This essay covers the history of devastation wrought by the “Reagan Revolution” without even mentioning the political crimes responsible for his success in 1980. If you were to tell the story of Iran-Contra in similar detail, an even darker picture emerges. The puppet-masters behind all this succeeded with the selling of Reaganism, and O…
This essay covers the history of devastation wrought by the “Reagan Revolution” without even mentioning the political crimes responsible for his success in 1980. If you were to tell the story of Iran-Contra in similar detail, an even darker picture emerges. The puppet-masters behind all this succeeded with the selling of Reaganism, and Operation REDMAP, and getting Federalist Society approved judges on the bench, and in using culture war wedge issues to enlist an army of religious conservatives to follow them. But they have overstepped their ambitions with Trump, whose awfulness repels every American not already captured by right wing extremism. This is our last best chance to break the cycle, and MAKE AMERICA DEMOCRATIC AGAIN.
Lewis, If you have a pet subject, then create your own substack.
Apparently you expect Thom to bend to your way of thinking.
The subject of this article as limited in scope, and that did not include the crimes or Reagan, Thom has addressed the Crimes of Reagan and Nixon in other books and posts
And if you want to change the subject to one of your own, then do so with an off topic comment, but don't dare disparage Thom as you did by saying "without even mentioning the political crimes".
Again Lewis, the subject of this post from his book is not the crimes of Reagan.
My observation was not meant to disparage Thom’s excellent work but to amplify it. If anyone else took it as you did, I abjectly apologize! Not my intent. In the world of online media, I am a neophyte who knows how to comment…no more. I don’t use social media nor understand its rules and folkways.
I have injected my own thoughts into an article. But I don't use it as a springboard to go off on my own rant. Instead of saying "you forgot to mention" or some such, or "without even mentioning" as you did.
I don't use Thom as a springboard. I either state that I am off topic, or in your case I would say, Something like since you mentioned Reagan, I would like to add:" and then go on with your rant.
You know I love you William but you can be picky, picky, picky. On one level I agree with you. As communicators we've become sloppy but as you suggested there's a gentler way of expressing ourselves. Was I guilty of being of ftopic when I mentioned my favorite subject, Powell Memo? :-0
This essay covers the history of devastation wrought by the “Reagan Revolution” without even mentioning the political crimes responsible for his success in 1980. If you were to tell the story of Iran-Contra in similar detail, an even darker picture emerges. The puppet-masters behind all this succeeded with the selling of Reaganism, and Operation REDMAP, and getting Federalist Society approved judges on the bench, and in using culture war wedge issues to enlist an army of religious conservatives to follow them. But they have overstepped their ambitions with Trump, whose awfulness repels every American not already captured by right wing extremism. This is our last best chance to break the cycle, and MAKE AMERICA DEMOCRATIC AGAIN.
Lewis, If you have a pet subject, then create your own substack.
Apparently you expect Thom to bend to your way of thinking.
The subject of this article as limited in scope, and that did not include the crimes or Reagan, Thom has addressed the Crimes of Reagan and Nixon in other books and posts
And if you want to change the subject to one of your own, then do so with an off topic comment, but don't dare disparage Thom as you did by saying "without even mentioning the political crimes".
Again Lewis, the subject of this post from his book is not the crimes of Reagan.
Pay attention dude.
My observation was not meant to disparage Thom’s excellent work but to amplify it. If anyone else took it as you did, I abjectly apologize! Not my intent. In the world of online media, I am a neophyte who knows how to comment…no more. I don’t use social media nor understand its rules and folkways.
I have injected my own thoughts into an article. But I don't use it as a springboard to go off on my own rant. Instead of saying "you forgot to mention" or some such, or "without even mentioning" as you did.
I don't use Thom as a springboard. I either state that I am off topic, or in your case I would say, Something like since you mentioned Reagan, I would like to add:" and then go on with your rant.
Or simply say "Off Topic, but Reagan centered".
You know I love you William but you can be picky, picky, picky. On one level I agree with you. As communicators we've become sloppy but as you suggested there's a gentler way of expressing ourselves. Was I guilty of being of ftopic when I mentioned my favorite subject, Powell Memo? :-0