View Full Version : The Ronald Reagan On Everything Thread
Busyman
06-11-2004, 01:47 AM
It seems Republicans are pushing for all of these:
Ronald Reagan.......
on the dime
the $10 bill or
the $20 bill
the Pentagon
Mount Rushmore
Republicans are on crack.
The bad part is that since we have a Republican Congress some of this shit is going to come to fruition.
That's how we got the Ronald Reagan Building and Reagan National Airport.
During his era
the rich got richer
we had a nasty recession
rampant inflation
didn't speak out against apartheid
FuNkY CaPrIcOrN
06-11-2004, 01:49 AM
;) Mount Rushmore should of been taken down along time ago.Damn White Man!
Busyman
06-11-2004, 02:03 AM
Originally posted by FuNkY CaPrIcOrN@10 June 2004 - 21:57
;) Mount Rushmore should of been taken down along time ago.Damn White Man!
I don't think it should be taken down but it would serve as a slap in the face to have ole Ron's head on it.
:o Holy fuck it's about time someone else on this board actually know Ronald Reagan was an ass who never did anything good for this country. :) But eh, Reagan was asleep the whole term and was just woken up for speeches. He acted in movies pretending to be whatever movie he was in and then he pretended to be president.
And dont forget his war on drugs. The biggest violation of civil rights that the government has ever done. <_< Put millions in jail and didn't reduce drug use. Getting tough on crime aint gonna reduce crime.
Wallace_Askew
06-11-2004, 05:05 AM
<_< It's nice how Bush is now comparing his administration to Regan's and all this Regan coverage is now pulling attention away from real stories going on...like for instance how Ashcrost refuses to disclose any of the legal documents on torture from the justice dept.
Busyman
06-11-2004, 05:36 AM
Originally posted by Wallace_Askew@11 June 2004 - 01:13
<_< It's nice how Bush is now comparing his administration to Regan's and all this Regan coverage is now pulling attention away from real stories going on...like for instance how Ashcrost refuses to disclose any of the legal documents on torture from the justice dept.
I agree.
The password is:
Bandwagon
FuNkY CaPrIcOrN
06-11-2004, 06:36 AM
All I know is Reagan was the First President alot of us seen.
*Sorry to post that.But it came out in my drunken ass.*
Alex H
06-11-2004, 06:55 AM
FC - That comment sounds like you're on something better than booze... :smoke:
Voetsek
06-11-2004, 09:23 AM
Ron was great allways on topic had a great set of one liners and never slept on the
job ron was the best
Biggles
06-11-2004, 06:13 PM
Originally posted by Voetsek@11 June 2004 - 09:31
Ron was great allways on topic had a great set of one liners and never slept on the
job ron was the best
:huh:
Ronald Reagan was the all time greatest President of the USA?
:huh:
junkyardking
06-12-2004, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by Voetsek@11 June 2004 - 09:31
Ron was great allways on topic had a great set of one liners and never slept on the
job ron was the best
I dont think the Nicaraguans would agree with you, selling weapons to Iran to fund the overthrow of a democratic Goverment in Nicaragua in which women and children were targeted is hardly anything to be proud of, then theres Regans support for Saddam Hussain.
The most poweful governments tend to be the biggest hyprocrits, fools want to see dead leaders like Regan with Rose colored glasses i personaly dont prefer to be that blind and stupid.
I wonder if Americans would be happy to see other people celerbrating " a dead great leader" if that leader had done the same as Regan but it was to US, for some reason i think not ;)
Reagn supported terrorism and thus was no better than Osama. <_<
FuNkY CaPrIcOrN
06-12-2004, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by junkyardking@12 June 2004 - 05:20
Reagn supported terrorism and thus was no better than Osama. <_<
;) This is a Forum and we are in World News.So I can say this without you takeing this too Personal.But as an American I have only one thing to say.....
Fuck Off!
junkyardking
06-12-2004, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by FuNkY CaPrIcOrN+12 June 2004 - 10:27--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FuNkY CaPrIcOrN @ 12 June 2004 - 10:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-junkyardking@12 June 2004 - 05:20
Reagn supported terrorism and thus was no better than Osama. <_<
;) This is a Forum and we are in World News.So I can say this without you takeing this too Personal.But as an American I have only one thing to say.....
Fuck Off! [/b][/quote]
Tell that to the familes who lost there loved ones because of Regan, just because he is American doesnt make him any less guilty. ;)
FuNkY CaPrIcOrN
06-12-2004, 10:35 AM
Originally posted by junkyardking@12 June 2004 - 05:41
Tell that to the familes who lost there loved ones because of Regan, just because he is American doesnt make him any less guilty. ;)
;) Yeah I keep forgeting.If you are not from America you are perfect.I made a Thread for you. :rolleyes:
junkyardking
06-12-2004, 10:39 AM
Originally posted by FuNkY CaPrIcOrN+12 June 2004 - 10:43--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FuNkY CaPrIcOrN @ 12 June 2004 - 10:43)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-junkyardking@12 June 2004 - 05:41
Tell that to the familes who lost there loved ones because of Regan, just because he is American doesnt make him any less guilty. ;)
;) Yeah I keep forgeting.If you are not from America you are perfect.I made a Thread for you. :rolleyes: [/b][/quote]
Oh what aload of rubbish, any person that is responsibilty for thousands of deaths deserves the same treatment.
Your being a little imature arnt you, there are far more important things that nationalistic jingolism ;)
FuNkY CaPrIcOrN
06-12-2004, 10:47 AM
Originally posted by junkyardking+12 June 2004 - 05:47--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (junkyardking @ 12 June 2004 - 05:47)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by FuNkY CaPrIcOrN@12 June 2004 - 10:43
<!--QuoteBegin-junkyardking@12 June 2004 - 05:41
Tell that to the familes who lost there loved ones because of Regan, just because he is American doesnt make him any less guilty. ;)
;) Yeah I keep forgeting.If you are not from America you are perfect.I made a Thread for you. :rolleyes:
Oh what aload of rubbish, any person that is responsibilty for thousands of deaths deserves the same treatment.
Your being a little imature arnt you, there are far more important things that nationalistic jingolism ;) [/b][/quote]
;) I am being immature?I do not go around calling the Dead names.
He is no where as bad as osama bin laden.
