Reagan [Archive] - Two Plus Two Older Archives

Dynasty

04-05-2005, 08:28 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The general concensus in the U.S. is that Reagan is going to go down in history as one of America's greatest freedom fighters.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not true. Please point me to that study, poll, etc.

[/ QUOTE ]

A very quick Yahoo! search got this link where Reagan is ranked the 8th best U.S. President. The survey of scholars uses the same basic structure as the famous 1948 Arthur Schlesinger poll.

http://www.udel.edu/PR/UpDate/02/2/professor.html

The article comments on Reagan's ranking specifically.

One of the biggest surprises in the survey, Wolters noted, was Ronald Reagan, who received an eighth place rating, just ahead of Dwight Eisenhower, James Polk and Woodrow Wilson, to round out the list of "near great" presidents.

"Reagan won the Cold War and his supply-side economics ushered in a new era of prosperity. His reputation will only improve as time passes," Wolters said. "I believe the only thing that will prevent him from moving to the 'great' class is the fact that the challenges facing Reagan were not as great as those facing Washington, Lincoln and FDR."

One thing that Reagan did have in common with the top-rated presidents, according to Wolters, is the fact the he had a special quality that appealed to a cross section of Americans.

"George Washington had a presence that commanded respect," Wolters said. "The same can be said about FDR and Reagan–they lifted the spirit of the nation."

This is consistent with what I have consistently read and heard over the past 10 years or so. When Reagan left office, most scholars had him ranked near the bottom of Presidents. As the impact of his Presidency became clear with the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and Easter Europe, Reagan's leadership became appreciated.

Reagan has been climbing these types of scholarly lists for some time.

lehighguy

04-05-2005, 09:06 PM

I was born in 1983, don't remember his presidency. But I've never heard a bad thing about Reagen. Or if I have it was some real leftist cook.

From my upbringing as well as the coverage of his funeral is definately seems he is going to go down as a very successful president. That's certainly the impression I got of him.

lehighguy

04-05-2005, 09:10 PM

If you said Germany would defeat France in WWII, people would think you were crazy. About as crazy as the soviets winning in the 80s.

That aside, it is a two pronged assertion. One, he brought down the wall quicker then it otherwise would have come down. Two, his economics proved the capitalist system was the correct one (something many doubted in the 70s).

thatpfunk

04-05-2005, 09:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
But I've never heard a bad thing about Reagen.

[/ QUOTE ]

Then you obviously have also done no research. Please look up iran-contra. Reagan was a liar who supported terrorism.

thatpfunk

04-05-2005, 09:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The general concensus in the U.S. is that Reagan is going to go down in history as one of America's greatest freedom fighters.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That is not true. Please point me to that study, poll, etc.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

A very quick Yahoo! search got this link where Reagan is ranked the 8th best U.S. President. The survey of scholars uses the same basic structure as the famous 1948 Arthur Schlesinger poll.

http://www.udel.edu/PR/UpDate/02/2/professor.html

The article comments on Reagan's ranking specifically.

One of the biggest surprises in the survey, Wolters noted, was Ronald Reagan, who received an eighth place rating, just ahead of Dwight Eisenhower, James Polk and Woodrow Wilson, to round out the list of "near great" presidents.

"Reagan won the Cold War and his supply-side economics ushered in a new era of prosperity. His reputation will only improve as time passes," Wolters said. "I believe the only thing that will prevent him from moving to the 'great' class is the fact that the challenges facing Reagan were not as great as those facing Washington, Lincoln and FDR."

One thing that Reagan did have in common with the top-rated presidents, according to Wolters, is the fact the he had a special quality that appealed to a cross section of Americans.

"George Washington had a presence that commanded respect," Wolters said. "The same can be said about FDR and Reagan–they lifted the spirit of the nation."

This is consistent with what I have consistently read and heard over the past 10 years or so. When Reagan left office, most scholars had him ranked near the bottom of Presidents. As the impact of his Presidency became clear with the collapse of communism in the Soviet Union and Easter Europe, Reagan's leadership became appreciated.

Reagan has been climbing these types of scholarly lists for some time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I am not a big fan of arguing semantics, but I disagree with your choice of words.

I believe it should also be noted the article is slanted towards the right. The study/survey seems pretty legit, however it was conducted by two right-wing groups as well.

sirio11

04-05-2005, 10:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
LOL. Sorry, whatever you think of Reagan the fact people in your country would view what reagan did in Cent. America as worse than the Soviets is crazy. There is plenty to criticize Reagan on, but worse than the Soviets? Please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please?

The influence of Reagan in Central America was way worse (for the CA people of course) than the influence of the Soviets.

And this is not even close.

sirio11

04-05-2005, 10:33 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Is there any rethinking of Reagan in Europe? The general concensus in the U.S. is that Reagan is going to go down in history as one of America's greatest freedom fighters.

[/ QUOTE ]

The general concensus? Really?

Felix_Nietsche

04-05-2005, 10:36 PM

....what Old Europe thinks.

Old Europe is just mad because they no longer get bribes from the oil-for-food program. Nor can they ignore arms embargos and sell weapons to Iraq. You think because a few loud-mouth Americans making fools of themselves in front of television cameras represents what Americans think? Despite a soft economy Bush43 got re-elected largely because American approve of our foreign policy...

And Reagan is considered to be a great US president. And whether Europe agrees or disagrees is of little importance to us...

Dynasty

04-05-2005, 10:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I am not a big fan of arguing semantics, but I disagree with your choice of words.

[/ QUOTE ]

So, if I said that Reagan is going down in history as one of America's greatest Presidents, would you have had any objection?

If not, what do you think he's being recognized as a great President for?

Felix_Nietsche

04-05-2005, 11:04 PM

Reagan was a great president. They won't even concede that he had a tremendous role in bringing the USSR down... But the American Dems can find lots of Europeans that will tell Reagan was bad man. Why care what either of them think?

HDPM

04-05-2005, 11:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
quote]

Please?

The influence of Reagan in Central America was way worse (for the CA people of course) than the influence of the Soviets.

And this is not even close.

[/ QUOTE ]

That is not what he said. He compared American actions to Soviet behavior. Not Soviet influence on central america. Soviets had relatively little negative impact there, partly because the US opposed them. What I was comparing was American abuses in CA to soviet behavior. So if you want to compare some stupid policy and various abuses to a system that deliberately enslaved its entire population, killed millions in forced famines, killed millions in gulags, well you go right ahead. It isn't close even if every left wing grad school professor's worst view of US policy in CA is accurate.

Felix_Nietsche

04-05-2005, 11:18 PM

"Reagan was a liar who supported terrorism."
***********************************************
Supported terrorism???
Care to back that up? or do you want to plead no contest by reason of insanity...

Dead

04-05-2005, 11:29 PM

The Contras were terrorists.

Arnfinn Madsen

04-05-2005, 11:29 PM

Felix_Nietsche

04-05-2005, 11:39 PM

I keep forgetting many of you grew up with different presidents than I did...

When In high school, Jimmy Carter was president.
To give you an idea of how bad Carter was; If it would prevent Carter from ever being president again, I would get on my knees and lick Clinton's shoes clean. If it was a choice between Carter and Kerry for Pres...I would vote for Kerry! Actually, I would vote for Hitler over Carter because at least Hitler loved his country... /images/graemlins/frown.gif

Carter's Legacy:
*20% Interest rates: Try making your house payments w/ an APR!!
*High inflation
*Iran storms the US embassy and holds the staff hostages for over a year while Carter acts like a complete p***y doing nothing. The Iranians use to burn effigies of Carter dressed like Hitler which was unfair to Hitler because he at least had a set of balls. In my opinion this was the start where the Islamic world began seeing the USA as weak and I would argue Carter was the catalyst of muslim terror attacks against the USA.
*Gave away one of the USA most valued properties: The Panamal Canal, whose land was given to the USA for helping the Panamanians with their independence from Columbia.

No one thought that "radical" Reagan could ever get elected but after Carter, the American people gave him a chance. And he changed the world....

sirio11

04-05-2005, 11:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Actually, I would vote for Hitler over Carter because at least Hitler loved his country...

[/ QUOTE ]

This is just a stupid stament

sirio11

04-05-2005, 11:55 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Gave away one of the USA most valued properties: The Panamal Canal, whose land was given to the USA for helping the Panamanians with their independence from Columbia.

[/ QUOTE ]

And this is just ridiculous, and the country is Colombia.

Felix_Nietsche

04-05-2005, 11:58 PM

Defintion: The policy of deliberately killing civilians to inact poliitcal change.

Attrocities where committed by roving thugs on BOTH sides on that conflict against civilians. I don't believe it was POLICY of either side to target civilians. I suppose if Reagan supported the Sandinistas you would claim he "supported terrorism"...

Sorry, but you being rather silly if this is your example of Reagan "supporting terrorism".

Felix_Nietsche

04-06-2005, 12:02 AM

"This is just a stupid stament"
*********************************
Probably true...but I think I made my point of what I think of carter. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Felix_Nietsche

04-06-2005, 12:05 AM

Lucky the political forum has people like you to peruse their posts for punctuation and spelling errors.
Don't worry, I don't think your a nit or being petty for pointing out my spelling errors. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

sam h

04-06-2005, 12:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The general concensus in the U.S. is that Reagan is going to go down in history as one of America's greatest freedom fighters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Consensus among who?

[ QUOTE ]
20 years from now, I believe the same will be true of George W. Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely possible, but everybody I know who studies foreign policy shudders at the thought.

sam h

04-06-2005, 12:34 AM

Without knowing how the population to be sampled in this poll was chosen, it would be foolish to draw any conclusions from the results.

sam h

04-06-2005, 12:36 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Attrocities where committed by roving thugs on BOTH sides on that conflict against civilians.

[/ QUOTE ]

This is very often the case in situations in which one of the sides gets labeled terrorists. Usually the "good" thugs wear uniforms though.

Dynasty

04-06-2005, 01:09 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The general concensus in the U.S. is that Reagan is going to go down in history as one of America's greatest freedom fighters.

[/ QUOTE ]

Consensus among who?

[/ QUOTE ]

Among people in the U.S.

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
20 years from now, I believe the same will be true of George W. Bush.

[/ QUOTE ]

Definitely possible, but everybody I know who studies foreign policy shudders at the thought.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they're shuddering at the thought of an American President being recognized by history as a great freedom fighter, then they've got misplaced priorities. It would be great if every American President could be remembered as such.

Dead

04-06-2005, 01:16 AM

Copied from my other post about Ray gun.

Why he sucked:

"Iran-Contra, selling arms to terrorist nations, trading arms for hostages, retreating from terrorists in Beirut, lying to Congress, financing an illegal war in Nicaragua, visiting Bitburg cemetery(where NAZI SS are buried), just to name a few reasons.

And his reaction to the AIDS situation. AIDS was first reported in the medical and popular press in 1981. It took Reagan 6 years to speak publicly about the deadly disease. By then, almost 60,000 cases had been reported, and almost half of those people had died. Why did Reagan ignore it? Probably because he didn't want to piss off his evangelical, Republican, conservative, anti-Catholic supporters."

zaxx19

04-06-2005, 01:20 AM

[ QUOTE ]
retreating from terrorists in Beirut

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, as a liberal or whatever you are.....what would you have done in Reagans place concerning Lebanon?

Do you know anything about the Lebanese Civl War...or are you just babbling some more liberalspeak you heards somewhere on campus?

lehighguy

04-06-2005, 01:21 AM

I know about Iran-Contra. Maybe its a result of the Clinton and Bush presidencies being my primary experience, but I expect presidents to lie. And CEOs, and world leaders, and...sad /images/graemlins/frown.gif

However, when people talk about Reagen they really don't bring up Iran Contra alot. They talk about the Berlin Wall and the Economy. Which are the two famous things we associate with him. They also talk about the effect he had after the 70s, which weren't exactly great times for America.

