During the presidential campaign, questions were raised by reporters on Reagan's stance on the Briggs Initiative, also known as Proposition 6, a ballot initiative in Reagan's home state of California where he was governor, which would have banned gays, lesbians, and supporters of LGBT rights from working in public schools in California. His opposition to the initiative was instrumental in its landslide defeat by Californian voters. Reagan published an editorial in which he stated "homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles", and that prevailing scientific opinion was that a child's sexual orientation cannot be influenced by someone else

Soo... in other words, Reagan firmly supported 'equal rights' , right?

The lens of history is a lot easier on republicans from before the AIDS paranoia hit. A lot of probably smart people looked really goddamn stupid when they were terrified of a gay zombie pandemic or whatever.

Interesting tidbit though. It's easy to forget how much of a battleground California can be, as a state. Once you break out of the bay, it's a .... spirited debate. Sort of like gladiatorial deathmatches were spirited handshakes.

It honestly kind of surprised me to find out that a lot of the political stances that you seem to hear from the Democrats and Republicans now were pretty much the opposite back in the earliest years of the US. A lot of the US historical politics and presidential stuff's pretty new to me, so it's always cool to learn something new.

Good Guy Reagan, in any case.

Reagan was a part of that probably-dead breed of liberal Republicans in some sense. At least in comparison to the Koch brothers who were extreme then and more extreme now, and they're one of the big players in the show.

Uh, the Koch Brothers are actually very lukewarm republicans. Relating to the subject matter, they are for gay marriage.

So Boerd said
Uh, the Koch Brothers are actually very lukewarm republicans. Relating to the subject matter, they are for gay marriage.

quiet your moustache. John Stewart told me to hate the Koch Brothers and dammit man that's what I'm gonna do!!!

................

I wish they were stronger. They represent the money side of the McCain-Graham style establishment republicans. You all should love the Koch Brothers, they are the reason we keep putting up moderates in the presidential elections for you to clobber.

Yeah Turt, Reagan was pretty socially liberal. I thought that was common knowledge, but I guess I can see how you'd think otherwise with the way modern Republicans idolize him.

So Boerd said
I wish they were stronger. They represent the money side of the McCain-Graham style establishment republicans. You all should love the Koch Brothers, they are the reason we keep putting up moderates in the presidential elections for you to clobber.

Are you implying that conservatives farther from the middle of the spectrum would actually fare better in national elections than moderates? How very droll.

Don't take my word for it. From 1960,

Winning moderates: Nixon, GW. 3 terms total.
Losing moderates: Nixon, HW, Romney, Goldwater, McCain, Dole, Ford,

Winning Conservatives: Reagan, HW the fist time. 3 terms
Losing conservatives: Fat zero.

Ah, American politics. Some of you people are pretty hardcore conservatives, in fact, one of the most right-wing western countries. Up here in Canada our conservatives are on the same part of spectrum as your democrats.

Anyways, you guys know that Reagan worked as an actor during his younger days? He acted in US Army's propaganda films during WW2, and later helped FBI root out "communists" of Hollywood.

gcold said
Ah, American politics. Some of you people are pretty hardcore conservatives, in fact, one of the most right-wing western countries. Up here in Canada our conservatives are on the same part of spectrum as your democrats.Anyways, you guys know that Reagan worked as an actor during his younger days? He acted in US Army's propaganda films during WW2, and later helped FBI root out "communists" of Hollywood.

It's pretty well known that Reagan was an actor.

Also, I find it kind of amusing that you mention hardcore conservatives when your icon is a revolver, given how hot button of an issue gun control is at the moment.

Dervish said
It's pretty well known that Reagan was an actor. Also, I find it kind of amusing that you mention hardcore conservatives when your icon is a revolver, given how hot button of an issue gun control is at the moment.

In a global sense though we are *ludicrously* right-wing. If you think of politics as a scale, we're easily holding up all the euroliberal jerks with our fat american rightness :)

Our 'left wing' is cobbled together from statists and anarchists, but we're all very individualist in the States. That's.... I mean, that's how we became the States, really, it's in our blood. I'm not sorry.

Dervish said
It's pretty well known that Reagan was an actor. Also, I find it kind of amusing that you mention hardcore conservatives when your icon is a revolver, given how hot button of an issue gun control is at the moment.

Er, I just chose the revolver randomly as my avatar, nothing political.

mdk said
In a global sense though we are *ludicrously* right-wing. If you think of politics as a scale, we're easily holding up all the euroliberal jerks with our fat american rightness :)Our 'left wing' is cobbled together from statists and anarchists, but we're all very individualist in the States. That's.... I mean, that's how we became the States, really, it's in our blood. I'm not sorry.

I've always found the States incredibly interesting for this reason. There's such a fierce sense of pride in country, of patriotism, and yet nobody actually seems interested in participating in or contributing to wider society. There's no willingness to sacrifice anything on the individual level for the sake of one's neighbours, with the focus instead being on saving oneself - there's an absolute loathing for any kind of socialist policies like universal healthcare, for example. And yet, there's this patriotism, where they declare to love their country. Well, what is a country but the people in it? What is America but Americans? How can you claimto love America but be so opposed to being a part of and contributing to the society of people that actually makes it up? I've never really understood that, as a Brit. I know one could argue that the love of their country is for the ideals of that country, or the individualistic rights that country grants them, but I still just can't really connect with the logic.

Have a helpful quote

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all.
We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain. "
~Friedrich Bastiat

Au Contraire, you'll find Americans to be the most generous people on the planet.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/101240935

What we are, or at least what my side of the aisle is against, is putting a gun to someone's head and taking their stuff.

So Boerd said What we are, or at least what my side of the aisle is against, is putting a gun to someone's head and taking their stuff.

The GOP only wants guns in the hands of citizens, cops, army guys, judges, teachers, and adolescents -- not duly-elected representatives. [/grin]

(hey if you can't laugh at yourself....)

Actually, you've touched on an issue that is a totally unrelated topic, but a valid one. Why the hell do agencies like the EPA have SWAT teams?

So Boerd said
Actually, you've touched on an issue that is a totally unrelated topic, but a valid one. Why the hell do agencies like the EPA have SWAT teams?

Because if cows were allowed to eat grass without SWAT standing by, we'd never have been able to build a civilized society.

edit: (in case anyone didn't get the reference)

I understand the point you're making, but would also say that those individual actions of generosity only affect one's locale and their community. My point was that Americans seem to take enormous pride in America as a whole, yet refuse to contribute to the whole of American society. Sure, they will help the guy next door, but the guy a couple of towns over, or a couple of states away, can go fuck themselves. And yet the pride lies in all of American society, not just in the locale they're willing to help.

I realise that I'm making sweeping generalisations here, and that it is not nearly so black-and-white as I paint it - don't worry, I'm not implying all Americans are inherently selfish individuals. I'm just highlighting this self-contradicting trend I've seen: this enormous, unconquerable pride in the abstract idea of one's country and culture and society (as opposed to simply pride in one's local community), while simultaneously actually opposing even the existence of any cohesive, "American" society which is unified and works together as one thing. How can someone take have such a fervour in their pride in the whole, in "America", yet not really want "America" to exist, desire everything to exist on a local, disconnected, individualistic level? That's the contradiction that confuses me.

EDIT: I think you sorta focused in on my single use of the word "socialist", which was regarding one specific example, and took that to be the basis of everything I said. It wasn't. I'm not talking about what the government does or does not do in regards to America and American society. I'm talking about the contradiction in the views of individuals - whether it is the government or some other body that allowed/encouraged the existence of a coherent, wider "American" society, as opposed to local community, is irrelevant to my point.