+- CSNbbs (https://csnbbs.com)
+-- Forum: Active Boards (/forum-769.html)
+--- Forum: Lounge (/forum-564.html)
+---- Forum: The Kyra Memorial Spin Room (/forum-540.html)
+---- Thread: ronny reagan eviscerated by christopher hitchens (/thread-214254.html)
- gruehls - 07-11-2005 08:45 PM
anyone see this?
ronny reagan, the newest and greatest lightweight of the liberal movement disemboweled by hitchens?
i love that guy on terrorism, but i'd hate to ever debate him.
uh, hitchens that is. and "love" in a purely platonic way:
<a href='http://txfx.net/2005/07/11/hitchens-trounces-ron-reagan/' target='_blank'>Hitchens Trounces Ron Reagan</a>
- Rebel - 07-11-2005 10:14 PM
Ron Reagan is such a *****. (and I know that "P" word will be filtered)
- Ninerfan1 - 07-12-2005 08:29 AM
Everytime I see Ron Reagan I want to puke. He's the opposite of everything that his father was.
- Rebel - 07-12-2005 08:35 AM
Ninerfan1 Wrote:Everytime I see Ron Reagan I want to puke. He's the opposite of everything that his father was....or brother is.
<a href='http://www.reagan.com/' target='_blank'>Michael Reagan</a>
- JTiger - 07-12-2005 09:23 AM
RebelKev Wrote:Aren't they only half brothers?Ninerfan1 Wrote:Everytime I see Ron Reagan I want to puke. He's the opposite of everything that his father was....or brother is.
<a href='http://www.reagan.com/' target='_blank'>Michael Reagan</a>
- Rebel - 07-12-2005 09:33 AM
JTiger Wrote:...and? I don't think politics are hereditary.RebelKev Wrote:Aren't they only half brothers?Ninerfan1 Wrote:Everytime I see Ron Reagan I want to puke. He's the opposite of everything that his father was....or brother is.
<a href='http://www.reagan.com/' target='_blank'>Michael Reagan</a>
- GDawgs88 - 07-12-2005 02:20 PM
It's still hard to believe Michael was the adopted one. That sack of crap Ron is nothing like Ronald was, but Michael is the man.
- I45owl - 07-12-2005 11:20 PM
RebelKev Wrote:You may well be wrong on that. <a href='http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/21/science/21gene.html?ei=5090&en=dde7d8feedd2f87f&ex=1277006400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all' target='_blank'>This study</a> suggests otherwise. Dr. John Alford of Rice spoke at a lunch for the Rice Alumni Association last month and made a pretty interesting case.JTiger Wrote:<a href='http://www.reagan.com/' target='_blank'>Michael Reagan</a>...and? I don't think politics are hereditary.
Aren't they only half brothers?
- Rebel - 07-12-2005 11:26 PM
I45Owl Wrote:Yeah, but as GDawgs said, the "Right-leaning" brother was the adoptee. The natural-born is a leftist. Kinda shoots that theory down, doesn't it? My girlfriend is a Republican and her parents were Democrats. I am NOT a Republican, but my parents are staunch Republicans.RebelKev Wrote:You may well be wrong on that. <a href='http://www.nytimes.com/2005/06/21/science/21gene.html?ei=5090&en=dde7d8feedd2f87f&ex=1277006400&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss&pagewanted=all' target='_blank'>This study</a> suggests otherwise. Dr. John Alford of Rice spoke at a lunch for the Rice Alumni Association last month and made a pretty interesting case.JTiger Wrote:<a href='http://www.reagan.com/' target='_blank'>Michael Reagan</a>...and? I don't think politics are hereditary.
Aren't they only half brothers?
I also wonder if these "Dr's" aren't confusing influence, or in the worst case, coersion, with genetics. If that were the case, they don't deserve the term "Dr.".
Neal Boortz's brother is, in his words, a Communist. When crap like that is stated, it seriously insults the science of specialization. It is, no matter how you look at it, arrogance beyond belief. Next they will have a conference on what a soul looks like.
Also, you said, "You may well be wrong", yet they said, "Some". How is that an argument? Also, I must ask, are these guys M.D.'s or PhD's in Sociology?
- gruehls - 07-13-2005 07:43 AM
i'm pretty sure michael was adopted by ronald reagan and jane wyman and has no biological relation to ronny.
i would love to see michael slap the smirk right off ronny's face.
- Ninerfan1 - 07-13-2005 09:41 AM
gruehls Wrote:i'm pretty sure michael was adopted by ronald reagan and jane wyman and has no biological relation to ronny.Same here.
i would love to see michael slap the smirk right off ronny's face.
I still haven't figured out how he has any expertise or qualifications to be an "analyst". He did ballet and commentary for dog shows. The only reason they stick him on MSNBC is 1) their ratings suck so bad he cant' make them any worse and 2) that he's a lefty in his views but they think by putting him on the air that somehow he's speaking for his dad.
Can't stand the smarmy little punk.
- I45owl - 07-13-2005 12:43 PM
RebelKev Wrote:Yeah, but as GDawgs said, the "Right-leaning" brother was the adoptee. The natural-born is a leftist. Kinda shoots that theory down, doesn't it? My girlfriend is a Republican and her parents were Democrats. I am NOT a Republican, but my parents are staunch Republicans.The qualifiers are in there for a purpose. The argument is that some influence is genetic (as opposed to taught by parents, etc.). Political affiliation is largely influenced by the affiliation of the parents. That is independent of political leanings (i.e. the current time is perhaps an anomaly when political leanings are somewhat polarized along party lines, but this was not true 40-50 years ago). The measures of political leanings are fairly narrow - generally responses to one or two word questions: "School prayer", "Property tax", "moral majority", "capitalism", "Gay Rights", "Living Together", "Nuclear Power", "Censorship", "Socialism", "Pacifism", amongst others.
Also, you said, "You may well be wrong", yet they said, "Some". How is that an argument? Also, I must ask, are these guys M.D.'s or PhD's in Sociology?
I believe the authors are Phds in Political Science, but there may be some cross-discipline. I don't intend to defend the research, just wanted to post its relevance, which as you point out is null. But, it did fit in with RebelKev's statement, and the fact that this web site is loosely related to Universities.
- Ninerfan1 - 07-13-2005 12:57 PM
I45Owl Wrote:Political affiliation is largely influenced by the affiliation of the parents. That is independent of political leanings (i.e. the current time is perhaps an anomaly when political leanings are somewhat polarized along party lines, but this was not true 40-50 years ago).I don't know that this is true. Think about kids of the 60's. The radicals and anti-war ones are the democrats of today. The majority of the parents of these kids weren't liberal by any stretch.
My grandmother and grandfather were both conservative and republican, but my uncle is a die hard liberal.
I think parental influence play a role but I don't think any political ideology can be linked to genes. I've always felt that political ideology is simply a reflection of an overall moral belief system. I'm not republican because I'm for less government. I'm for less government because of my foundational moral principles, hence I'm republican.
- ShoreBuc - 07-13-2005 07:55 PM
Just think, Christopher Hitchens probably was working on his second bottle of Scotch and still had the faculties to smoke Lil Reagan in a debate :drink: :drink: If he was halfway sober it wouldnt even be close to fair to debate the white Urkel