Dynasty

04-06-2005, 01:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]

And his reaction to the AIDS situation. AIDS was first reported in the medical and popular press in 1981. It took Reagan 6 years to speak publicly about the deadly disease. By then, almost 60,000 cases had been reported, and almost half of those people had died. Why did Reagan ignore it? Probably because he didn't want to piss off his evangelical, Republican, conservative, anti-Catholic supporters."

[/ QUOTE ]

Blaming Reagan for the spread of AIDS has always been ridiculous.

Do you really belive the homosexual male communities where the virus spread so fast in the early 1980's was going to listen to Ronald Reagan?

lehighguy

04-06-2005, 01:32 AM

Also we need to define great leader. Usually, the definition of a great leader throughout history has been strengthening the home country. Questions of morality are moot. Most of our great leaders throughout history were conquerers, invading other countries and killing people for the personal gain of the homeland. Not very moral, but they are still regarded as "great leaders".

If we view Reagen from this strengthening the homeland perspective, he is obviously a great leader. He defeated the largest enemy, the Soviet Union, and revitalized a broken economy. We all agree the America of 1988 was a lot better then the America of 1980. Therefore, he will go down as a great leader.

Dead

04-06-2005, 01:37 AM

[ QUOTE ]
what would you have done in Reagans place concerning Lebanon

[/ QUOTE ]

Wouldn't have sent troops there in the first place.

Dead

04-06-2005, 01:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

And his reaction to the AIDS situation. AIDS was first reported in the medical and popular press in 1981. It took Reagan 6 years to speak publicly about the deadly disease. By then, almost 60,000 cases had been reported, and almost half of those people had died. Why did Reagan ignore it? Probably because he didn't want to piss off his evangelical, Republican, conservative, anti-Catholic supporters."

[/ QUOTE ]

Blaming Reagan for the spread of AIDS has always been ridiculous.

Do you really belive the homosexual male communities where the virus spread so fast in the early 1980's was going to listen to Ronald Reagan?

[/ QUOTE ]

Not the point. Reagan chose to ignore it because he didn't want to piss off his homophobic evangelical supporters(who were beginning to comprise a large section of the GOP's base). That's what I have a problem with.

I don't understand this attempted deification of Reagan.

sam h

04-06-2005, 01:48 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Among people in the U.S.

[/ QUOTE ]

If you have evidence for this other than the poll you referenced elsewhere in the thread, I would be interested to see it.

[ QUOTE ]
If they're shuddering at the thought of an American President being recognized by history as a great freedom fighter, then they've got misplaced priorities. It would be great if every American President could be remembered as such.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be great if every American president deserved to be remembered as such.

It would also be great if those who "go down in history" as X always deserved to be remembered that way, but that is simply not the case.

Cyrus

04-06-2005, 03:01 AM

"Politicians, buildings and whores all get respect in their old age."

Reagan ranked above Eisenhower?? This shows how serious the study you are quoting is.

Reagan was all style and little substance. We want to judge his presidency, we should be judging his entourage rather than the figurehead. (I strongly recommend the passage in Oliver Sachs' "The Man Who Mistook His Wife For A Hat" --no he's not referring to Reagan!-- about the patients in the aphasic ward watching President Reagan speak. It's priceless. And quite illuminating about style over substance.)

As a president Reagan brought the United States and the Soviet Union closer to war than any other president before him. His reckless gamble only "succeeded" (just like me hitting hard 19 and "succeeding" in getting a deuce in Blackjack) because of random events, such as the successive deaths of Soviet hard liners that were in charge of the Kremlin.

Reagan was guilty of serious crimes as well, only one of which was the Iran-Contra scandal. Just to inform the many impressionable young minds that seemingly infest these pages, this was a case whereby the President of the United States ordered the sale of arms to a nation officially designated as helping terrorists, Iran, in order to finance, in contravention of United States law, an outlaw band of terrorists operating in Nicaragua, the Contras (whom Amnesty International repeatedly condemned for horrific murders and acts of torture and destruction perpetrated against civilians). The Contras were famously compared by Reagan to "America's Founding Fathers"!

Also, there were some drug deals, as well, thrown into the mix.

Oh, and Reagan's excuse when the Iran/Contra scandal broke out? He "didn't know about it". What a great leader.

thatpfunk

04-06-2005, 07:13 AM

[ QUOTE ]

So, if I said that Reagan is going down in history as one of America's greatest Presidents, would you have had any objection?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, even the poll cited him as "near-great," not great, and definetly not "one of the greatest." And the more the poll is looked at, the more right-leaning it obviously is. Compare it to previous polls for more (comparing of course older presidents, where time should not be a factor).

[ QUOTE ]

If not, what do you think he's being recognized as a great President for?

[/ QUOTE ]

freedom fighter- One engaged in armed rebellion or resistance against an oppressive government.

Using it in your context requires a certain degree of pretentiousness that I have trouble affording someone not on the frontlines.

thatpfunk

04-06-2005, 07:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"Reagan was a liar who supported terrorism."
***********************************************
Supported terrorism???
Care to back that up? or do you want to plead no contest by reason of insanity...

[/ QUOTE ]

Just because they aren't attacking us, does not mean they weren't terrorists. Try thinking outside of the box that is your very, very limited world-view.

Easy to access, known facts, do not take "backing up."

nicky g

04-06-2005, 07:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
LOL. Sorry, whatever you think of Reagan the fact people in your country would view what reagan did in Cent. America as worse than the Soviets is crazy. There is plenty to criticize Reagan on, but worse than the Soviets? Please.

[/ QUOTE ]

Please?

The influence of Reagan in Central America was way worse (for the CA people of course) than the influence of the Soviets.

And this is not even close.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely. Most of the alleged Soviet action in Latin America was no more than rightist fantasy/propaganda. The American meddling and support for dictators led to the torture and murder of tens and probably hundreds of thousands of innocent people. The main Soviet success in the region was Cuba, and while an unpleasant and undesirable dictatorship, the Communist Cuban government has never done anything to match what happened in Argentina under the generals or the atrocities acommitted by the Contras or Salvadorean death squads.

thatpfunk

04-06-2005, 07:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I keep forgetting many of you grew up with different presidents than I did...

When In high school, Jimmy Carter was president. etc etc etc blah blah blah

[/ QUOTE ]

red herring. nothing to do with our discussion.

nicky g

04-06-2005, 07:21 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Attrocities where committed by roving thugs on BOTH sides on that conflict against civilians. I don't believe it was POLICY of either side to target civilians. I suppose if Reagan supported the Sandinistas you would claim he "supported terrorism"...

Sorry, but you being rather silly if this is your example of Reagan "supporting terrorism".

[/ QUOTE ]

Garbage. Some atrocities were committed by the Sandanistas but no serious student of human rights puts them on anything like the scale of those committed by the Contras, who favoured the return of a brtual dictatorship (and were fighting people who overthrew said dictatorship, were approved by the Nicaraguan people in an election dubbed fair by international monitors and who peacefully left power when they lost a subsequent election), and they most certainly did target civilians on a large scale.

jokerswild

04-06-2005, 08:52 AM

Conservatives paint Reagan as a saint. He wasn't. Still, he had more going for him than the current dictator of the USA.

Felix_Nietsche

04-06-2005, 10:42 AM

'Easy to access, known facts, do not take "backing up."'
************************************************** ******
If you can't cite facts to support your assertions, then why should people take your posts seriously?

andyfox

04-06-2005, 11:39 AM

No, but they would have listened to Koop. Reagan was slow off the mark, believing aids was god's wrath at homosexuaity. Nancy played a key role in turning him around.

Dynasty

04-06-2005, 02:09 PM

[ QUOTE ]
No, but they would have listened to Koop.

[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon Andy. Young men who want to have lots of sex with near-anonymous partners aren't going to listen to anybody telling them not to (or to take certain precautions).

MMMMMM

04-06-2005, 02:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
As a president Reagan brought the United States and the Soviet Union closer to war than any other president before him. His reckless gamble only "succeeded" (just like me hitting hard 19 and "succeeding" in getting a deuce in Blackjack) because of random events, such as the successive deaths of Soviet hard liners that were in charge of the Kremlin.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think this is just wrong. The Soviets were pushing the envelope and was Reagan just pushing back.

To have allowed the Soviets to gain nuclear superiority in Europe in addition to their superiority in conventional forces in that theatre (HUGE tank advantage, for one thing), would likely have have brought us even closer to war than what Reagan did.

Appeasers and appeasement-minded thinkers never seem to learn from history. Have you learned the dangers of appeasement from your studies of history, Cyrus? lol.

Gamblor

04-06-2005, 02:49 PM

Seriously, however Europe seems to be in touch with ... much of the Middle East

plz send over some of that norwegian crack.

sam h

04-06-2005, 03:04 PM

IMO, you are both wrong.

Hindisight is 20/20, but it seems hard not to conclude that there was very, very little chance of large-scale war with the Soviet Union in the 1980s. Deterrence basically worked - Neither country wanted any part of a nuclear exchange and ramping up or scaling down nuclear stockpiles wasn't changing this. Really only a Dr. Strangelove-esque scenario could have done it. This had been the case for some time.

The escalation on Reagan's part was just the macho saber rattling of somebody with a startling unnuanced view of the world. It also had almost nothing to do with the Soviet Union falling apart, which really was primarily the product of internal reformers. In addition, while the arms race may have put a drain on the Soviet economy, as a causal factor it paled compared to other considerations, such as the fact that it was an incredibly inefficient command economy to begin with that, while limping by during the early phases of industrialization, was completely incapable of dealing with post-industrial realities.

thatpfunk

04-06-2005, 03:12 PM

[ QUOTE ]

'Easy to access, known facts, do not take "backing up."'
************************************************** ******
If you can't cite facts to support your assertions, then why should people take your posts seriously?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry, reading this a huge flash of the word "ironic" was burned into my brain.

He supposrted terrorist regimes. If we are having a discussion and I say the world is round, do I have to cite this too? Seriously...

MMMMMM

04-06-2005, 03:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The escalation on Reagan's part was just the macho saber rattling of somebody with a startling unnuanced view of the world.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure what you are getting at here. The Soviets started escalating in the European theatre with the SS-20 buildup, and all Reagan was doing with the Pershings was refusing to allow them to gain the upper hand militarily. The Soviets already possessed the upper hand conventionally in that theatre; it could only be bad to allow them to gain nuclear superiority there as well.

I don't see how refusing to allow one's enemies to gain the upper hand militarily in both ways is due to an "unnuanced" view of the world. Methinks it would be just weak-kneed and foolish to allow them to do so, nuanced or not.

The Soviets started escalating in Europe and Reagan countered it. Frankly I am amazed at all the people at that time who were blaming Reagan for the increase in tensions when it was the Soviets who started the serious escalation in that theatre. If failing to recognize that basic fact is nuanced, I'll take plain unvarnished over nuanced any day--no sarcasm intended.

I remember that time and it was appalling to hear people turning things upside down and blaming Reagan for the perceived increased jeopardy. I suppose if the French had built up to counter Hitler's early build-up, there would have been similar cries of woe and blame.

The only reason the Soviets did not tank-roll over all of Europe was because of the U.S. and NATO. Granted they might not have done so anyway with the ICBM deterrrent threat, but that cannot be ascertained for sure. If they had built up nuclear AND conventional superiority in Europe they might have attacked at some point. And if, say, someone like Carter were in the White House when it happened, it is quite possible that the U.S. would not nuke Russia itself in retaliation. Hence the need for a theatre deterrent not just an ICBM deterrent.