* :D I am done Posting in this Thread junkyard.You have a whole nother Thread to Post in.Say everything you want to say there.As a proud American I have no Problem with you speaking your mind.We Love Debates in this Country.And that is all you and me have been doing. :D *
aoyv73
06-12-2004, 11:12 AM
in time ron will be shown as a great man he was da best
junkyardking
06-12-2004, 11:13 AM
Originally posted by FuNkY CaPrIcOrN+12 June 2004 - 10:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (FuNkY CaPrIcOrN @ 12 June 2004 - 10:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by junkyardking@12 June 2004 - 05:47
Originally posted by FuNkY CaPrIcOrN@12 June 2004 - 10:43
<!--QuoteBegin-junkyardking@12 June 2004 - 05:41
Tell that to the familes who lost there loved ones because of Regan, just because he is American doesnt make him any less guilty. ;)
;) Yeah I keep forgeting.If you are not from America you are perfect.I made a Thread for you. :rolleyes:
Oh what aload of rubbish, any person that is responsibilty for thousands of deaths deserves the same treatment.
Your being a little imature arnt you, there are far more important things that nationalistic jingolism ;)
;) I am being immature?I do not go around calling the Dead names.
He is no where as bad as osama bin laden. [/b][/quote]
How is he not?
He supported Saddam Hussain a ruthless dictator.
Supplied weapons to Iran to fund terrorists(Contra).
Osama was even supported by the Regan Administration ;)
People died and people suffered, i'm not calling him names i'm telling the truth.
Regan never apoligsed and never admited it as a mistake, you cant dismiss the death of thousands of lives as mistakes ;)
junkyardking-
To the extent Saddam and Osama, et.al., received any support from the U.S., it was all before they became what they ultimately were.
Ironically, when we get around to "cleaning up our mess" as we are currently doing, we come in for even more denigration.
Funny old world, eh?
I'm going to take a stab here, and throw out a guess (just a guess) that you are from the U.K.?
If not, no big deal-the example will still serve:
It should neither be forgotten nor forgiven that Great Britain, in the person of Neville Chamberlain, "invited" Adolph Hitler to begin his campaign of terror against the Jews and the rest of Europe (and eventually the rest of the world) back in the 30s-40s. Britain should never be forgiven for keeping Winston Churchill cooling his heels on the backbench 'til it was too late.
U.N. resolutions and sanctions should be sought to retroactively punish the entire United Kingdom for the damage caused by her government....
I could go on, but I'll assume you see my point.
Rat Faced
06-12-2004, 02:21 PM
No point in UN resolutions..
The 6 UN resolutions against USA for its treatment of Cuba have been ignored, together with all those against Israel :P
But, my point, Rat?
What if the U.K. were condemned to eternally suffer the slings and arrows of a cynical and rancorous memory of Chamberlain's misguided diplomacy?
EDIT: A purer distillation of the same thought: What if history looked thus upon Chamberlain (and Britain) as the cause of WWII, and not Hitler?
He wasn't alone in thinking he was doing the right thing at the time; Sir Winston was apparently the only dissenter in the entire British Isles.
Chamberlain is remembered (here, anyway) as a pacifist too eager to appease, and taken advantage of by a rapidly-growing danger.
He is not, however, relentlessly pilloried as being too stupid too live. ;)
Originally posted by j2k4@12 June 2004 - 14:40
Chamberlain is remembered (here, anyway) as a pacifist too eager to appease, and taken advantage of by a rapidly-growing danger.
And a close personal friend of FDR I understand. ;)
I believe Chamberlain made the Munich agreement just a few months after FDR signed the US Neutrality Act. :-"
Originally posted by lynx+12 June 2004 - 08:55--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (lynx @ 12 June 2004 - 08:55)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@12 June 2004 - 14:40
Chamberlain is remembered (here, anyway) as a pacifist too eager to appease, and taken advantage of by a rapidly-growing danger.
And a close personal friend of FDR I understand. ;)
I believe Chamberlain made the Munich agreement just a few months after FDR signed the US Neutrality Act. :-"[/b][/quote]
Yup.
Hitler wasn't the threat to us he was to Europe, at least at that time.
In any case, though we arrived late to the scene, we did arrive, didn't we?
Actually, one might argue (facetiously) that our obesiance to the Neutrality Act lasted longer than Britain's (and Hitler's) to the Munich agreement, such could indicate we "followed through", but, as I said: facetious.
When the house is burning, you don't wait to act.
BTW: I really like these: :-"
Can't wait to for an occasion to use one.
My point was that while Germany had secretly rearmed, Britain had still been running down its armed forces. The only place to get enough arms in a hurry in order to oppose Hitler at Munich would have been to get supplies from US manufacturers. But the US Neutrality Act would have specifically blocked any such sales.
It was therefore necessary for Chamberlain to agree to Hitler's demands in order to have time to build up a supply of arms for a conflict which was becoming more and more inevitable.
So you could argue that it was the Neutrality Act which caused WWII by preventing Hitler from being stopped in 1937.
To use your burning house analogy, it is equally no use trying to put it out with a water pistol, you try to keep it under control until you have the tools to fight the fire.
Busyman
06-12-2004, 04:32 PM
Originally posted by lynx@12 June 2004 - 12:02
My point was that while Germany had secretly rearmed, Britain had still been running down its armed forces. The only place to get enough arms in a hurry in order to oppose Hitler at Munich would have been to get supplies from US manufacturers. But the US Neutrality Act would have specifically blocked any such sales.
It was therefore necessary for Chamberlain to agree to Hitler's demands in order to have time to build up a supply of arms for a conflict which was becoming more and more inevitable.
So you could argue that it was the Neutrality Act which caused WWII by preventing Hitler from being stopped in 1937.
To use your burning house analogy, it is equally no use trying to put it out with a water pistol, you try to keep it under control until you have the tools to fight the fire.
Hmmm minding our business caused a war?
I wonder where that "minding our business is now. :lol: :lol: :lol:
Biggles
06-12-2004, 04:38 PM
Aside from Churchill, who was in his political wilderness years - (he had no compunction about changing parties if he dis-agreed a point of principle and had gathered many enemies along the way) few identified Hitler as a serious threat to mainland Europe.
It is easy to see, post the event, the causes of WW2. However, it should be recalled that German re-arming was only technically secret. Whilst ostensibly trawlers, the Bismark, Tirpitz and Graf Spee were easy to convert into make shift naval vessals. ;)
The newspaper editorials of the 1930s were heavy with the threat from Stalin and communism - Hitler and Mussolini were seen as slightly bizarre but useful bulwarks against the spread of communism. Jews were not a popular cause, either in Europe, the US or the USSR. The main concern was not so much that Hitler was deporting them, but that they might come here (wherever here may be).
Chamberlain and FDR rightly identified that there was a threat to Europe - they just mis-judged where that threat was from.
As Lynx points out, Britain under Chamberlain did re-arm from 37 onwards. If it were not for the Spitfires and Hurricanes and the victory in the air in 1940/41 there would have been no platform from which to launch a D-Day.
