The problem with this movie is that it portrays Reagan as a hero and Obama is a bad guy. The answer is, the situation is just the opposite. Obama is a far better man than Reagan. Reagan caused Obama. Reagan was the first to issue/sign the no-fault divorce laws, destroying the family as we know it and resulting in numerous broken homes. And Reaganomics were far more devastating than anything Obama has or could do. This movie fails to properly distinguish between Catholicism and modern economics, i.e. Socialism/Capitalism (both errors condemned by the Church - see CCC#2425). Check out this article from the Distributist Review:http://distributistreview.com/mag/2012/02/state-capitalism/and The Myth of Reaganomics:http://distributism.blogspot.com/2007/07/myth-of-reaganomics.htmlI used to think Reagan was good and Obama was bad, but some people showed me better, so I'm happy to talk more about this.
Nick,I'm far from disagreeing with your political point, but you seem far too serious to appreciate the humor. I thought Bubba Clinton and Rogue Palin were priceless. You didn't?
Nick,I read the url's that you recommended. I don't see how Reagan was worse than Obama. Since you are ready to talk about it, would you explain why you believe that he was?Thanks,Donna
I'm afraid I spoke without due qualification in response to Nick. When I said I was "far from disagreeing with your political point," I meant only to concede that Reagan was not consistent in his conservatism, certainly not on fiscal issues (even though I think you far overstate your case even there).By no means did I mean to suggest, on the other hand, that I agreed with your wholesale statement that "Obama is a far better man than Reagan." Far from it, I would reverse that statement in a heartbeat. But let me forgo the praises of his virtues as a leader and address what you consider his comparative failings.You mention Reagan's signing of the no-fault divorce laws. Not good, certainly. But how is that so much worse than striking down the bans on partial-birth abortion and DOMA, ruining retirement pensions by uncontrolled spending, inflation, and bankrupting the country, not to mention employing accounting tricks to turn $8.3 BILLION of Medicare monies into a slush fund for his own re-election campaign? Notice: I haven't so far even mentioned the iniquitous HHS Mandate directed at demolishing Catholic opposition to abominable "health" policies.Cheers, - PP
Hello everyone, The way I see things, Regean paved the way for Obama, so as bad as the latter is, he was in many ways ushered in. When it comes to defending life, the Republican party as a whole has been a joke, touting out the pro-life card whenever they need votes. Even the top pro-life news says the pro-life movement has prostituted itself to the GOP. Things such as no-fault divorce are very anti-pro-life in their source, and did far worse damage than any abortion bans Obama has overturned. The GOP presidents and congresses, overall, are silent and unconcerned with abortion as the DNC. Once that fact is conceded, it becomes clear pharisaic hypocrisy of the GOP is more of a danger, since they parade around under a 'conservative' banner. As for spending issues, I believe it was just as much fiscal irresponsibility of the GOP, including Reaganomics, that paved the way for the meltdown of 2008. Obama didn't cause the melt down, and the 'bail outs' were bi-partisan. The national debt and pensions in danger and such were all things ratcheting up for the last 40 years or so, these problems didn't arise when Obama was elected. And retirement pensions aren't all what they're meant to sound like, for some GOP governors recently have been attacked for cutting pensions that were obscenely structured to ravage budgets for years to come. Not to make this too long, but the HHS mandate is all part of the prior paving the way by GOP and bishops asleep at the wheel for 40 years. The Bishops have never been so vocal on anything the last 40 years, and yet all they're standing up for is preserving the right to abort as long as one does it voluntarily and not against 'consceince'. That's not the Gospel.My overall point here is that I think it's dangerous for people to approach things as "Republican good; Democrat evil," for that perpetuates the mediocrity of candidates and making a regular habit of rallying with joy around admitted D-grade GOP candidates. I believe PP agrees with the essence of all this, but I think there is a danger of lopsiding the problems towards the "Left".
Post a Comment