[ QUOTE ]
It also had almost nothing to do with the Soviet Union falling apart, which really was primarily the product of internal reformers. In addition, while the arms race may have put a drain on the Soviet economy, as a causal factor it paled compared to other considerations, such as the fact that it was an incredibly inefficient command economy to begin with that, while limping by during the early phases of industrialization, was completely incapable of dealing with post-industrial realities.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well I agree the Reagan influence on the Soviet breakup was not as great as many claim. I think it acted more as a catalyst for an already deteriorating situation. A contributing factor of sorts but by no means the main one. Yet without Reagan, it might not have happened so soon. Impossible to know for sure, really.

Felix_Nietsche

04-06-2005, 03:28 PM

If you BACKED UP one of your posts with ***ONE FACT*** or ***ONE SUPPORTING EXAMPLE***....

Then your posts would be worth reading....

sam h

04-06-2005, 04:20 PM

M,

I think I may not have been very clear. The saber rattling comment was referring to the SDI idea. I think you make a good argument that this and other actions were also responses. But the SDI thing was also a bit over the top, taking escalation to a new level by threatening to do away (at least in theory) with the basis for deterrence itself.

The "unnuanced view of the world" comment was more general and not meant to be linked to the saber rattling. That's something I'll stand by. Much like Bush II, Reagan saw the world in a very black-and-white, good-and-evil fashion and I think this strongly guided his foreign policy.

I think we basically agree about Reagan's influence on the Soviet Union falling apart - a contributing, though relatively minor factor that we will never be able to quantify for sure.

Arnfinn Madsen

04-06-2005, 07:21 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Seriously, however Europe seems to be in touch with ... much of the Middle East

plz send over some of that norwegian crack.

[/ QUOTE ]

So if i am so wrong, show me any foreign policy dispute between the Arab League and the European Union. You won't find many.

andyfox

04-06-2005, 07:55 PM

Had the surgeon general, especially one with Koop's charisma and prsence, been making public servcie announcements, worked with the medical community, especially in gay communities, it certainly couldn't have hurt.

Do you know the name of the current surgeon-general? I don't. Koop was the only one who ever had publicity and panache. I think his anti-smoking campaign made a difference and, while your point is well-taken, he could have done so on AIDS too.

Either way, the issue seems to me a relatively minor one in assessing Reagan's legacy and place in history, no matter how one views those things.

Regards,
Andy

Gamblor

04-06-2005, 08:26 PM

So if i am so wrong, show me any foreign policy dispute between the Arab League and the European Union.

mainly cause the EU has its lips wrapped firmly around the cock of the oil-producing arabs.

in other news, the Arab league's meetings continued in Algiers today. Instead of figuring out how to make peace with Israel, the most time was spent on figuring out what concessions they could demand from Israel in exchange for normalized relations.

Stan the man

04-06-2005, 09:34 PM

[ QUOTE ]
mainly cause the EU has its lips wrapped firmly around the cock of the oil-producing arabs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gamblor, don't be a sore loser.

Gamblor

04-07-2005, 02:40 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
mainly cause the EU has its lips wrapped firmly around the cock of the oil-producing arabs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Gamblor, don't be a sore loser.

[/ QUOTE ]

Hey, such is life. it also means we know who to spend most of our diplomatic power with. Hint: starts with U and rhymes with "Bunited States"

Stan the man

04-07-2005, 03:01 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Hey, such is life. it also means we know who to spend most of our diplomatic power with. Hint: starts with U and rhymes with "Bunited States"

[/ QUOTE ]

Gamblor,

Be careful, Israel is member of UEFA!

PS. Did you know that Mats Sundin don't like you? /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Gamblor

04-07-2005, 08:12 PM

Be careful, Israel is member of UEFA!

LOL a fat lot of good that has done us!

And being put in a group with Switzlerland, Ireland and France was worthwhile as well (Thank goodness for Cyprus!)

You do know the only reason Israel isn't in one of the Oceania groups is because none of the Arab teams are willing to play against us?

Mats Sundin can really play hockey, but he replaced Wendel Clark and that is unforgivable.

He will never be the superstar in Toronto he should be because of that very fact.

Even ultra-pacifist Canadians have a bit of anger that a Canadian is not the Leafs' Captain.

When did he give an opinion on Israel?

zaxx19

04-07-2005, 08:47 PM

[ QUOTE ]
So if i am so wrong, show me any foreign policy dispute between the Arab League and the European Union. You won't find many.

[/ QUOTE ]

Why would they>/?

IN 100 years they will quite possibly be IN THE ARAB LEAGUE.

The sad thing is there isnt even a hint of hyperbole in this statement.

Stan the man

04-07-2005, 09:08 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You do know the only reason Israel isn't in one of the Oceania groups is because none of the Arab teams are willing to play against us?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
When did he give an opinion on Israel?

[/ QUOTE ]

Never? It was a joke (gay joke). Here in Finland we believe that Mats is a gay. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Arnfinn Madsen

04-07-2005, 09:24 PM

[ QUOTE ]
mainly cause the EU has its lips wrapped firmly around the cock of the oil-producing arabs.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, I heard this story from a UN meeting. Bush walks into the toilet surprisingly finding the leader of EU sucking the leader of the Arab League.
Bush screams out: "get off that cock"
EU-leader says: "we need oil"
Bush says: "get off it, i will show you another way" and kicks the Arab leader in the nuts.
Bush screams: "continue to supply us with oil"
EU-leader says: "i don't like your methods but we have the same aim"

By the way, is this a derailment from the original subject? /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Gamblor

04-08-2005, 03:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
You do know the only reason Israel isn't in one of the Oceania groups is because none of the Arab teams are willing to play against us?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes.

[ QUOTE ]
When did he give an opinion on Israel?

[/ QUOTE ]

Never? It was a joke (gay joke). Here in Finland we believe that Mats is a gay. /images/graemlins/grin.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

im not surprised considering he wouldn't go into the corner even if they sold red bull there.

DiscGolfer60

04-08-2005, 04:07 PM

I'm not sure of your age, but to claim Reagan "Brought the US and the Soviet Union closer to war than any other president before him", clearly ignores or underestimates the JKF Cuban Missle Crisis in the early 60's. I grew up during the era of missle drills in school. Serving in the Navy and seeing info on how close Soviet subs and US warships were to firing on each other during the Cuban embargo makes the Reagan "closer to war" comment debateable.

Cyrus

04-08-2005, 10:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]
To claim Reagan "brought the US and the Soviet Union closer to war than any other president before him", clearly ignores or underestimates the JKF Cuban Missle Crisis in the early 60's. I grew up during the era of missle drills in school. Serving in the Navy and seeing info on how close Soviet subs and US warships were to firing on each other during the Cuban embargo makes the Reagan "closer to war" comment debateable.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for the response and the insight.

Yes, I stand by my claim, to the full. What you witnessed first-hand was a geographically local crisis, albeit one with the most dire and world-wide implications. The Cuban Missile crisis was when we came closest to nuclear war ever but no american President brought it about!

The Soviets and the Americans worked the Cuban crisis out because (and this should be an extremely important aspect for this here poker forum), the strategy of the two parties was NOT risk-prone. (BTW, the Soviets, due to their relatively recent experience of war's horrors at home, were more risk-averse than the Yanks.)

What I'm saying is that the Soviets, at the time, did not want to provoke or threaten nuclear war and neither did the Americans. Both sides tried their best, in a true-life, horrific, imperfect information, prisoner-dilemma situation to come out of the situation they found themselves in.

Here I should recommend to any historical buffs the book with the CIA transcipts of the various messages of that era, which makes for fascinating reading, along with the White House tape transcripts of the various meetings held there by JFK and his ocmmunications. The man had his faults of character but his crisis management should be taught at schools. (Aftermath of Cuba: The US retreated its missiles from Eastern Turkey and the USSR retreated its missiles from Cuba.)

Speaking of crisis management: Reagan's posture during his term as President was intentionally belligerent and provocative. The American military/industrial complex was clearly in need to assert itself after what it perceived as Carter's "strategic retreats" from Angola and Nicaragua and to transform its huge military advantage over the Soviet Union into a Cold War victory. There are thousands of official documents and articles out there which spell out that the intent of Reagan's "virile" America was to get "on the offensive", whatever the hell that meant (and you can imagine how the Soviets were receiving such messages). Articles in Foreign Affairs or The Atlantic were anticipating nuclear attack before the 1980s would be over. The debate in Washington centered on the differences between First Strike and First Use...

So, to summarize, even though the world found itself indeed perilously close to nuclear annihilation during the Cuban Crisis of the JFK administration, the world lived through two Reagan administrations where the nuclear war option was a valid and intentionally constructed option for Washington -- whether "tactical & contained" or simply All-Out (remember Reagan's Star Wars?)

MMMMMM

04-09-2005, 02:20 AM

Well Cyrus, I believe the more strength Reagan endued our military with, the less likely war with the Soviets became. Even as Reagan's posture was highly assertive, greater strength on our part meant less chance of the Soviet brinksmanship.

The Soviets liked to push wherever they perceived weakness. Reagan neatly turned this on its head by both shoring up our weaknesses and exposing the Soviet weaknesses. And the stronger we looked and became, and the more weak they looked and became, the less threatening they acted. Far from engendering danger, when Reagan essentially told them THEY WERE BEAT AND COULDN'T COMPETE, they did not lash out but instead broke apart and went down all the faster. The Soviet facade was exposed for all the world to see.

This is why it is important to defeat your greatest adversaries in spirit, not just on the playing field. They came to realize they were beat and ever since have been very docile towards the U.S.A.

I think you just don't like the idea of peace through strength, and prefer instead the notion of peace through diplomacy. Well, the real bottom line is it all starts and ends with strength. Diplomacy is just a varnish over a thin civilized veneer.

So, in my view, Reagan didn't bring about greater dangers with the Soviets, he brought about lesser dangers. The less chance the Soviets thought they had of beating the US or Europe, the less likely they were to try. It's really quite simple and not nuanced at all.

After all, culturally speaking, the Soviets were great chessplayers and well knew the axiom of how foolish it is to attack from the inferior position. So being after all eminently rational players, they were much less likely to attack the stronger the U.S. became. Their economy was crumbling too after long having propped itself up with massive sales of gold and natural resources. Reagan figuratively asked for their resignation, and some moves later, he got it. The "Game Of The Century" was finally and decisively over.

Dead

04-09-2005, 02:30 AM

MMMMMM, do you consider yourself a libertarian?

I seem to remember you saying that you were. Please correct me if I'm wrong.

I brought this up in the other thread but it really wasn't the correct place.

Are you against a woman's right to choose?

Are you for the war in Iraq?

These don't seem to be libertarian positions. I am just curious.

MMMMMM

04-09-2005, 03:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]
MMMMMM, do you consider yourself a libertarian?

[/ QUOTE ]

Dead, to answer your question, I identify more with the Libertarian platform as a whole, than with the platfrom of any other political party, but I definitely do not agree with every single plank of the platform. I am registered as a Libertarian. That does not, however, mean I completely conform to the "party line."

I think Kurn and Natedogg may feel somewhat similarly, in that they generally prefer the LP philosophy to the philosophies of other political parties, yet do not agree with everything espoused on the LP website.

If you want to start another thread on the LP, feel free to do so.

KellyRae

04-09-2005, 10:03 AM

"The American military/industrial complex was clearly in need to assert itself after what it perceived as Carter's "strategic retreats" from Angola and Nicaragua and to transform its huge military advantage over the Soviet Union into a Cold War victory."

The usage of the word "perceived" there is truly funny. Of course I suppose you are also of the camp that concludes that Reagan's triumph in the cold war was a product of "luck" and "being in the right place at the right time."

