked one. Check it out perhaps?

http://www.videosift.com/video/Brian-Regan-Butterfly-Pavilion

Why is the US the only country in the western world were the health care industry is a private industry?

Oh thats right, ever since Regan, Money is God in the good old US of A. Comprehensive health care reform that is more beneficial to the people rather than the corporations is unlikely as long as they are able to 'donate' millions of dollars for the votes and we are limited to a few thousand per person.

Money runs this country and it's pathetic and will continue to get worse until we can get corporations out of our politics.

The commentator's attitude seems to be one of disdain for even having to discuss this.

Obama should just be thankful it wasn't on par with what Reagan let slip.

bcglorf-
Just a quick responce. I may have been wrong about dates, but I contend that Bush and Cheynee were heading the CIA (I believe) in the early to late 70's, and did have a big hand in supporting both the mujahideen and Saddam through back channels, quietly. Regan supported him and his organization openly, at the time. Carter may have as well, I was too young to understand at the time.
As I understand it, Alkaida began as the V.A. for the mujahideen before morphing into a fighting force, with Osama as the leader. We supported it and him at the time. Agreed, he was not our only man in the region, but he was our guy, once.
While Saddam was monsterous, there's little room for debate there, his level of monstrocity was miniscule compared to what was happening in Africa. he gassed perhaps, at most, 10s of thousands, African warlords hacked millions to death, and raped for the same reasons, but in exponentially larger numbers. If we are to use "level of evil" as a reason to attack a foreign nation, we should do it in order, based on levels of evil, not because he tried to kill someone's daddy.
Perhaps you misunderstood what I mean about foreign policy . What I mean is, the most important factor we should consider when making forign policy is what effect that policy will have, both for them and us. Many things have to be taken into account to make a reasoned decision/estimation as to what these effects will/may be.
I also appreciate your reasoned discourse. The name calling, insulting, knee jerk reactions that have become the norm are not helpful or informative.

newtboy: Thanks for the well thought out response. It's a welcome change to many kneejerk cliche responses others are fond of.


Osama was, if not the leader, at least an important, vocal member of the mujahideen. We supported him when the enemy was our enemy

He was simply a leader among many leaders within the mujahideen. After the Soviets were defeated dozens of different leaders amongst the mujahideen all started fighting with each other for control of the country. So it is just as accurate to describe our support for the mujahideen as support for Osama's enemies. My point is simply that in reality support for the mujahideen was support for the whole which was bad enough. Describing that as support for a specific individual within the mujahideen is not accurate and is in fact very misleading.


True, I left Carter's name out, because (besides Regan) I was mentioning the people who, in the 60's-70's, helped put Saddam and Osama into power.

I think you have your dates a little confused. The 60's-70's predates everybody you mentioned, including Reagan. Saddam didn't even take power in Iraq until 79 and Osama wasn't fighting in Afghanistan until the late 70's. The Soviet Afghanistan war didn't even start until 79. All once again predating Reagan and everyone else mentioned. Anyways, it's all more of an aside issue other than to make clear that Carter was the one around for the beginning of much of the mess.


Agreed, by the time he invaded Kuwait, there was no denying he was dangerous and no longer acting in our interests, but I propose his nature was evident far before he started killing our allies. That was just when we opened our eyes to his monstrosity.

I don't strongly disagree with this, there is a certain amount of fog/unclarity about who knew what and when. But I haven't any problem with condemning aid to Saddam any point after it was known he used chemical weapons in the Iran-Iraq war, which clearly America did not stop after witnessing. It wasn't until he used them on Halabja and it couldn't be blamed on Iran that America cooled towards Saddam, which in my eyes was also much too late.


I do agree that supporting our ally, Kuwait, was proper.

That much I'm very glad to hear.


I certainly disagree that, if we are going to be the ones removing monsters from power, that he should have been our first target.

I couldn't agree more, and for the longest time opposed the second gulf war on nearly that basis alone. Upon listening to more accounts, particularly of the plight of the Kurds, I started to see it a little differently. Saddam may not be my first choice for monsters that need removal, but I must admit that he IS on the list. If he is on my list of monsters for removal, then I support his removal, even if America is only choosing him because it coincides with their self-interest.


Far more monstrous than he were the many dictators in Africa committing genocide, and the Jihadists that had attacked us, yet we ignored them for the most part in favor of (...tried to kill my daddy...) Saddam.

I thought that too, but I've since learnt more about Saddam's rule and discovered that he may not have been the most monstrous dictators in the world, but he was in the very top of the class. In his campaign to exterminate the Kurds he setup concentration camps for them. All Kurdish men in these camps were executed and buried in mass graves. The children and elderly were so mistreated and abused that many died, virtually no children under the age of 5 survived the camps. The women were systematically raped. Not for the guards amusement or to humiliate the women, but to literally breed the Kurdish people out of existence. Oh, and the prisoners in these camps and rape rooms were not limited to the Kurdish people, but anyone even suspected of opposing or questioning Saddam's rule. Saddam was unimaginably more than just a very bad man.


I do not call Saddam an American puppet, but he was our main man in the region for quite some time because he was our enemy's enemy (Iran). As long as he was keeping Iran at bay, we ignored what he did to his own people for the most part.

Agreed, and I'll happily agree to condemn that as well.


American foreign policy is the most important factor to consider when we are talking about American foreign policy in the region.