So one could argue that Chamberlain bought time and saved the World. :)
Which brings us back to the point I was trying to make:
History, no matter how closely studied, recorded or remembered, has a good deal of flexibility, and there is no way to get to the bottom of certain matters, as regards basic motivation(s); we are left to speculate, and that speculation is diluted further by the false surety of hindsight and retrospect which make us so bloody sure of ourselves now that the crises are past, yes?
How would it be if none of us even remembered the Munich agreement or the Neutrality Act?
We would be much further from the truth, surely.
Biggles-
As always you point out a salient but little remembered fact: The threat of Stalin, even more historically real than Hitler, given the cost in lives to Russia due to his pogroms and "food shortages".
A truer monster never lived, including Hitler.
Busyman
06-13-2004, 01:07 AM
1. AIDS was first reported to the CDC in 1981. Reagan significantly hindered research and education efforts to fight it.
Dr. C. Everett Koop, his surgeon, wrote "political meddlers in the White House" had complicated his work on the disease, and "at least a dozen times I pleaded with my critics in the White House to let me have a meeting with President Reagan" on AIDS in the mid 1980's.
Mr. Reagan did not make extensive public comments on AIDS until 1987.
FuNkY CaPrIcOrN
06-13-2004, 01:37 AM
Originally posted by Busyman@12 June 2004 - 20:15
1. AIDS was first reported to the CDC in 1981. Reagan significantly hindered research and education efforts to fight it.
Dr. C. Everett Koop, his surgeon, wrote "political meddlers in the White House" had complicated his work on the disease, and "at least a dozen times I pleaded with my critics in the White House to let me have a meeting with President Reagan" on AIDS in the mid 1980's.
Mr. Reagan did not make extensive public comments on AIDS until 1987.
;) A study found that the government spent almost six billion dollars on AIDS during President Reagan's tenure.Six Billion!I mean dude.Where do you think that Money came from?
It came from other divisioins like malaria that kill millions every Year.It was used for HIV research, surveillance, and prevention.
Just because a Man does not talk about it do you think he was not doing anything?He was concernced as the rest of us was.But this was the early 80s.Nobody and I mean nobody knew what was going on when this hit. :(
*I said I would not Post back in this Thread when it came to JunkYard and what he called Reagen.This is different.*
{SHELL%SHOCKED}
06-13-2004, 03:02 AM
I wish I was Ronald Reagan, not many on this board accomplish and achieve what he did good or bad.
Originally posted by Busyman@12 June 2004 - 19:15
1. AIDS was first reported to the CDC in 1981. Reagan significantly hindered research and education efforts to fight it.
Dr. C. Everett Koop, his surgeon, wrote "political meddlers in the White House" had complicated his work on the disease, and "at least a dozen times I pleaded with my critics in the White House to let me have a meeting with President Reagan" on AIDS in the mid 1980's.
Mr. Reagan did not make extensive public comments on AIDS until 1987.
As FC has noted, Reagan was all over AIDS with money, whether he gave it lip service or not.
C. Everett Koop was a bit eccentric in his views; nothing in his litany, however, indicated that AIDS research was underfunded, and indeed, it was not.
Also, certain politicos tried to forward the notion Reagan was anti-gay, and had a vendetta against them.
As he was a veteran of almost 30 years in Hollywood, and supremely popular amongst his peers, I find the assertion laughable.
Busyman
06-13-2004, 08:43 AM
2. Reagan continued to grant tax exemptions to private schools that discriminated against minorities.
Originally posted by Busyman@13 June 2004 - 02:51
2. Reagan continued to grant tax exemptions to private schools that discriminated against minorities.
Reagan never "continued to grant" any such thing; if you choose to use such reasoning, then Carter before him was guilty of the same lack of attention to detail.
He was also guilty of failing to address rent-control in NYC.
Tiger Woods plays golf at a club somewhere in Georgia which has a standard "disinvite" policy for women.
Here's another way of looking at what you've been told is "discrimination"; these are four short columns written by someone you, specifically, should be familiar with, even though you are not now:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomass...s20030401.shtml (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20030401.shtml)
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomass...s20030402.shtml (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20030402.shtml)
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomass...s20030403.shtml (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20030403.shtml)
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomass...s20030404.shtml (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20030404.shtml)
If your eyes have been opened slightly, please keep reading:
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomass...s20031015.shtml (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20031015.shtml)
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomass...s20040608.shtml (http://www.townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/ts20040608.shtml)
If that doesn't clarify a few things for you, then I have at least saved the cost of sending you a book, and you likewise the time to read it.
Busyman
06-13-2004, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by j2k4+13 June 2004 - 09:27--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 13 June 2004 - 09:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@13 June 2004 - 02:51
2. Reagan continued to grant tax exemptions to private schools that discriminated against minorities.
Reagan never "continued to grant" any such thing; if you choose to use such reasoning, then Carter before him was guilty of the same lack of attention to detail.
He was also guilty of failing to address rent-control in NYC.
Tiger Woods plays golf at a club somewhere in Georgia which has a standard "disinvite" policy for women. [/b][/quote]
Those issues did not come up to President's door step.
There is a difference.
We know the Prez can't fix everything but if things are made aware to him and action or better yet his inaction is like, "It's none of my business" then there is a problem.
Also rent-control in NYC and Georgia's "disinvite" policy are clearly state issues which we know Reagan with his smaller government stance would have never addressed.
However, federal tax exemption is not a state issue and Reagan chose inaction when the issue came to his doorstep.
Voetsek
06-13-2004, 06:48 PM
very well put i like. look out next they will give the vote to woman and worse
Originally posted by Busyman@13 June 2004 - 12:10
However, federal tax exemption is not a state issue and Reagan chose inaction when the issue came to his doorstep.
The issue found it's way to Reagan's doorstep?
What exactly did he say about it?
How did he phrase the part where he decided it was okay for tax-exempt private schools to discriminate?
Did you read any of Sowell's stuff?
What did you think?
Make any sense whatsoever?
Busyman
06-13-2004, 10:18 PM
Originally posted by j2k4+13 June 2004 - 15:46--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 13 June 2004 - 15:46)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@13 June 2004 - 12:10
However, federal tax exemption is not a state issue and Reagan chose inaction when the issue came to his doorstep.
The issue found it's way to Reagan's doorstep?
What exactly did he say about it?
How did he phrase the part where he decided it was okay for tax-exempt private schools to discriminate?
Did you read any of Sowell's stuff?
What did you think?
Make any sense whatsoever? [/b][/quote]
He said by law he had to tax exempt the schools which of course goes without saying.
He exerted no pressure in changing it.