Felix_Nietsche

04-09-2005, 10:54 AM

Peace through Strength when combined with smart diplomacy works very well.
Reagan played his hand well. And I suspect Reagan's BB/hr is MUCH BETTER than Cyrus's. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Cyrus

04-09-2005, 11:42 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Culturally speaking, the Soviets were great chess players.

[/ QUOTE ]
This reveals the way you are thinking and drawing "conclusions". Chess playing ability means little, if anything! The Soviets were not great chess players because they were great strategic thinkers (Napoleon actually played mediocre chess) and they were not great strategic thinkers because they were chess players.

[ QUOTE ]
I think you just don't like the idea of peace through strength, and prefer instead the notion of peace through diplomacy.

[/ QUOTE ]
I wish you'd not try and elucidate my ideas about world affairs, since you usually get them wrong and we are wasting even more time correcting your "insights". For the record, and once again, I am not a (diplomacy-only) pacifist.

[ QUOTE ]
The Soviets liked to push wherever they perceived weakness.

[/ QUOTE ]
Where exactly did the Soviets perceive "weakness" in America? Where did they "probe"?

Angola was a strictly Fidel Castro affair -- he sent there two thousand Cuban soldiers to help out the Angolan guerrillas win their war of liberation against the white colonialists and apartheid South African troops (and I'm glad he did help them win, btw). Nicaragua was the payback for 50 years of American barbarism -- The Somoza family of thieves ruling over the land on the strength of the guns of the American Marines (read your History). Iran was the payback for the Americans 1953 putsch that upended a democratically elected prime minister, restored the hated Shah, and killed off all leftist opposition -- thus allowing the religious fundamentalist opposition to move in and occupy the whole of the opposition. You numbnuts created Khomeini!

And you are being either naive or misleading about Soviet strength. The infamous Missile Gap of the 1960s never existed. The United States has been militarily superior to the Soviet Union from around the mid-1950s --- if not for the whole 20th century! So, according to your logic, the Soviets (being "great chess players" /images/graemlins/smile.gif) knew they were militarily inferior AND were provoking their stronger opponent?? Boljemoi!

[ QUOTE ]
Reagan neatly turned this on its head by both shoring up our weaknesses and exposing the Soviet weaknesses.

[/ QUOTE ]
What the idiot Reagan did was causing economic disaster on the American economy (driving millions of workers out of their jobs, destroying the American manufacturing heartland, ripping the guts out of whole communities, inviting the Michael Milken brigade to loot the economy, etc) and playing a game of chicken with the Soviets. That's what the Teflon President's "brilliant strategy" amounts to.

[ QUOTE ]
When Reagan essentially told them THEY WERE BEAT AND COULDN'T COMPETE, [the Soviets] did not lash out but instead broke apart and went down all the faster.

[/ QUOTE ]
This is not only a weird historical assessment, it is also a first in History! Two opposite camps and one of the two "breaking apart" when it realizes "it cannot compete". You missed your calling. You should be at RAND Corporation, drawing up strategy and making presentations to the NSC.

Just for your information (and to befuddle your scrambled brain a bit), the Soviets lost the war economically. The idiot Reagan and his allies in the military/industrial complex almost destroyed America in order to "save" it. The Soviets lost because they failed to deliver economically to their people through being almost exclusively focused on heavy production and ignoring basic necessities and commodities (which have little if any military value), such as home appliances, cars, etcetera. If the Soviets had diverted some effort and money towards "consumer" satisfaction, people like Gorbachev would have never stood a chance of reforming Communism.

Add to the mix, the multi-ethnic mix of the USSR, dating from Czarist times. LOL! I just remembered that it was on Reagan's watch that the American establishment decided to play the Muslim card, in order to create one more problem for the Soviet Union. Some wise people warned against such foolishness but people in State and the Pentagon always dismissed those warnings with either "my enemy's enemy" or with "later about that".

The seeds of 9/11 were sown in Ronald Reagan's term.

Arnfinn Madsen

04-09-2005, 11:56 AM

The seeds of 9/11 were sown in Ronald Reagan's term.

[/ QUOTE ]

The infrastructure of Al-Qaida was established during his term. Reagan did not fund or support Al-Qaida in any way, but chose not to target them since they were attacking Russians.

zaxx19

04-09-2005, 12:20 PM

And he was absolutely correct in doing so.

Its utter nonsense to argue otherwise.

lehighguy

04-09-2005, 03:42 PM

Libraterians believe in the right to self defense. Such an arguement was used for the Iraq war (remember how you weren't sure there wouldn't be weapons). Or I could go on a really radical arguement and say that leaving the middle east the same is as good as asking for another attack. Or I could say that we have already affected these peoples lives negatively by buying all that oil, so the myth of American indifference to events there would be a facade. Jesus it doesn't take a whole lot of imagination to come up with Libraterian arguements for the war.

They also believe in protecting people against physical violence. Hence an anti-murder stance if you think a fetus is a child.

I thought towing the party line dogmatically was for you Liberals. Aren't you the ones that supported things like Iraq (Bosnia, Kosovo, Somolia) before Bush and now you oppose it.

Thinking for ourselves is something Libraterians are allowed to do. That's why I can be pro-war and another Libraterian can be anti-war. It's also why I can vote for a candidate I actually want to be president instead of someone I don't like but is better then the other guy.

MMMMMM

04-09-2005, 04:03 PM

Come on Cyrus don't you know I was just being playful with you by putting that in about the Soviets and chess. Yet there might be a grain of truth to it;-)

Next: I wasn't trying to elucidate your thinking, I was taking a shot at guessing you are coming from. I still think that that is probably where you are coming from;-)

The Soviets were trying to outgun the US and NATO. Wisely, Reagan refused to allow that to take place. He also brilliantly upped the stakes, in effect telling them: you want to play that game, OK then let's PLAY! You guys won't be able to keep up, haha. And he was of course shown to be right.

Reagan did not ruin the economy. adios probably has excellent data on this.

Reagan was one of our best Presidents and accomplished many great things during his time of serrvice to our country. Contrast that with Carter who goodheartedly but misguidedly gave away significant parts of the store and engendered scorn from our enemies. Too, my impression is that Carter was bad for the U.S. economy.

The seeds of 9/11, and similar events, and violent jihad, were sown not primarily in Reagan's time (as your short-ranged telescope might lead you to believe), but rather in Mohammed's time. Read the Q'uran, dear Cyrus, and learn all about the joys and rewards of killing infidels; and of forcing them to submit to Allah's law; and how the world must be run in accordance with Allah's blueprint. Then actually listen to the things bin-Laden has stated, and the radical leaders of the Finsbury Park Mosque in London, and Al-Zarqawi, etc. If you listen long enough you will see the definite parallels, and realize that these are guys who take the instructions of the Q'uran absolutely literally.

Dead

04-09-2005, 04:32 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Aren't you the ones that supported things like Iraq (Bosnia, Kosovo, Somolia) before Bush and now you oppose it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Thanks for your generalization.

Non-intervention is one of the KEY PLANKS of the Libertarian platform.

And I'm not dogmatic in my liberalism. If you paid any attention to my posts, then you would know that I opposed Bosnia and Kosovo. I didn't mention Somalia I don't think, but I opposed that too.

I detested Clinton. Sure, we had a good economy, but the guy set our party back with his shenanigans. He also had no principles. He just wanted to be re-elected. He adopted the Republican motto of "[censored] the poor".

vulturesrow

04-09-2005, 08:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]
He adopted the Republican motto of "[censored] the poor".

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah Dems really give a [censored] about poor people. The welfare state citizens make up a huge portion of the Democratic voting bloc. You think the Dems will do anything meaningful to fight poverty in America?

Dead

04-09-2005, 08:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
You think the Dems will do anything meaningful to fight poverty in America?

[/ QUOTE ]

Oh I forgot.

We're supposed to help the poor by throwing them off government services. What garbage. This is what Republicans say to appear compassionate. That's not why you throw them off. You throw them off because you want to save money, which you can then spend on the military-industrial complex/war machine.

Democrats do a hell of a lot more to help the poor than Republicans do.

Like fighting for a higher minimum wage. Republicans oppose this every step of the way. And don't tell me that it increases unemployment. That's complete garbage, and it doesn't happen if the minimum wage is raised tiny amounts. Ideally, we should index it to inflation.

I worked for 6.25/hr during 2001 and 2002, in high school. The minimum wage at that time was 5.15, same as is today. If the minimum wage had been raised, my pay likely would have been upped too. That would have been nice.

I was about to get a sweet raise to like 7, but then I left for college.

lehighguy

04-09-2005, 08:57 PM

Your right, lets make the minimum wage $20. After all, it won't effect employment at all, and everyone will have more money. Its like a no drawback solution to everything right...

Things happen on the margin. If you raise unemployment $1 McDOnalds isn't gonna fire its whole labor force, but it might hire nine people for the night shift instead of ten. All of this high minimum wage/shorter workweek junk happens in Europe and they have sky high unemployment and low labor force participation.

vulturesrow

04-09-2005, 08:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
We're supposed to help the poor by throwing them off government services.

[/ QUOTE ]

Find one place where I have ever advocated completely abolishing government assistance.

[ QUOTE ]
Like fighting for a higher minimum wage. Republicans oppose this every step of the way. And don't tell me that it increases unemployment. That's complete garbage, and it doesn't happen if the minimum wage is raised tiny amounts. Ideally, we should index it to inflation.

[/ QUOTE ]

a) You are right, it doesnt increase unemployment. It creates less employment. Other than a couple of very disputed and statistically limited studies, their is no data to suggest that increasing minimum wage doesnt reduce job availability. Its a very very simple application of the law of supply and demand in a microeconomic setting.

So please Dead, tell me what the Dems have done to help the poor so much other than create generations of families stuck in a vicious cycle of welfare dependency who in turn vote for Dems who promise them a bigger piece of the government pie.

Dead

04-09-2005, 08:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Your right, lets make the minimum wage $20.

[/ QUOTE ]

I specifically said that i would not raise it that much.

But raising it to 6.50 now would have no negative effects. It was raised from 4.25 to 5.15, and no jobs were lost.

Are you getting all of your information from Heritage?

theBruiser500

04-09-2005, 08:59 PM

"The main Soviet success in the region was Cuba, and while an unpleasant and undesirable dictatorship, the Communist Cuban government has never done anything to match what happened in Argentina under the generals or the atrocities acommitted by the Contras or Salvadorean death squads."

how is the cuba government undesirable? they have really good healthcare and education quality of life stuff for the amount of wealth they have.

Dead

04-09-2005, 09:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
how is the cuba government undesirable? they have really good healthcare and education quality of life stuff for the amount of wealth they have.

[/ QUOTE ]

Look at how Cuba has treated their AIDS patients. Cuba is not the hell that some here make it out to be, but it's not exactly heaven either.

Fidel is an authoritarian and the people do not have representation.

vulturesrow

04-09-2005, 09:01 PM

[ QUOTE ]
"The main Soviet success in the region was Cuba, and while an unpleasant and undesirable dictatorship, the Communist Cuban government has never done anything to match what happened in Argentina under the generals or the atrocities acommitted by the Contras or Salvadorean death squads."

how is the cuba government undesirable? they have really good healthcare and education quality of life stuff for the amount of wealth they have.

[/ QUOTE ]

You are completely and utterly brainwashed.

theBruiser500

04-09-2005, 09:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
No, but they would have listened to Koop.

[/ QUOTE ]

C'mon Andy. Young men who want to have lots of sex with near-anonymous partners aren't going to listen to anybody telling them not to (or to take certain precautions).

[/ QUOTE ]

dynasty i think you are way off here. would these guys who want sex now listen if we tell them about AIDs? well if they wouldn't listen then it was because there wasn't enough AIDs awareness or whatever, what other way is there to bring this awarenessa bout then for the president to start talking about it?

lehighguy

04-09-2005, 09:02 PM

The problem with non-intervention is that it ignores clear future threats. Non-intervention is the arguement people used to keep us out of WWII until 1942. Not intervening didn't make our enemies go away. It just let them get stronger and strike first.