I agree more with the rest of your paragraph than this start. American foreign policy is not the most important factor, but just one of many vitally important factors.

I again thank you for your reply and can't agree more with your overall assessment of how complicated the issues are and the importance of discussing them beyond the extreme left and right camps that so many seek comfort in.

bcglorf- I contend that continuing a policy makes it yours, and Osama was, if not the leader, at least an important, vocal member of the mujahideen. We supported him when the enemy was our enemy, and supported (and trained him and his) in the tactics they use today against us. (OK, not in the use of suicide bombers, but the battlefield tactics they still successfully use).
True, I left Carter's name out, because (besides Regan) I was mentioning the people who, in the 60's-70's, helped put Saddam and Osama into power. It just so happens that 2 of these people became VP, and one President. That does not excuse Carters failings, or Clinton's, but they (like Regan) did not create the problem, they just failed at solving it. I should have left Bush2 out too I suppose, he didn't create the problme, he just failed miserably at solving it.
As I recall (and I'm not a historian) many of Saddam's actions you call monstrous happened before Bush SR was president, and while he still had the support of the US (publicly or privately). Agreed, by the time he invaded Kuwait, there was no denying he was dangerous and no longer acting in our interests, but I propose his nature was evident far before he started killing our allies. That was just when we opened our eyes to his monstrosity. I do agree that supporting our ally, Kuwait, was proper. I disagree that removing him from power was a prudent thing to do, and I certainly disagree that, if we are going to be the ones removing monsters from power, that he should have been our first target. Far more monstrous than he were the many dictators in Africa committing genocide, and the Jihadists that had attacked us, yet we ignored them for the most part in favor of (...tried to kill my daddy...) Saddam.
I do not call Saddam an American puppet, but he was our main man in the region for quite some time because he was our enemy's enemy (Iran). As long as he was keeping Iran at bay, we ignored what he did to his own people for the most part.
This is not, as many wish to claim, a black or white issue. This is an issue that goes to the heart of what is wrong with America today. Dissolving multifaceted, complex problems down to a simplistic "one extreme or the other extreme" argument is not only not helpful in the least as far as solving the problems, it creates the new problem of dividing us into two, diametrically opposed factions that can not solve a problem with compromise or reason, but only come up with rhetoric, attack, and insult.
The puppet we put in power (or gave the tools to take and keep power at least) in the middle east that killed and raped in our name was Osama, not Saddam. He was killing and raping the soviets and their allies at the time, so we were happy with it. Our foreign policy created Osama's organization, and propped up Saddam for quite some time. If we ignore these facts, we are doomed to repeat them at our peril.
American foreign policy is the most important factor to consider when we are talking about American foreign policy in the region. There are certainly other factors in play in the region, which should not be ignored, but when considering our policies, we need to consider them fully, not precurserorly. Ignoring the faults of our allies is perilous, just as ignoring our own faults is. You don't have to be a blame America Firster to see that our actions aren't perfect, as Blame America Neverists wish you to believe.

So now we know who George Jr's REAL mother is!

Come to think of it he does look a bit like Regan, they share that vacant stare, you know the one you see in the low achievers in the special Ed class.

Here's a simpler cycle, when the American consumer has a larger wallet (or at least a perceived one). They spend and stimulate the economy.

When Banks horde capital to stave off fallout and Automakers with failed business models get free money they sit on it.

Solution: Give me back even 10% of the 50% the government takes from me and I'll find a place in the economy to put it in.

Regan already proved this when faced with a financial fallout, had the audacity to CUT TAXES and use the TAXPAYER to stimulate the economy. Imagine that cutting taxes working instead of increasing them.

The "activist judges" argument is so much more fundamentally problematic than just prop8.

The rhetoric of "democracy", as envisioned by Regan has taken over. Most of the citizens of the US believe that the majority rules. We have a constitutional republic of constitutional democracies (for the most part), and these forms of government are based on having courts and laws which limit the authority of both the elected and the electors.

It in my view that the GOP in its "tare down the state" rampage has undermined the cultural understanding of how our government was designed to work. The whole fear campaign of the poor voting themselves the money of the rich is absurd in consideration of the real mechanisms of balance in play. For the GOP to gain traction they had to undermine the public knowledge of our governmental system, because their arguments did not stand informed scrutiny.

I agree a little bit with lessig about public understanding, but I think the courts have a part to play as a teaching tool. I think that the anti-8 lawyers should go to the court, demand that prop-8 be enacted, and that it's necessary consequence, the banning of all marriage licenses issued by the state of California, should be forced into place. Then let everybody in CA feel the pain of having their rights revoked, and reflect on the consequences of trying to revoke rights through (poorly worded) constitutional amendment.

Then the prop-8 folks can say "we told you so" and then propose an amendment to lift prop-8, thereby re-legalizing all two-party marriage in CA.

He just said Regan was his hero! WTF? Not Michael Jordan?

He invoked Regan! OMG OMG! Say Pre-Condition for my Bingo!

Funny how Republicans like Bush get labeled as bullshit artist of do what i say not what i do hypocrisy when even Regan "the God of Conservationism" was full of shit. Not saying he was wrong in what he was saying, its just he didnt practice it. If anything he did the opposite. I consider myself a conservative but my god the republicans suck so much and they buy into their own bullshit so hardcore there is no getting through to them. Is it TV that does it? If you say it on TV that gives you complete immunity to lying your ass off? I just dont get it. Practice what you preach people.