Nevertheless, The Supreme Court did in 1983.
edit: I read the links. What do "The Great Fraud" links have to do with what this thread. Who's talking about affirmative action? :huh:
School vouchers? Again what is that link for?
The Ronald Reagan link enlightened me none. 2 great results that I'm well aware of.
I gathered (apparently incorrectly), that your post about discrimination in tax-exempt private schools indicated you had some concerns about discrimination against minorities in education, given your previously stated black perspective.
My links had to do with that, I think.
I hadn't tumbled to the fact your only concern was to knock Reagan.
I understand that now.
EDIT:
Somehow a post I had intended earlier is not here; probably my incompetence-I will attempt to re-create it.
Reagan (according to Busyman) didn't "apply pressure" to get the tax-exempt status of private schools which practiced discrimination changed.
This nonetheless was addressed by the Supreme Court in 1983, in the third year of Reagan's first term.
Who's ultimately to say whether or not he had a hand in the Court's decision?
In any case, the issue was decided on his watch, so I will exercise accepted political practice and assign credit for same to the Reagan administration, where it belongs.
Busyman
06-14-2004, 03:45 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@13 June 2004 - 23:46
I gathered (apparently incorrectly), that your post about discrimination in tax-exempt private schools indicated you had some concerns about discrimination against minorities in education, given your previously stated black perspective.
My links had to do with that, I think.
I hadn't tumbled to the fact your only concern was to knock Reagan.
I understand that now.
That man's a genius. :lol: :lol:
*bump*
Late edit on my last post.
Busyman
06-14-2004, 04:03 AM
Reagan's stance on such issues gives him absolutely no such credit.
You are free to assign such credit.
No one else will back you up on that.
Why do you think it had to go to the Supreme Court Kev?
Moving on.........
3. Reagan vetoed a bill to extend the reach of federal civil rights laws.
vidcc
06-14-2004, 05:23 PM
Reagan created boom for some but the tax payer paid the price. there is no such thing as a free meal. While the stock markets rose he failed to balance the books in house. Spending on his pet projects ment cuts elsewhere.he cut tax at a time when he needed the money. We were in bad shape when he came to power but instead of tightening our belts to balance the books he loosened them and the national debt rose. I was not against the tax cuts but there needed to be a delay. He borrowed from the welfare funds...why cut taxes then be forced to borrow and create a need for more tax to pay back?.
His own advisors and party members eventually begged him to re-think as there were no more cut backs in public programs left. Unemployment was rising and there was little money for welfare.
Had there not been the historic breakthrough in arms reduction we would not have been financially able to continue the arms race so it wasn't just a great humanitarian event, it was a financial blessing.
In answer to the terrorist accusations, yes during his term the USA did fund terrorist actions, we could go around in circles again about American foriegn policy but that wouldn't cure anything. However comparing Reagan to any terrorist won't solve anything either. dependent on how far one goes back historically one will find guilt in all nations.
In the same arena, Reagan despite his flaws was loved....he returned patriotism to the USA and Oliver North kind of took a fall for him (willingly or not). Even if reagan knew nothing of the Iran contra affair (or just forgot) he is still ultimately responsible... he was the chief after all.
Remember that the measure of any political leader is what he does for your own personal benefit. Human nature has a way of being selfish and one could ignore many bad things that affect others for just one good thing that benefits you. This goes for all leaders, not just reagan. So to those who criticise the likes of reagan and bush, myself included, remember that their supporters may be doing very well out of their policies so to them they are good leaders and they have every justification to sing their praises.
Quick question, vid-
Who spends the money in the U.S.?
One-word answer, please.
vidcc
06-14-2004, 10:41 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@14 June 2004 - 13:47
Quick question, vid-
Who spends the money in the U.S.?
One-word answer, please.
give me a one word question and i will give you a one word answer. :D
We all spend money.
What is your question related to ? government spending of public money or private spending?
I can give a sensible reply only when i know what area you are specifically asking about.
Quite right, and fair enough.
Allow me to rephrase:
Who, in the whole American government, directs the spending of tax revenues?
One-word answer, please.
vidcc
06-15-2004, 12:31 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@14 June 2004 - 17:18
Quite right, and fair enough.
Allow me to rephrase:
Who, in the whole American government, directs the spending of tax revenues?
One-word answer, please.
well you can't be looking for the Secretary of the Treasury as that's 4 words. :lol:
perhaps you are looking for congress.
As you just want a one word answer i will not debate where i think you may be trying to go with this but it will be interesting to hear what your overal point is so i can :D
You are correct; more accurately (sorry to mislead), the House of Representatives.
They, as the People's People, so to speak, bear the greater responsibility for overspending.
Reagan's tax cuts resulted in a rough doubling of revenue to the treasury; there is no doubt whatsoever that his tax cuts were a huge boon-they worked as advertised.
Congress refused to act responsibly, however, and blew through the windfall as if it weren't there; didn't even slow down, and never looked back.
Re-elections loom, see?
Pork, and all it's by-products, are the pols favorite food; doesn't matter whether they're Republican or Democrat-the Dems held sway, for the most part, and could and would spend in order to get re-elected; the Republicans followed suit to keep pace with the Dems at the voting booth.
Vicious circle, eh?
Anyway, Reagan kinda had to allow it to go on, 'cuz he had defense to worry about, and he wanted to bury the Russians and Communism.
That's it, in a nutshell.
And you know what?
It's the bloody truth, too.
Rat Faced
06-15-2004, 01:16 AM
I thought the President and his staff created the Budget, and Congress ratified it or challenged it?
Not arguing, I dont know anything on the subject, merely asking for clarification.
vidcc
06-15-2004, 01:29 AM
Ok J2 but if you read my post you will see that i wasn't against the tax cuts...... i was against the timing. i feel that a more prudent policy would have been to delay them. He cut back on governmental spending to save money but he had to make harsher cuts than need be and ended up needing to borrow from the welfare fund.
Anyway, Reagan kinda had to allow it to go on, 'cuz he had defense to worry about,
this is an interesting statement and to me it says that you felt that Reagan was unable to multi-task. Never should it happen that something is "allowed to go on" because of other things. Perhaps that's one of the problems we are seeing now.
and he wanted to bury the Russians and Communism.
what does that say about our foriegn policy?. If we don't agree with another nations politics, fine, that's called freedom of speech. It doesn't mean that we have the right to make political policy for those countries and it definately doesn't mean that our pesident can put home issues aside to concentrate on interferance with other nations domestic politics.
P.S. it was the soviets and communism, Russia was just a small part of the union where the leaders just happened to be :lol:
Originally posted by Rat Faced@14 June 2004 - 19:24
I thought the President and his staff created the Budget, and Congress ratified it or challenged it?
Not arguing, I dont know anything on the subject, merely asking for clarification.