Each case must be examined on an individual basis. There are some wars we should be involved in and some we shouldn't. I felt that the fate of Iraq and the greater middle east was essential enough to American security and long term interests I thought we should be involved. On other wars I don't think we should be involved.

Dead

04-09-2005, 09:09 PM

If we hadn't gotten involved in WWI, chances are there wouldn't have been a WWII. Germany and Austria would have won and Hitler would have just stayed a shitty artist instead of becoming a monster.

How many times must I repeat this?

theBruiser500

04-09-2005, 09:10 PM

cyrus what is ht emuslim card?

Arnfinn Madsen

04-09-2005, 09:10 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your right, lets make the minimum wage $20.

[/ QUOTE ]

I specifically said that i would not raise it that much.

But raising it to 6.50 now would have no negative effects. It was raised from 4.25 to 5.15, and no jobs were lost.

Are you getting all of your information from Heritage?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to add, here minimum wage is approx. $14 and unemployment is below 4%.

"Aim higher, you reach higher targets."

theBruiser500

04-09-2005, 09:12 PM

i admittedly don't know anything about cuba right now, all i know is what chomsky has told me in the last few days. that despite US putting all the pressure on them and cuba being so poor there basic quality of life stuff is v. good

Dead

04-09-2005, 09:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your right, lets make the minimum wage $20.

[/ QUOTE ]

I specifically said that i would not raise it that much.

But raising it to 6.50 now would have no negative effects. It was raised from 4.25 to 5.15, and no jobs were lost.

Are you getting all of your information from Heritage?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to add, here minimum wage is approx. $14 and unemployment is below 4%.

"Aim higher, you reach higher targets."

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume that you have raised it gradually.

If we tripled our minimum wage here, it would result in massive unemployment among small businesses.

Dead

04-09-2005, 09:14 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i admittedly don't know anything about cuba right now, all i know is what chomsky has told me in the last few days. that despite US putting all the pressure on them and cuba being so poor there basic quality of life stuff is v. good

[/ QUOTE ]

Cuba has a shitty government. But so does the US. The countries aren't bad in and of themselves, it is the governments that are the problem.

Denmark's government would not be a bad one to emulate.

Arnfinn Madsen

04-09-2005, 09:18 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Denmark's government would not be a bad one to emulate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Denmark is a nice country, sure. Just curious why you have fallen so much in love with it.

Arnfinn Madsen

04-09-2005, 09:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your right, lets make the minimum wage $20.

[/ QUOTE ]

I specifically said that i would not raise it that much.

But raising it to 6.50 now would have no negative effects. It was raised from 4.25 to 5.15, and no jobs were lost.

Are you getting all of your information from Heritage?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to add, here minimum wage is approx. $14 and unemployment is below 4%.

"Aim higher, you reach higher targets."

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume that you have raised it gradually.

If we tripled our minimum wage here, it would result in massive unemployment among small businesses.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has been raised gradually for about 60 years. It has given us a very solid economy (much more so than the US). Higher cost makes your businesses forced to work smarter. In the event of a crisis, we can just lower it 10% and everything will be ok.

Dead

04-09-2005, 09:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Denmark's government would not be a bad one to emulate.

[/ QUOTE ]

Denmark is a nice country, sure. Just curious why you have fallen so much in love with it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Because Denmark was the only occupied country that actively resisted the Nazi regime's attempts to deport its Jewish citizens.

On September 28, 1943, Georg Ferdinand Duckwitz, a German diplomat, secretly informed the Danish resistance that the Nazis were planning to deport the Danish Jews.

The Danes responded quickly, organizing a nationwide effort to smuggle the Jews by sea to neutral Sweden. Warned of the German plans, Jews began to leave Copenhagen, where most of the 8,000 Jews in Denmark lived, and other cities, by train, car, and on foot. With the help of the Danish people, they found hiding places in homes, hospitals, and churches. Within a two-week period fishermen helped ferry 7,220 Danish Jews and 680 non-Jewish family members to safety across the narrow body of water separating Denmark from Sweden.

You know the rest I am sure. The Danes are great people. I hope to visit the country someday.

Dead

04-09-2005, 09:25 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your right, lets make the minimum wage $20.

[/ QUOTE ]

I specifically said that i would not raise it that much.

But raising it to 6.50 now would have no negative effects. It was raised from 4.25 to 5.15, and no jobs were lost.

Are you getting all of your information from Heritage?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to add, here minimum wage is approx. $14 and unemployment is below 4%.

"Aim higher, you reach higher targets."

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume that you have raised it gradually.

If we tripled our minimum wage here, it would result in massive unemployment among small businesses.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has been raised gradually for about 60 years. It has given us a very solid economy (much more so than the US). Higher cost makes your businesses forced to work smarter. In the event of a crisis, we can just lower it 10% and everything will be ok.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that our minimum wage should eventually be at the level of Norway's, or even higher. I just don't want to triple it right away. That would throw people at work, and it's not like our welfare system is as comprehensive as yours. People would be hurt.

Arnfinn Madsen

04-09-2005, 09:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]
The Danes are great people. I hope to visit the country someday.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are wonderful. Copenhagen (capital) ranks 2nd of cities I have visited. Just take a walk, drink good beer and have a nice lunch, enjoy the atmosphere.

I seriously consider moving there.

Dead

04-09-2005, 09:29 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
The Danes are great people. I hope to visit the country someday.

[/ QUOTE ]

They are wonderful. Copenhagen (capital) ranks 2nd of cities I have visited. Just take a walk, drink good beer and have a nice lunch, enjoy the atmosphere.

I seriously consider moving there.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah I want to visit Copenhagen very badly.

I'm going out bowling with some pals right now, but I'll be back later tomorrow.

Feel free to PM me if you want with your AIM name or something. I like talking politics with you.

vulturesrow

04-09-2005, 09:31 PM

[ QUOTE ]
I like agreeing about politics with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fixed your post.

MMMMMM

04-09-2005, 09:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
i admittedly don't know anything about cuba right now, all i know is what chomsky has told me in the last few days. that despite US putting all the pressure on them and cuba being so poor there basic quality of life stuff is v. good

[/ QUOTE ]

Bruiser, I recall reading about a year ago, that even the doctors in Cuba have a hard time making ends meet on their salaries, and that some have taken to turning tricks on the side in order to augment their meager incomes/lifestyles. Be that s it may or may not be, the quality of life can hardly be called good.

Quality of life good? Maybe if you think treating people like dogs is good, and demanding obedience from them or else, then yeah you might say it is good. You will be sure get your meager rations and you get to go to the vet if you get distemper. If you don't like your master Fidel or his policies you better not bark about it, though.

If you dissent politically in Cuba you can be imprisoned in very bad prisons, or even executed.

Bush was right when he said: Castro took that beautiful island and he turned it into a prison. Did you know it is illegal for Cubans to escape their island prison?

Good life? Not in my book. But keep reading the High Priest of Leftist Propaganda, who is Noam Chomsky, and believe whatever you want. Just remember in Cuba you might be able to believe what you want, but there you can't say what you believe.

Arnfinn Madsen

04-09-2005, 09:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Your right, lets make the minimum wage $20.

[/ QUOTE ]

I specifically said that i would not raise it that much.

But raising it to 6.50 now would have no negative effects. It was raised from 4.25 to 5.15, and no jobs were lost.

Are you getting all of your information from Heritage?

[/ QUOTE ]

Just to add, here minimum wage is approx. $14 and unemployment is below 4%.

"Aim higher, you reach higher targets."

[/ QUOTE ]

I assume that you have raised it gradually.

If we tripled our minimum wage here, it would result in massive unemployment among small businesses.

[/ QUOTE ]

It has been raised gradually for about 60 years. It has given us a very solid economy (much more so than the US). Higher cost makes your businesses forced to work smarter. In the event of a crisis, we can just lower it 10% and everything will be ok.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree that our minimum wage should eventually be at the level of Norway's, or even higher. I just don't want to triple it right away. That would throw people at work, and it's not like our welfare system is as comprehensive as yours. People would be hurt.

[/ QUOTE ]

To your surprise, I have studied the American economic model (not all my opinions are unfounded /images/graemlins/smile.gif)

You are currently in no position to raise it sharply. It only makes sense to raise it when demand for labor is huge or if it is combined with efforts to increase the demand for labor. In the current US as you write, it would lead to poverty. On the other hand, over a period of time it is possible to do it in the US since your economy is relatively not dependant on foreign trade (compared to i.e Norway).

Arnfinn Madsen

04-09-2005, 09:39 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I like agreeing about politics with you.

[/ QUOTE ]

I fixed your post.

[/ QUOTE ]

lol, we have had a lot of fighting (just watch the Sudan-thread)

theBruiser500

04-09-2005, 10:00 PM

" But keep reading the High Priest of Leftist Propaganda, who is Noam Chomsky, and believe whatever you want. "

i would rather be too hard on my country, bee too nice to other countries, be very careful with nuclear weapons etc. then the other way around. btw you are still invited to give me book suggestions even though youa re MMMMMM

partygirluk

04-09-2005, 10:12 PM

I have not read all of this thread but if someone is trying to claim that the quality of life is good in Cuba they are talking out of their backside. It is a repressive dictatorship and just because Castro justifies his abuse via some idealistic notion of communism should not be allowed to distract from the fact he is a widely loathed within his own country dictator. The only people that like him are anti-western westerners, but even then none of them actually move to Cuba.

Copenhagen is amazing btw.

MMMMMM

04-09-2005, 10:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]

" But keep reading the High Priest of Leftist Propaganda, who is Noam Chomsky, and believe whatever you want. "
--------------------------------------------------
i would rather be too hard on my country, bee too nice to other countries, be very careful with nuclear weapons etc. then the other way around.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well you've got plenty of company then, because all those other countries that SUCK OUT LOUD, like Cuba, Syria, Iran, etc., would rather be too hard on your country too, and too nice on themselves, than the other way around. Heh.

[ QUOTE ]
btw you are still invited to give me book suggestions even though youa re MMMMMM

[/ QUOTE ]

Walden by Henry David Thoreau. One of the most important books ever written IMO. Very readable and enjoyable too, and worth thinking about. You will learn more about economy and life and philosophy from this book than from any ten others. If you've read it once, it's worth reading again--and again, over the years.

If you really read and absorb Thoreau, you will realize what idiocies most people occupy themselves with (including Chomsky, and including yours truly also).

Well that's my one book recommendation. I could recommend ten more, but they wouldn't be as valuable.

lehighguy

04-09-2005, 10:55 PM

We got involved in WWI because we didn't want Germany conquering Europe. Much like in WWII. Are you argueing against US involvement in WWI? Why? Would you prefer Germany won?

Dead

04-09-2005, 11:55 PM

Whether Germany winning would have been good or not is irrelevant.

We had no business getting involved in that war.

Iplayboard

04-10-2005, 12:54 AM

While some Americans remember Reagan for being a strong leader, it is important to remember his enormous flaws.

Reagan spent a bazillion dollars on his "Star Wars" missile defense system. While in theory it would be nice to block everybody else's missiles, this system has ZERO practicality. Tests conducted under ideal conditions are hit or miss. Countermeasures such as a backpack bomber or bombing a ship in a harbor are cheaper than missile defense. It would have no chance of stopping another 9/11.

The biggest error by the Reagan administration was the bullheaded decision to ignore the AIDS epidemic because it was largely seen as being a homosexual problem. Today, we obviously know that is completely false, many heterosexuals have contracted the virus as well. I wonder how many less people would have gotten AIDS had our government addressed the issue in the 80s.

Just another example of a president letting his "morals", and I use that term euphemistically, get in the way of his policies.

lehighguy

04-10-2005, 01:09 AM

But it does. That would be like saying Brittian had no stake in it because Germany attacked France and not Brittian. Nevermind they would be next if Germany won....

Or how we didn't have a stake when Japan invaded Korea and China, after all, its not like were next once they conquer that half of the pacific.

I think I understand why ignoring SS is so easy for you guys, you can't see that the problems of today become the problems of tommorrow.

Cyrus

04-10-2005, 01:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]
"...perceived as "strategic retreats" from Angola and Nicaragua."
The usage of the word "perceived" there is truly funny.

[/ QUOTE ]

Is it?

Then please explain to me, in as many words as you like, the geo-strategic interests that America holds in Angola. Explain to me why an indigenous (as opposed to a colonial) and democratic (as opposed to dictatorial) regime in Angola advances those interests.

Then try to reconcile what you will say with the spiel about "democracy's freedom fighters" that was routinely used by your Great Communicator.

[ QUOTE ]
I suppose you are also of the camp that concludes that Reagan's triumph in the cold war was a product of "luck" and "being in the right place at the right time."

[/ QUOTE ]

No, Reagan single-handedly destroyed Communism.

His often-stated propensity to "do nothing" at the Oval Office (see, inter alia, his Fortune interview about management), was part of the strategy. Duh.

Cyrus

04-10-2005, 02:00 AM

[ QUOTE ]
What is the "Muslim card" ?

[/ QUOTE ]

In the 1980s, when King Of America was a bright and decent fellow named Reagan, a person that could never tell a lie without blushing, the best and the brightest helpers he had in his administration (which included stars like James Watt and Mr Sununu) came up with the brilliant idea of undermining the Soviet Union's grasp on the nationalities of the Caucasus through playing the Muslim card.

What that devious ploy amounted to was to support the religious fundamentalists of that area into agitating against "godless communism" and start some shootin'!

To cut to the chase, Reagan's America helped the mujahedin militarily, financially, politically and in terms of intelligence (I'm talking about giving them info, not transferring Ronnie's IQ). Yes, it's the same "freedom fighters" that, after eliminating all secular opposition to Communism in their areas, started in earnest a holy war (a.k.a. a jihad) against all infidel foreigners, a war that --well, has yet to end!

To give you an example of that brilliant scheme of things, in Afghanistan, the local "freedom fighters" famously killed all the teachers in the villages! These were the young men and women who were supposedly communist, but were actually trying to bring some of the 20th century secularism in backward Afghanistan. The American "Muslim card" included the elimination of all those undesirables, among its other "tactical targets", since these progressive and idealistic young men and women were an obstacle towards the objective of creating a Muslim insurrection (and resurrection) harassing the Soviet Union.

Ronald Reagan begat al Qaeda.

Cyrus

04-10-2005, 02:45 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Explain to me why an indigenous (as opposed to a colonial) and democratic (as opposed to dictatorial) regime in Angola goes against those interests.

[/ QUOTE ]

MMMMMM

04-10-2005, 10:03 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Ronald Reagan begat al Qaeda.

[/ QUOTE ]

So Cyrus, from the description in your post above you derive that Reagan begat al Qaeda[/b]? Never mind all the other influences and factors that contributed to the rise of al-Qaeda, it was Reagan who begat them?

You are taking what may have been one contributing factor amongst many, and attributing the final result primarily or entirely to Reagan. Such intellectually dishonest hyperbole. Tsk, tsk.

andyfox

04-10-2005, 12:20 PM

Yet he makes an important point. To ignore the self-inflicted nature of our wounds is just as shortsighted as ignoring the hatred and miseducation in the Muslim world.

Bin Laden's psychosis and murderous ways are a fact; so is blowback and a foreign policy that ignores one or the other is doomed to failure.

masse75

04-10-2005, 12:44 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Lucky the political forum has people like you to peruse their posts for punctuation and spelling errors.
Don't worry, I don't think your a nit or being petty for pointing out my spelling errors. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Lucky the political forum has people like you to peruse their posts for punctuation and spelling errors.
Don't worry, I don't think you're a nit or being petty for pointing out my spelling errors. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

[/ QUOTE ]

FYP. Grammar was fine. Spelling sucks.

"spaceman"Bryce

04-11-2005, 03:08 AM

I dont think any of the posters have completely grasped how amazing Ronald Reagan was.His biography:
Ronald Reagan was a poor boy from illinois who was a simple drifter looking for a radio job during the depression.Then he ran into a pack of rabid communist.they were faoming at the mouth and they said "In the future, we will eat and rape your mom, and tattoo all your little brothers.Plus we will eliminate baseball and Apple pie.In fact we will eliminate all pies, except for french recipes" Then ronny staring down the 16 foot tall communist with only a slingshot said "I may not be a rabid communist who is 16 feet tall, but I will fight with gods shield." The innocent Americans who witnessed the battle wrote many favorite articles about him and then he landed a job in sports broadcasting.Chicago's resident cub fans said "without Reagan, it just wouldnt be the world series."
But Ronald Reagan had a higher calling. In WW2 he single handedly killed multiple battalions of japanese.When asked about his heroics the modest man said "I only did what any other american would do." Later on Ronald Reagan hanged out with disgusting liberal actors and said " I the gipper, will sit down with the sinners, for even they can be saved in the eyes of god. He was promptly elected Governer of California, and no terrorist ever attacked California again.He also saved California from global warming. Then in 1980 He was elected President in a landslide.Everyone could see his good nature and amazing healing power. He brought capitalism back to prominence, and destroyed communism forever.The Devil had only one response
A.To try to assasinate him.but god saved him.
B. To make up some iran scandel.It was later proven that all his naysayers were dirty kids.
And that children is why you see this statue standing before you.

Dead

04-11-2005, 03:18 AM

Nice post. I laughed very hard.

Is that your work?

"spaceman"Bryce

04-11-2005, 03:22 AM

yes.

villafan

04-12-2005, 02:40 PM

I think Reagen was a great leader. He and the great Maggie Thatcher has made our lives a lot better. They improved the economy, created new jobs, got rid of a lot of red tape and liberalised a lot of markets.

Almost everyone in Europe and US should thank Reagen and Thatcher of helping us get rid of a lot of socialist politics.

Dead

04-12-2005, 02:44 PM

You misspelled Saint Reagan's name twice, and I don't know what socialist "politics" they got rid of.

This is a joke post, right?

kurto

04-12-2005, 03:11 PM

That's the knee-jerk response by the sheep on the right. Any person/entity/country that they don't like is automatically socialist. Its no different then arbitrarily labelling anyone who disagrees with someone a 'liberal'. (And of course liberal is automatically a 'bad word.' No thinking required.)

Its so hard to take anyone seriously when the unsupported meaningless cliches start flying.

Dead

04-12-2005, 03:12 PM

Stop with your librul bullshit. /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

villafan

04-12-2005, 03:25 PM

There are two reasons I'm an idiot.

1) I actually misspelled the name. That was no joke, and I cant believe I actually did it.

2) I chose the language german as second language when i was studying. Not english. Makes me write some strange things, and I have found out that I am just as bad in english as in german. /images/graemlins/frown.gif My plan was obviously to learn two languages besides my norwegian, but I ended up being quite bad in both german and english, so you must bare with all my poorly written english. But I do live in a socialdemocratic country that i would claim is quite socialistic. Things have improved the last few years, but before the wind of liberalisation came blowing over Europe, my country actually had rules that made the shops close at 4. Satelite TV was actually banned, my parents had to wait almost a half year to get a telephone from the state owned monopolist. The state owned bank that provided loans for houses had the power to refuse house lones if the furnitures was too expensive (this was before the liberalisation of the financial markets).

My point was that the liberalisation that Reagan and Thatcher was in charge of actually had some very positive effects on a lot of western countries. Monopolies were ended and markets were opened up. I would say that is a very good thing.

Felix_Nietsche

04-12-2005, 03:42 PM

*Conservatives are PROUD to admit their conservative.
*Liberals are largely ASHAMED to admit their liberals.

Liberals prefer to call themselves names like: "progressives", "independents", and "moderates". In fact many of them are SOOOOO ashamed to be known as liberals, they will claim that calling someone a 'liberal' is a dirty name calling....

Perhaps with lots of therapy and a 12-step program they can one day admit that they are liberal with pride. I can see the first 12-step meeting. A guy nervously walks up to the front of the room and says, "My name is John and I'm a....L-L-L-iberal." The room explodes with clapping. /images/graemlins/smile.gif

DVaut1

04-12-2005, 04:00 PM

[ QUOTE ]
*Conservatives are PROUD to admit their conservative.
*Liberals are largely ASHAMED to admit their liberals.

Liberals prefer to call themselves names like: "progressives", "independents", and "moderates". In fact many of them are SOOOOO ashamed to be known as liberals, they will claim that calling someone a 'liberal' is a dirty name calling....

[/ QUOTE ]

I know not one liberal who is ashamed to be called a liberal because they're ashamed of what they believe. It's usually out of political prudence because the word 'liberal' is essentially demonized. IMO, when liberals run from the word 'liberal', it says more about the success of the right's rhetorical dominance than it does about liberal self-loathing.

To put it another way, what you're claiming is similar to saying blacks prefer not to be called n****** because they're ashamed to be black, which I think we can all agree is patently false.

Felix_Nietsche

04-12-2005, 04:05 PM

No need to apologize about mispellings.
English is my first language and I mispell lots of words. Usually because I'm trying to play poker and switch screens back to twoplustwo.com Often I leave out whole words from sentences which accidently appears as "chat" at the poker tables. I'm not sure what the other poker players think... /images/graemlins/smile.gif

Reagan won the cold war because he realized the cold war was not USSR vs USA....but Karl Marx vs Adam Smith. Many European leaders STILL do not understand this, and are STILL trying to maintain their Quasi-Socialist governments.

Excessive Govt Control of the Economy = Bad Economy
Less Govt Control of the Economy = Stronger Economy

kurto

04-12-2005, 04:22 PM

"*Liberals are largely ASHAMED to admit their liberals" Not in my experience. The other fallacy with this perception is the same idiots who think 'liberal' is a dirty word (who in reality, have no idea what it means or what a person's position on any issue is) are the same people who arbitrarily label anyone who disagrees with them as a liberal.

I've been in endless discussions with these limbaugh-lite sheep (please be clear, I'm not saying Republicans or Conservatives since I know many who are thinking, nuanced and intelligent... I'm talking specifically about the larger sheep-base who spout meaningless platitudes) who accuse one politician or another of being a flaming liberal, yet can't point to a single piece of legislation or position where the person was liberal.

There are very few liberal politicians, btw. Most democrats these days are fairly moderate. But you wouldn't think so by listening to the blatting of the sheep.

"Liberals prefer to call themselves names like: "progressives", "independents", and "moderates"." Probably because that's what they are. The people who disagree with this are generally people who label anyone who disagrees with them as "liberal" or "Far left."

Dead

04-12-2005, 06:43 PM

Would Adam Smith have instituted steel tariffs(like Bush did)? Karl Marx wouldn't have either.

We don't live in a capitalist country. We live in a corporatist country. The corporations control Washington, regardless of which party occupies the White House and controls the Congress.

Felix_Nietsche

04-13-2005, 12:31 AM

"Would Adam Smith have instituted steel tariffs(like Bush did)?"
********************************************
No, he would not...

"Karl Marx wouldn't have either."
********************************************
That is more than I know.....Do you have a Ouiji board?

"The corporations control Washington,"
**********************************************
I don't buy that... If this is true, why did Martha Stewart go to jail?

Dead

04-13-2005, 12:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]

"Karl Marx wouldn't have either."
********************************************
That is more than I know.....Do you have a Ouiji board?