That is more-or-less correct, Rat.
The difficulties crop up when the House starts pinning the pork onto what is a bare-bones proposition.
Then, the President gets to decide if his mandate is worth the trouble; if he wants what he wants badly enough, he bites the bullet and signs on.
His only option is to throw the baby out with the bath-water and start from scratch-he vetoes the budget.
This is not often a favored move, because it leads to the government running out of money (shut-down), and the President gets the ass from the opposing party and the media.
Not too pleasant.
I assume you are familiar with the line-item veto?
Clinton had it and used it sparingly.
Our left-leaning Supreme Court, in 1998, declared it unconstitutional, for reasons beyond my ken.
So, Bush doesn't have it, and Reagan and Bush, Sr. didn't have it, either.
That's how spending overcame revenues and created the 2-trillion dollar deficit, which Reagan knew the economy could withstand; the need to defeat Communism won out.
Again, in a nutshell.
Originally posted by vidcc@14 June 2004 - 19:37
Ok J2 but if you read my post you will see that i wasn't against the tax cuts...... i was against the timing. i feel that a more prudent policy would have been to delay them. He cut back on governmental spending to save money but he had to make harsher cuts than need be and ended up needing to borrow from the welfare fund.
Timing?
Here's how that works, vid:
Day one: Tax cut.
Day two: Increased revenue.
There's no "timing" problem.
The return is instantaneous.
vidcc
06-15-2004, 02:32 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@14 June 2004 - 19:32
[Timing?
Here's how that works, vid:
Day one: Tax cut.
Day two: Increased revenue.
There's no "timing" problem.
The return is instantaneous.
Please explain how taking less tax increased governmental revenue. Or are you suggesting that he in fact just shifted the burden from one group of tax payers to another?
You may of course use more than one word but you will be marked down for repetition of any words :D
Originally posted by vidcc+14 June 2004 - 20:40--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 14 June 2004 - 20:40)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@14 June 2004 - 19:32
[Timing?
Here's how that works, vid:
Day one: Tax cut.
Day two: Increased revenue.
There's no "timing" problem.
The return is instantaneous.
Please explain how taking less tax increased governmental revenue. Or are you suggesting that he in fact just shifted the burden from one group of tax payers to another?
You may of course use more than one word but you will be marked down for repetition of any words :D[/b][/quote]
Taking less tax puts more money into circulation; more purchasing (more revenue), more investment (more revenue), more business (more revenue), more jobs (more revenue).....
What's better?
Five bucks apiece from each of 50 sources, or a buck apiece from 1000 sources?
It goes on and on, vid.
Let the people keep their money; they know what to do with it.
The people and their money: That is the economy-not the government!!!
See how simple it is?
It's called CAPITALISM.
It's easily recognizable, owing to it's distinctive green color. :)
vidcc
06-15-2004, 04:17 AM
Oh i know economics but i also know human nature, However in your large print you are talking about a different thing to what i am.
to quote my original post
Reagan created boom for some but the tax payer paid the price. there is no such thing as a free meal. While the stock markets rose he failed to balance the books in house
the defecit is not the private economy, the household budget is what i am talking about. If the government owes money we all owe money. It's not the governments job to run your private business, it's their job to run the country.
Despite what you think we do need welfare. We do need that safety net for the less fortunate. we do need social spending on things such as the military. And for that we have to have tax.
A balanced budget is where you take what you spend...spend less than you take and you have a surplus, spend more, you have a defecit. Reagans term in office spent more than he took so apparently the tax cuts didn't produce the extra cash he thought they would ( this is historical fact not opinion). He chose to offset this but cutting public services more and more until there was little left.
You blame congress for the failings, yet you yourself said that reagan did little to combat this, i assume you would take the same stance should it happen to a democratic leader.
as i said i didn't dissagree with the tax cuts... 75% was too much of a take even for a billionaire. I have felt the pain of paying 40% and i am not rich. i just feel he could have delayed it until the deficit he inherited was less of a chain around our necks instead of taking a gamble against human nature.
Busyman
06-15-2004, 04:23 AM
Too bad it didn't work for Reagan.
The economy wasn't jump started.
We had a horrible recession.
and rampant inflation but hey......
THE RICH GOT RICHER.
The poor stayed poor. Very effective.
I'm the government- I need money
I'm poor- take a dollar from me
I'm rich- take a 1000 dollars from me
CUT TAXES
I'm poor- take 90 cents from me
I'm rich- take 800 dollars from me
Reagan's cuts didn't work, Bush's don't work.
Now in addition let's create a nation of the affluent and the supremely poor.
Ship jobs to India. It's really good for America.
Tell that to the IT manager who lost his job.
I wonder who benefits from outsourcing jobs to other countries?
CEO and higher ups.
What jobs are left?
There's a great custodial job that we actually couldn't ship overseas.
Oh I forgot, we've got an illegal alien willing to do the job at half the hourly wage. If he fucks up, he's out'a here. Back to Nicaragua.
Oh here's a new one.
Forget the old social security program.
Allow me to invest it.
Why who has experience at that?
Glad you asked. Well for the most part, people that already invest or at least have a decent amount of money.
Well what if I lose the money in the risky market.
Well, that's on you
j2, vidcc and others don't realize it, but I have along time ago and I know you do.
Capitalism is not evil but once you've "made it" moneywise, it gives you the means to exert a selfishness hidden behind law.
There will always be haves and have nots.
Politicians have to balance what they say they are doing for the have nots and what they are doing for the haves.
Rant over.
Kinda sleepy.
vidcc
06-15-2004, 05:51 AM
Originally posted by Busyman@14 June 2004 - 21:31
j2, vidcc and others don't realize it, but I have along time ago and I know you do.
you have lost money? and you know we do what?
I'm not actually saying reagan did a good job, but i will always concede where he had succcess. and as to tax cuts i didn't object to them i said he needed to wait. He didn't cut spending before the tax cuts. Spending was high and it wasn't efficient spending and needed to be controled. Waste and red tape should have been the primary target. Bring the budget under control then give the people their tax reductions. By tax reductions i mean fair tax breaks for all not just the few.
Busyman
06-15-2004, 06:41 AM
Originally posted by vidcc+15 June 2004 - 01:59--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 15 June 2004 - 01:59)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@14 June 2004 - 21:31
j2, vidcc and others don't realize it, but I have along time ago and I know you do.
you have lost money? and you know we do what?
I'm not actually saying reagan did a good job, but i will always concede where he had succcess. and as to tax cuts i didn't object to them i said he needed to wait. He didn't cut spending before the tax cuts. Spending was high and it wasn't efficient spending and needed to be controled. Waste and red tape should have been the primary target. Bring the budget under control then give the people their tax reductions. By tax reductions i mean fair tax breaks for all not just the few. [/b][/quote]
Oh I don't disagree necessarily.
You just have some folks agendas mixed up.
Do you think Bush really cares about ole' Ron?
It's a political tactic to boost the Republican party thus boosting his re-election campaign.
Wanna know why there was this push to get Clinton?
Well America pretty much enjoyed 8 years of bliss....under a Democratic President. This was a war of legacies.
The blowjob scandal to tarnish his legacy. Clinton of course helped make that bed though. Nevertheless the "uproar" and "well I never" and the "I am appalled" was to "blow" it out of proportion.
Now Clinton is most known for....the blowjob.
On the flip, ole Ron had shitty policies. The rich got richer under both regimes. The middle class just got more of their share under ole Will.
I know you remember:
$500 for a screwdriver.....that was under Reagan.
vidcc
06-15-2004, 07:05 AM
i haven't been talking about bush. apart from perhaps this
QUOTE j2k4
Anyway, Reagan kinda had to allow it to go on, 'cuz he had defense to worry about,
vidcc:
this is an interesting statement and to me it says that you felt that Reagan was unable to multi-task. Never should it happen that something is "allowed to go on" because of other things. Perhaps that's one of the problems we are seeing now.
i have been talking about the reagan administration and how it wasn't as rosey as some would have us believe. Do you think i have been singing his praise?
Wanna know why there was this push to get Clinton?
Well America pretty much enjoyed 8 years of bliss....under a Democratic President. This was a war of legacies.
The blowjob scandal to tarnish his legacy. Clinton of course helped make that bed though. Nevertheless the "uproar" and "well I never" and the "I am appalled" was to "blow" it out of proportion.
Now Clinton is most known for....the blowjob.
i have stated before that clinton was actually a good president who balanced the books ( can't quote from the lost posts) i feel one of the finest of the century.
Formula1
06-15-2004, 11:43 AM
Found this interesting information on Reagan
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?...nald+reagan&f=1 (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ronald+reagan&f=1)
Perhaps the most ignorant American president in history. This isn't being partisan or prejudiced. Reagan was just hugely incompetent in everything he did and frequently lied to get by. Started out as an actor and somehow thought this made him qualified to run for office. Put a tremendous amount of effort into the "War on Drugs," one of the most spectacular failures in American domestic policy. Strangely obsessed with Star Wars, going so far as to support the idea of the "Star Wars" missile defense program and often (seriously) referring to the Soviet Union as the "Evil Empire." Hated Communism and Socialism with a passion. Traded arms for hostages in the Iran Contra crisis, thereby helping both murderous guerrilla "freedom fighters" and Islamic militants at the same time. Because of time and circumstance he was present when the Soviet Union eventually collapsed. For some insane reason, and despite the fact that they had been moving toward this for years, many Reagan supporters and ultra conservatives give him "credit for ousting their regime" which he didn't. Currently has Alzheimer's [the Cult of the Dead Cow made a joke of taking responsibility) and is now ridiculously senile. This isn't much different than what it used to be, considering he regularly fell asleep during important political meetings both with his advisors and with such personalities as the Pope and often had little idea what was going on at any given time. Had a fetish for Jelly Beans and survived an assassination attempt. Almost always consulted with an astrologer and both Rush Limbaugh and Jerry Falwell were huge supporters, which should tell you a lot. On a side note, was also responsible for one of the largest American deficits in history.
Actual quotes from the man himself:
1965: "We should declare war on North Vietnam... It's silly talking about how many years we will have to spend in the jungles of Vietnam when we could pave the whole country and put parking strips on it, and be home by Christmas."
"I favor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it must be enforced at the point of a bayonet, if necessary."
1966: "I would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964."
1976: "Fascism was really the basis for the New Deal. It was Mussolini's success in Italy, with his government-directed economy, that led the early New Dealers to say 'But Mussolini keeps the trains running on time.'"
1980: "All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk." The claim is provably false.
"History shows that when the taxes of a nation approach about 20 percent of the people's income, there begins to be a lack of respect for government... When it reaches 25 percent, there comes an increase in lawlessness." The claim is provably false.
"Because Vietnam was not a declared war, the veterans are not even eligible for the G.I. Bill of Rights with respect to education or anything." The claim is provably false.
"Trains are not any more energy efficient than the average automobile, with both getting about 48 passenger miles to the gallon." The claim is provably false.
"Approximately 80% of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation. So let's not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emissions standards from man-made sources." The claim is provably false.
"Growing and decaying vegetation in this land are responsible for 93% of the oxides of nitrogen." The claim is provably false.
"I have flown twice over Mount St. Helens. I'm not a scientist and I don't know the figures, but I have a suspicion that one little mountain out there, in these last several months, has probably released more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere than has been released in the last ten years of automobile driving or things of that kind." The claim is provably false.
"Mr. Carter is acting as if he hasn't been in charge for the past three and a half years; as if someone else was responsible for the largest deficit in American history." (Carter's total deficit: $252 billion; Reagan's: $1.4 trillion)
1982: "In England, if a criminal carried a gun, even though he didn't use it, he was tried for first-degree murder and hung if he was found guilty." The claim is provably false.
1983: "This country is compelled by scripture and the Lord Jesus Christ to oppose Russia with all military and political means."
1984: claims homeless people are homeless by choice
When a student at Shanghai's University of Fudan asks which life experiences best prepared him for being President of the United States, Ronald Reagan replies: "You'd be surprised how much being a good actor pays off."
1985: "I think that there's nothing wrong with visiting that cemetery Bitburg, where those young men are victims of Nazism also, even though they were fighting in the German uniform, drafted into service to carry out the hateful wishes of the Nazis. They were victims, just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps."
1987: regarding AIDS "Maybe the Lord brought down this plague... because illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments."