[/ QUOTE ]

http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/marx_freetrade.html

Marx was pro free trade, because he believed that it would benefit the workers.

BCPVP

04-13-2005, 01:31 AM

On a completely different note, Dead finally picked a good avatar... /images/graemlins/grin.gif

Dead

04-13-2005, 01:34 AM

Not a fan of the Moose?

http://www.outsidepitch.com/images/merch/mussina_auto.jpg

Well, I can't blame you for preferring Carmela. She IS awful easy on the eyes. Too bad she is a liberal, huh? /images/graemlins/tongue.gif

http://club.telepolis.com/decesare/img3/A1.jpg

BCPVP

04-13-2005, 01:46 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Not a fan of the Moose?

[/ QUOTE ]
Baseball bores me to tears.

[ QUOTE ]
Well, I can't blame you for preferring Carmela. She IS awful easy on the eyes. Too bad she is a liberal, huh?

[/ QUOTE ]
She most certainly is easy on the eyes. But there's hope for all who stray from the right path... /images/graemlins/tongue.gif /images/graemlins/grin.gif

"spaceman"Bryce

04-13-2005, 02:18 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
*Conservatives are PROUD to admit their conservative.
*Liberals are largely ASHAMED to admit their liberals.

Liberals prefer to call themselves names like: "progressives", "independents", and "moderates". In fact many of them are SOOOOO ashamed to be known as liberals, they will claim that calling someone a 'liberal' is a dirty name calling....

[/ QUOTE ]

I know not one liberal who is ashamed to be called a liberal because they're ashamed of what they believe. It's usually out of political prudence because the word 'liberal' is essentially demonized. IMO, when liberals run from the word 'liberal', it says more about the success of the right's rhetorical dominance than it does about liberal self-loathing.

To put it another way, what you're claiming is similar to saying blacks prefer not to be called n****** because they're ashamed to be black, which I think we can all agree is patently false.

[/ QUOTE ]
I was going to reply in a similair manner but you did a better job.Thanks

kurto

04-13-2005, 02:29 AM

"I don't buy that... If this is true, why did Martha Stewart go to jail?" I'm surprised you don't 'buy it.'

Who was crafting our energy policy? Who was in the closed door meetings?

Our medical policies are dictated by the pharmacuetical lobbyists.

Why can't we buy cheap drugs from Canada? Because pharm companies lobby against it.

Why have they stopped pushing fuel economy in cars? Because the car industry and fuel industries don't want it.

Even ceiling fans... they're not energy efficient. They are trying to pass a bill to make them more efficient. Surprise... its being fought by manufactors and Home Depot.

A decade ago Gore tried to pass a law to tighten airport security because of the growing threat of terrorism... why didn't it happen? Airline lobbyists.

Why was the clean air act weakened (and other environmental acts even though polls show the majority of Americans place this as a top concern?) Its cheaper for industries to pollute.

Why did the energy gaming happen? Because the industry got their own people to make a law where they could monitor themselves. And surprise, surprise... they went crooked.

Regarding Martha Stewart... she was small stakes who got caught and they had to make a show of it because she was a very public figure. She was a minnow in a school of sharks.

Cyrus

04-13-2005, 02:32 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Bush was right when he said: Castro took that beautiful island and he turned it into a prison. Did you know it is illegal for Cubans to escape their island prison?

[/ QUOTE ]

As usual, things are not black or white about Cuba.

On the minus side, there is the huge issue of human rights (homosexuals put in prison -- yes, it's a bad thing, dear neo-cons, etc) and civil freedoms. Cuba is doing truly badly there.

On the plus side, there is the imoirtant issue of overall quality of life. The levels of infant mortality (lowest in the western hemisphere), poverty, hunger (ditto), ect indicate good quality of life. It is not a coincidence that the Cubans are relatively healthier than the rest of the Americas and, thus, can field highly competitive athletes too. The Cubans apparently did not take the Soviet model of socialism to much at heart.

A visit to Havana is a true eye opener. Quite unlike a visit to the old Moscow of grey doom or even the new Peking/Beijing of the iron-teeth smiles.

Cyrus

04-13-2005, 02:34 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Baseball bores me to tears.

[/ QUOTE ]

Try watching Cricket.

MMMMMM

04-13-2005, 06:22 AM

[ QUOTE ]
On the plus side, there is the imoirtant issue of overall quality of life. The levels of infant mortality (lowest in the western hemisphere), poverty, hunger (ditto), ect indicate good quality of life.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, it doesn't really. There is NOT a "good quality of life" in Cuba; hell even the doctors in Cuba are poor. Just about EVERYONE in Cuba is poor except old Fidel and a few cronies maybe. Granted they aren't starving in the streets but they are poor nonetheless. If not so then why would people in the top professions in Cuba be having trouble making ends meet?

The populace is living at what is essentially a bare subsistence level. Just because they aren't actually starving does not mean they aren't impoverished or very close to it. And you cannot rightly call that a "good quality of life" even if it includes bare rations and a visit to the vet on occasion.

MMMMMM

04-13-2005, 08:33 AM

Cuba pretty much bears out the old saying:

"The inherent vice of capitalism is the unequal sharing of blessings; the inherent virtue of communism is the equal sharing of miseries."

So nearly everyone in Cuba is equally poor and miserable.
"Viva la revolucion" is for Western idiots--and, more sadly, for those Castro has wickedly imprisoned on his island (which is essentially the entire populace).

Here's a question for you, Cyrus:: if life in Cuba is of such a high quality, why do Cubans risk imprisonment and execution to try to flee? Why is it illegal to leave the country?

Answer: because life isn't of such high quality in Cuba. If it were, the government would not feel it necessary to make it illegal to leave; and Cubans wouldn't risk prison, execution, or drowning by using flimsy rafts or small fishing boats in trying to escape through dangerous waters.

nicky g

04-13-2005, 09:53 AM

Cuba is no paradise, but you exaggerate its miseries.

Firstly, people don't get executed for trying to leave, as you imply.

Secondly, Cuba is hardly alone amongst poor countries in having people risk their lives in trying to make it to nearby rich countries. Think of Mexcans trudging through the Arizone desrt, or North Africans drowning trying to get to Spain.

Thirdly, political freedom is sadly repressed in Cuba. On the other hand caling it a prison island is overdoing it. The crackdown a couple of years ago were noted for being the most repressive in decades, and it invovled at most several hundred people being arrested and jailed. Now that's absolutely disgracceful given that they were being arrested for political offences, but there were no executions, the majority of them have been released, and as mentioned it was regarded as something of an abberation from the norm. And compared to the rest of Latin America until fairly reccently, Cuba was a shining light of freedom. I would have much rather lived in Cuba during most of the cold war than any of the right-wing regimes supported by the US in the rest of Latin America, and I would still probably rather be poor in Cuba than in some Bolivian or Brazilian shanty town. Not only was the living standard for the poor, which made up the substantial majority of many Latin American countries, far higher in Cuba (and still is in many respects), but the Cuban government never came close to rivalling the repressiveness or brutality of the generals in Argentina, Somoza, Pinochet, or whoever, not to mention the Batista-gangster regime it overthrew. It's long (always, even) been high time Cuba held free and fair elections and gave its people proper freedom of expression, but it is not the totalitarian starvation dungeon you paint it to be, and certainly not in compairson to other poor and/or undemocratic countries both in the past and now.
You do the cause of freedom in Cuba no good by pretending the situation is somewho equivalent to Stalinist Russia; it just means people will ignore you.

nanoCRUSHER

04-13-2005, 10:06 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Regarding Martha Stewart... she was small stakes who got caught and they had to make a show of it because she was a very public figure. She was a minnow in a school of sharks.

[/ QUOTE ]

Martha Stewart: Democratic Donor -> Convicted
Bernard Ebbers: Democratic Donor -> Convicted

Dennis Kozlowski: Republican Donor -> Trial continuously postponed
Ken Lay: Bush Donor -> still building the court case

All businessmen better remember: if they're gonna steal, they're going to jail OR they're giving to republicans.

Back onto the original discussion of Reagan's mixed legacy. He didn't bring the interest rates down, so stop trying to bring it up. Paul Volcker became Fed Chairman in '79 and stopped rampant inflation by tightening up the money supply via increasing interest rates, forcing a very bad recession. Once inflation was under control, he re-opened the money supply by offering incredibly low interest loans, resulting in one of the longest "peace-time" growths in GDP ever. In doing all this, he spent heavily on the military, increased the size of the government, and lowered taxes, creating huge fiscal problems that would later have to be dealt with by GHWB. For all his talk of "running gov't like a business," and "ketchup is a vegetable," Ronnie was a failure.

As for destroying the Soviet Union, whatever he did only accelerated the demise of their empire. As Richard Clarke said, Reagan wasn't happy with the equations we had (Arms Treaties, general passive stance after Vietnam), so he created new equations in Afghanistan and overall put more pressure on an already dying Soviet economy. The best advisors in the early 80's gave the Soviet Union 20-30 years tops, and with Reagan, he got it done in 11. General discontent within occupied regions helped speed the process, with East Germany breaking down the Berlin Wall, Chernobyl turning 1/3 of Ukraine inhabitable, and others. As one of the other posters stated, random occurances played a major role in bringing them down, not just the Gipper. And in bringing down the Soviet Union, he sold Iran (supported terrorism in Lebanon and Israel) shoulder-fired missiles and military parts, turned Osama bin-Laden into a rogue warrior, and supported Nicaraguan terrorists. His foreign policy was zero-sum: for every problem solved, another was created.

Chris Alger

04-13-2005, 10:52 AM

Are the following accounts "terrorism" in your book?

[ QUOTE ]
“[F]ive of them raped me at about five in the evening . . . they had gang-raped me every day. When my vagina couldn't take it anymore, they raped me through my rectum. I calculate that in 5 days they raped me 60 times.”

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
“They had already destroyed all that was the cooperative; a coffee drying machine, the two dormitories for the coffee cutters, the electricity generators, 7 cows, the plant, the food warehouse. There was one boy, about 15 years old, who was retarded and suffered from epilepsy. We had left him in a bomb shelter. When we returned . . . we
saw . . . that they had cut his throat, then they cut open his stomach and left his intestines hanging out on the ground like a string. They did the same to Juan Corrales who had already died from a bullet in the fighting. They opened him up and took out his intestines and cut off his testicles.”

[/ QUOTE ]

From Reed Brody, Contra Terror in Nicaragua -- Report of a Fact-finding Mission: September 1984-January 1985, Boston: South End, 1985, pp. 120, 71.

SoCom Commander Gen. John Galvin characterized 1987 "success" by the contras before the House Foreign Affairs Western Hemisphere Subcommittee as follows: "Lots of victories. They're going after soft targets. They're not trying to duke it out with the Sandinistas directly." As a result of their victories over the "soft targets," Galvin testified that "It's getting better. In the past few months, I'm more hopeful than I was before." "U.S. general says contra chances improving," Boston Globe, May 20, 1987, p. 9. Note that Galvin's testimony dovetails nicely with the complaints Oliver North committed to his diary, before he realized it would become public, about the unwillingness and inability of the contras to fight real troops.

Dead

04-13-2005, 11:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Are the following accounts "terrorism" in your book?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know if that could be considered terrorism, but it is certainly awful.

Just awful.

Well, the Contras were fighting to overthrow the government and using tactics like this, so I guess it could be considered terrorism, actually.

MMMMMM

04-13-2005, 10:22 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Cuba is no paradise, but you exaggerate its miseries.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think I am exaggerating overall even if I may have gotten a detail or so off by a bit.