Quotes made *about* Ronald Reagan:
1981: "The best we could probably hope for is a military coup, or something like that." - Sen. John Schmidz, if Reagan's policies fail
"He knows less about the budget than any president in my lifetime. He can't even carry on a conversation about the budget. It's an absolute and utter disgrace." - House Speaker Tip O'Neill after Reagan vetoed an emergency spending bill which would have prevented a shutdown of the federal government
1984: "President Reagan doesn't always check the facts before he makes statements, and the press accepts this as kind of amusing." - former president Jimmy Carter
2001: "When Ronald Reagan got Alzheimer's, how could they tell?" - George Carlin
Originally posted by Formula1@15 June 2004 - 05:51
Found this interesting information on Reagan
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?...nald+reagan&f=1 (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=ronald+reagan&f=1)
Perhaps the most ignorant American president in history. This isn't being partisan or prejudiced. Reagan was just hugely incompetent in everything he did and frequently lied to get by. Started out as an actor and somehow thought this made him qualified to run for office. Put a tremendous amount of effort into the "War on Drugs," one of the most spectacular failures in American domestic policy. Strangely obsessed with Star Wars, going so far as to support the idea of the "Star Wars" missile defense program and often (seriously) referring to the Soviet Union as the "Evil Empire." Hated Communism and Socialism with a passion. Traded arms for hostages in the Iran Contra crisis, thereby helping both murderous guerrilla "freedom fighters" and Islamic militants at the same time. Because of time and circumstance he was present when the Soviet Union eventually collapsed. For some insane reason, and despite the fact that they had been moving toward this for years, many Reagan supporters and ultra conservatives give him "credit for ousting their regime" which he didn't. Currently has Alzheimer's [the Cult of the Dead Cow made a joke of taking responsibility) and is now ridiculously senile. This isn't much different than what it used to be, considering he regularly fell asleep during important political meetings both with his advisors and with such personalities as the Pope and often had little idea what was going on at any given time. Had a fetish for Jelly Beans and survived an assassination attempt. Almost always consulted with an astrologer and both Rush Limbaugh and Jerry Falwell were huge supporters, which should tell you a lot. On a side note, was also responsible for one of the largest American deficits in history.
Actual quotes from the man himself:
1965: "We should declare war on North Vietnam... It's silly talking about how many years we will have to spend in the jungles of Vietnam when we could pave the whole country and put parking strips on it, and be home by Christmas."
"I favor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it must be enforced at the point of a bayonet, if necessary."
1966: "I would have voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964."
1976: "Fascism was really the basis for the New Deal. It was Mussolini's success in Italy, with his government-directed economy, that led the early New Dealers to say 'But Mussolini keeps the trains running on time.'"
1980: "All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk." The claim is provably false.
"History shows that when the taxes of a nation approach about 20 percent of the people's income, there begins to be a lack of respect for government... When it reaches 25 percent, there comes an increase in lawlessness." The claim is provably false.
"Because Vietnam was not a declared war, the veterans are not even eligible for the G.I. Bill of Rights with respect to education or anything." The claim is provably false.
"Trains are not any more energy efficient than the average automobile, with both getting about 48 passenger miles to the gallon." The claim is provably false.
"Approximately 80% of our air pollution stems from hydrocarbons released by vegetation. So let's not go overboard in setting and enforcing tough emissions standards from man-made sources." The claim is provably false.
"Growing and decaying vegetation in this land are responsible for 93% of the oxides of nitrogen." The claim is provably false.
"I have flown twice over Mount St. Helens. I'm not a scientist and I don't know the figures, but I have a suspicion that one little mountain out there, in these last several months, has probably released more sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere than has been released in the last ten years of automobile driving or things of that kind." The claim is provably false.
"Mr. Carter is acting as if he hasn't been in charge for the past three and a half years; as if someone else was responsible for the largest deficit in American history." (Carter's total deficit: $252 billion; Reagan's: $1.4 trillion)
1982: "In England, if a criminal carried a gun, even though he didn't use it, he was tried for first-degree murder and hung if he was found guilty." The claim is provably false.
1983: "This country is compelled by scripture and the Lord Jesus Christ to oppose Russia with all military and political means."
1984: claims homeless people are homeless by choice
When a student at Shanghai's University of Fudan asks which life experiences best prepared him for being President of the United States, Ronald Reagan replies: "You'd be surprised how much being a good actor pays off."
1985: "I think that there's nothing wrong with visiting that cemetery Bitburg, where those young men are victims of Nazism also, even though they were fighting in the German uniform, drafted into service to carry out the hateful wishes of the Nazis. They were victims, just as surely as the victims in the concentration camps."
1987: regarding AIDS "Maybe the Lord brought down this plague... because illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments."
Quotes made *about* Ronald Reagan:
1981: "The best we could probably hope for is a military coup, or something like that." - Sen. John Schmidz, if Reagan's policies fail
"He knows less about the budget than any president in my lifetime. He can't even carry on a conversation about the budget. It's an absolute and utter disgrace." - House Speaker Tip O'Neill after Reagan vetoed an emergency spending bill which would have prevented a shutdown of the federal government
1984: "President Reagan doesn't always check the facts before he makes statements, and the press accepts this as kind of amusing." - former president Jimmy Carter
2001: "When Ronald Reagan got Alzheimer's, how could they tell?" - George Carlin
Shit like that is easy to find, and context is always the problem.
Think about it for just a second-
Toward the end of your "find", there is a quote from Jimmy Carter thus:
1984: "President Reagan doesn't always check the facts before he makes statements, and the press accepts this as kind of amusing." - former president Jimmy Carter
Is this exceptional?
Is it factual?
Is it anything but a generalized commentary from the man who was beaten soundly in an election?
My point:
If one is attempting to gather or collect damning or earth-shaking statements or accusations about someone, one doesn't go about it by diluting "bomb-shell" data with this sort of tripe.
I was sitting on the loading dock of a feedmill in Canton, Georgia in the summer of 1978.
I heard a local farmer tell the proprietor he was "gonna write a book about how that little peanut-farmer from Plains became President of the United States, and proceeded to fuck-up the whole Goddamn universe".
Such commentary is easily as salient as that which you found, but has the added quality of also being accurate.
vid-
I don't know how, but you have missed my point about the deficit; the President proposes, but does not spend-the House does.
The deficit was their fault, not Reagan's.
Ronnie built them a real nice bike, and they rode the wheels off it.
Out of deference to my colleague Busyman, I will state the former is my opinion.
Busyman-
Can you support this statement of yours?
On the flip, ole Ron had shitty policies. The rich got richer under both regimes. The middle class just got more of their share under ole Will.
vidcc
06-15-2004, 11:21 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@15 June 2004 - 13:48
vid-
I don't know how, but you have missed my point about the deficit; the President proposes, but does not spend-the House does.
The deficit was their fault, not Reagan's.
Ronnie built them a real nice bike, and they rode the wheels off it.
so what the heck is the point of having a president if he is just a toothless figurehead?
can we now take it from this that you will never blame a democratic president for the "mess" a republican inherits? Will we no longer be hearing about "billy boy" ?
it was reagans job to convince the house to follow his policies...and he was actually good at that...he even took advantage of the leverage that being shot gave him, this is not a swipe it was something that he took advantage of. If the house chose not to play ball he should have looked at other ways that would achieve his goals instead of blindly following a plan that as you suggest was doomed to failure because of the houses actions.