[ QUOTE ]
Firstly, people don't get executed for trying to leave, as you imply.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I looked it up. It appears I was mistaken that people may face execution for merely trying to leave. However in 2003 Castro executed three men who tried to force a ferry boat to take them to the United States, and they were executed after only a summary trial. Castro also sentenced 75 people to long prison terms for trying to leave.

http://www.lanuevacuba.com/nuevacuba/notic-03-05-312.htm

[ QUOTE ]
Secondly, Cuba is hardly alone amongst poor countries in having people risk their lives in trying to make it to nearby rich countries. Think of Mexcans trudging through the Arizone desrt, or North Africans drowning trying to get to Spain.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes Nicky but my point was that the country IS poor and the people DO NOT have a high quality of life--contrary to Cyrus' claim that they do. I also mentioned that people try to escape even though to do so is an illegal act fraught with peril, and they do it because, among other things, the general standard of living is not very good.

[ QUOTE ]
Thirdly, political freedom is sadly repressed in Cuba. On the other hand caling it a prison island is overdoing it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Any place where you are legally confined against your will or agreement is a prison of sorts.

[ QUOTE ]
The crackdown a couple of years ago were noted for being the most repressive in decades, and it invovled at most several hundred people being arrested and jailed. Now that's absolutely disgracceful given that they were being arrested for political offences, but there were no executions,...

[/ QUOTE ]

What about the above article then? Maybe the thre executed for commanderering or hijacking that ferryboat weren't amongst the others? Don't know haven't read further. I do recal specifically however that at least one schoolteacher and one poet were amongst those Castro sent to prison for many years--for mere political dissent. What a scum.

[ QUOTE ]
... the majority of them have been released, and as mentioned it was regarded as something of an abberation from the norm. And compared to the rest of Latin America until fairly reccently, Cuba was a shining light of freedom.

[/ QUOTE ]

Sorry I don't think so. Certainly not compared to Costa Rica, and my Brazilian friends didn't think Brazil more repressive than Cuba (at least before Lula). Not sure about other countries; some are likely more repressive than Cuba.

[ QUOTE ]
I would have much rather lived in Cuba during most of the cold war than any of the right-wing regimes supported by the US in the rest of Latin America, and I would still probably rather be poor in Cuba than in some Bolivian or Brazilian shanty town. Not only was the living standard for the poor, which made up the substantial majority of many Latin American countries, far higher in Cuba (and still is in many respects),...

[/ QUOTE ]

That's exactly NOT my point: I was not comparing where it is better to be ]i]poor[/i], but rather where it is worse to be not in the very pooerest strata. My point to Cyrus is that even professionals in Cuba are still poor. So you basically can't escape being poor in Cuba even if you are a doctor. Just because the poorest don't starve DOES NOT mean the overall quality of life is good. Frankly, it sucks; it's just that people aren't out-and-out starving and have their most basic needs met. But basically EVERYONE has to scrimp and scrounge and lead very pinched economic existences--even those in the best professions.

[ QUOTE ]
...but the Cuban government never came close to rivalling the repressiveness or brutality of the generals in Argentina, Somoza, Pinochet, or whoever, not to mention the Batista-gangster regime it overthrew.

[/ QUOTE ]

Never said it did. But it still exists whereas the regimes of Somoza, Pinochet, and Batista don't. This is NOW.

[ QUOTE ]
It's long (always, even) been high time Cuba held free and fair elections and gave its people proper freedom of expression,

[/ QUOTE ]

Not a small point by any means.

[ QUOTE ]
...but it is not the totalitarian starvation dungeon you paint it to be,

[/ QUOTE ]

I specifically said people get fed in Cuba; that they aren't starving. You're paraphrasing my words very inaccurately here. And yes it most certainly is totalitarian.

[ QUOTE ]
and certainly not in compairson to other poor and/or undemocratic countries both in the past and now.

[/ QUOTE ]

Not my point; my point was to take issue with Cyrus' claim of a good quality of life in Cuba.

[ QUOTE ]
You do the cause of freedom in Cuba no good by pretending the situation is somewho equivalent to Stalinist Russia;

[/ QUOTE ]

It is pretty much legally equivalent to Soviet Russia, just not entirely in practice. I would imagine that Castro has the legal means to make it just about as repressive as Soviet Russia; he just hasn't done so. And probably not out of the goodness of his heart, but because it wouldn't suit his agenda.

By the way I have read reports of absolutely ATROCIOUS conditions in Cuba's prisons, and of how political dissidents are broken long-term in those prisons.

[ QUOTE ]
...it just means people will ignore you.

[/ QUOTE ]

Methinks you may be overreacting emotionally somewhat. As I pointed out above, you mis-paraphrased me on at least point, and seem to be rebutting some points I wasn't even making.

Dead

04-13-2005, 10:48 PM

Don't forget how shittily AIDS patients are treated in communist Cuba.

Cyrus

04-14-2005, 03:54 AM

thighs.

[ QUOTE ]
If life in Cuba is of such a high quality, why do Cubans risk imprisonment and execution to try to flee? Why is it illegal to leave the country?

[/ QUOTE ]

This shows a serious misunderstanding of the dynamics in human preferences. Briefly, Man wants both freedom and a humane organisation of society. Cuba is not a free country in terms of political and civil freedoms, so a lot of people bolt out because they want more say in their own affairs and a chance to earn a better living. Naturally, since this is an autocratic regime, it forbids its people from leaving...

This, however, does not affect the grading of the coverage of basic needs that Cuban government provides to the country's inhabitants. They get good grades there. Until recently, Cuba was far ahead in terms of infant mortality, literacy, health standards, environmental standards, etc, from all the countries in the hemisphere, except Canada and the U.S., and with the poorest of resources too, not to mention a 50-year old embargo. Despite their country's (small) size, Cubans, in huge numbers, excel in sports and the arts, endeavors that are also quite accessible by all (albeit with little money to be made out of).

Denying that is for ostrichs.

[ QUOTE ]
In 2003 Castro executed three men who tried to force a ferry boat to take them to the United States, and they were executed after only a summary trial.

[/ QUOTE ]
I don't know about that story but I trust you that's it's a true one. And I do not doubt that many, if not most, of those who want out of Cuba have political or economic motives. However, there have been many cases where criminals have snuck into the U.S. pretending to seek "a better future".

Was the ferry boat emnpty or loaded with passengers? If it was loaded with passengers, are you saying that the Cuban government executed three hijackers?

nicky g

04-14-2005, 04:41 AM

"in 2003 Castro executed three men who tried to force a ferry boat to take them to the United States, and they were executed after only a summary trial."

People certainly shouldn;t be executed for hijacking, or in my opinion for anything, and I also remember hearing that they got a very unjeust trial, but hijacking a ferry is not at all the same as trying to leave. It makes no sense to compare the two.

"Any place where you are legally confined against your will or agreement is a prison of sorts. "

Come on; most people in all the countries I mentioned are also effectively confined by the simple fact that the countries they want to go to won't take them.

"Maybe the three executed for commanderering or hijacking that ferryboat weren't amongst the others? "

I was talking about no executions in the political crackdown; hijacking something isn't a solely politcal act, although I repeat that they absolutely should not have been executed.

"Don't know haven't read further. I do recal specifically however that at least one schoolteacher and one poet were amongst those Castro sent to prison for many years--for mere political dissent."

I don't how their professions make it any worse. I agree it was an outrage.

"Sorry I don't think so. Certainly not compared to Costa Rica, and my Brazilian friends didn't think Brazil more repressive than Cuba (at least before Lula)."

Certainly in the past Brazil has seen governments far more brutal and repressive than Cuba. It's also not that long since police were habitually slaughtering homeless chidren on its streets. I would doubt that it is politically as oppressive as Cuba these days; on the other hand large parts of it suffer far more severe levels of poverty and violence.

"That's exactly NOT my point: I was not comparing where it is better to be ]i]poor, but rather where it is worse to be not in the very pooerest strata. My point to Cyrus is that even professionals in Cuba are still poor. So you basically can't escape being poor in Cuba even if you are a doctor. Just because the poorest don't starve DOES NOT mean the overall quality of life is good. Frankly, it sucks; it's just that people aren't out-and-out starving and have their most basic needs met. But basically EVERYONE has to scrimp and scrounge and lead very pinched economic existences--even those in the best professions. "

There is some truth to this but it raises the question of where the comparison should be made. Given that in many Latin American countries the large majority of peole live in severe poverty that they have no realistic chance of escaping from, it makes as much if not more sense to compare the lives of the poor than the rich. And this is wherere the quality of life question comes in. You assertt Cubans have a poor quality of life. Does the average Cuban have a good material quality of life compared to most Americans or Western Europeans? Of course not. Compared to much or most of the population in the rest of the third world or much of Central America? I'd say it compares pretty well. Which does it make more sense to compare to?
"Never said it did. But it still exists whereas the regimes of Somoza, Pinochet, and Batista don't. This is NOW. "

Yes, agreed, and I've said proper political freedom is long overdue there. On the other hand some of those things happened not that long ago, and the Communist Cuban state it has compared favourably to much of its regional neighbours in terms of human rights abuses etc for a majority of its lifespan and compared to what it replaced. Let us hope it is soon peacefully replaced by something that compares favourably to it.

"Not a small point by any means. "
Agreed.

"I specifically said people get fed in Cuba; that they aren't starving. You're paraphrasing my words very inaccurately here. And yes it most certainly is totalitarian. "

I do not agree that it is totalitarian. Totalitarianism to me means something like Nazi Germany or the state in 1984; a system where absolutely everything is controlled by the state, the worship of which has become an enforced religion, and where dissent will get you humiliated and killed. The Cuban state is repressive and too powerful but it is pretty far from 1984.

"Methinks you may be overreacting emotionally somewhat. As I pointed out above, you mis-paraphrased me on at least point, and seem to be rebutting some points I wasn't even making."

OK.

Cyrus

04-14-2005, 04:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
The Contras were fighting to overthrow the government [of Nicaragua] and using tactics like this, so I guess it could be considered terrorism, actually.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely.

But please do not think that only actions directed against a government can be considered terrorism. Terrorism sponsored by the government (state terrorism) is both more prevalent and more dangerous.

As a matter of fact, the term "terrorism" itself originates from the French Revolution, when the government used scare tactics, such as mass executions, to cement its grip on power. We then have the Red Terror of the newly established Bolshevik government, etc.

einbert

04-14-2005, 05:02 AM

[ QUOTE ]
I dont think any of the posters have completely grasped how amazing Ronald Reagan was.His biography:
Ronald Reagan was a poor boy from illinois who was a simple drifter looking for a radio job during the depression.Then he ran into a pack of rabid communist.they were faoming at the mouth and they said "In the future, we will eat and rape your mom, and tattoo all your little brothers.Plus we will eliminate baseball and Apple pie.In fact we will eliminate all pies, except for french recipes" Then ronny staring down the 16 foot tall communist with only a slingshot said "I may not be a rabid communist who is 16 feet tall, but I will fight with gods shield." The innocent Americans who witnessed the battle wrote many favorite articles about him and then he landed a job in sports broadcasting.Chicago's resident cub fans said "without Reagan, it just wouldnt be the world series."
But Ronald Reagan had a higher calling. In WW2 he single handedly killed multiple battalions of japanese.When asked about his heroics the modest man said "I only did what any other american would do." Later on Ronald Reagan hanged out with disgusting liberal actors and said " I the gipper, will sit down with the sinners, for even they can be saved in the eyes of god. He was promptly elected Governer of California, and no terrorist ever attacked California again.He also saved California from global warming. Then in 1980 He was elected President in a landslide.Everyone could see his good nature and amazing healing power. He brought capitalism back to prominence, and destroyed communism forever.The Devil had only one response
A.To try to assasinate him.but god saved him.
B. To make up some iran scandel.It was later proven that all his naysayers were dirty kids.
And that children is why you see this statue standing before you.

[/ QUOTE ]

This man is a genius.