Although I can see how you would interpret what i posted as a mis understanding of your point. i don't believe i missed your point rather i chose to answer it thus from an earlier post
QUOTE j2
Anyway, Reagan kinda had to allow it to go on, 'cuz he had defense to worry about,
QUOTE vid
this is an interesting statement and to me it says that you felt that Reagan was unable to multi-task. Never should it happen that something is "allowed to go on" because of other things. Perhaps that's one of the problems we are seeing now.
put simply, and this comes from someone that knows the meaning of the phrase...the buck stops here
BigBank_Hank
06-16-2004, 02:32 AM
Originally posted by vidcc@15 June 2004 - 02:13
i have stated before that clinton was actually a good president who balanced the books ( can't quote from the lost posts) i feel one of the finest of the century.
I’ve been away at the beach for a few day and I missed most this great discussion.
I have to agree with you on that vidcc Clinton was a fine man. It takes a person with great dignity and honor to lie under oath during questioning. What an upstanding individual.
vidcc
06-16-2004, 04:07 AM
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank@15 June 2004 - 19:40
I have to agree with you on that vidcc Clinton was a fine man. It takes a person with great dignity and honor to lie under oath during questioning. What an upstanding individual.
:lol: :lol: would it have been better if he just said he didn't remember having sexual relations? or does amnesia just work for republicans :lol: :lol: :lol:
ah but i was talking about his political achievements and not his trouser achievements which after all is what's important.
Originally posted by vidcc@15 June 2004 - 23:29
the buck stops here
That reminds me, anyone seen Hobbes lately?
vidcc
06-16-2004, 07:00 PM
Originally posted by lynx@16 June 2004 - 00:31
That reminds me, anyone seen Hobbes lately?
I haven't seen him but this guy has been hanging about a lot
http://www.toonopedia.com/elmer.jpg
vid-
Any President, of whatever stripe, must earn his teeth before he can use them.
The teeth are what allows him to be a leader.
Case in point:
Jimmy Carter, while possessed of very large and prominent teeth, knew nothing about how to use them; that is why Reagan inherited such "malaise"-Carter couldn't have broken Congress with a hammer.
Carter's legacy is, and shall forever be, a little thing called the "Misery Index", which term is coincident with the mention of his name; the Misery Index was born and died with his Presidency.
Reagan entered office with teeth that prompted the Iranians to free the hostages within minutes of Reagan's inauguration, and please don't raise any BS about a "prearrangement". The Iranians were scared.
To the extent Reagan was a leader, he got the mostly Democrat congress to indulge him on the one hand ("Help me destroy Communism with money, rather than lives") and trade-off economic growth against a deficit he most certainly didn't want, but which was of a lower priority than ending the Cold War.
If you remember, when Reagan took office, this country was resigned to a life of living with the nuclear threat posed by the USSR; popular thought (not opinion; important distinction) held that the Russians were just too big, and that we would, in due time, be eclipsed.
Reagan had other ideas about that, and the Dems, who were sure he wouldn't succeed, were obliging (albeit nervously) about allowing him to tilt at the windmill of Communism, in exchange for all the pork they dragged home from his tax cuts.
They could have (and would have) opposed his efforts if they thought he would succeed.
They misjudged him, didn't they?
Here's a little acknowledged fact:
When Reagan hosed PATCO (which union, ironically, was the only labor union in the U.S. to back his candidacy), they were very surprised, when came time to go on strike; they assumed they had (wink, wink) secured a quid pro quo.
They found out they made a bit of a mistake.
The upshot of this was that the Russians took note that Reagan meant what he said, which fact carried great weight when he and Gorbachev finally got together.
As far as "Billy Boy" is concerned, I will say he was a resounding success compared to Carter, but my disgust at his personal comportment precludes me waving his banner, sorry.
There are some qualities (or lack thereof) I can't abide in a President. :)
chalice
06-16-2004, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@16 June 2004 - 20:56
The teeth are what allows him to be a leader.
Case in point:
Jimmy Carter, while possessed of very large and prominent teeth, knew nothing about how to use them; that is why Reagan inherited such "malaise"-Carter couldn't have broken Congress with a hammer.
:lol: :lol:
Tell me that's your's J2.
Should be bloody-well framed.
Rat Faced
06-16-2004, 09:16 PM
Gorbachev was talking about the Sinatra Doctrine long before Reagan was President and he was Premier.. he was advocating it in the 70's.
Quite frankly, Gorbachev deserves the credit for ending the Cold War, not Reagan... with a Premier that wanted reform and non intervention in Warsaw Pact countries it was a matter of time only before the Republics fell away from Russia.
Reagan just happened to be the President at the time, and (as any President would have) helped the Russians towards an Open Market instead of hindering them.
Originally posted by chalice+16 June 2004 - 15:06--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (chalice @ 16 June 2004 - 15:06)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@16 June 2004 - 20:56
The teeth are what allows him to be a leader.
Case in point:
Jimmy Carter, while possessed of very large and prominent teeth, knew nothing about how to use them; that is why Reagan inherited such "malaise"-Carter couldn't have broken Congress with a hammer.
:lol: :lol:
Tell me that's your's J2.
Should be bloody-well framed. [/b][/quote]
It is, chalice, and thank you. :)
Originally posted by Rat Faced@16 June 2004 - 15:24
Gorbachev was talking about the Sinatra Doctrine long before Reagan was President and he was Premier.. he was advocating it in the 70's.
Quite frankly, Gorbachev deserves the credit for ending the Cold War, not Reagan... with a Premier that wanted reform and non intervention in Warsaw Pact countries it was a matter of time only before the Republics fell away from Russia.
Reagan just happened to be the President at the time, and (as any President would have) helped the Russians towards an Open Market instead of hindering them.
However, the "Sinatra Doctrine" was first "exercised" in 1988-89, I believe; by then, most of the underpinnings of Communism had already been kicked away by Reagan.
This is not to gave short-shrift to Gorby; he was visionary enough to see the end well before Brezhnev would have.
It is fact, though:
He needed Reagan to provide the reality-check.
Little known fact:
The term Sinatra Doctrine had it's origins with Gerasimov, not Shevardnadze.
Rat Faced
06-16-2004, 10:00 PM
I beg to differ.
The Sanatra Doctrine was 1st exercised (de facto) 1981, when the Trade Union Solidarity was formed in Poland and the USSR did not intervene militarily to crush it :P
Gorbachev was intrumental in influencing the USSR not to interfere there, and called the policy The Sanatra Doctrine as a joke reference to the song "My Way"....the unofficial policy was made official when he became Premier in 1985.
Edit:
Changed the year from 1980 to 1981..... well, it was close from memory :lol:
Also changed that sentance to actually make sense :huh:
Edit 2:
The USSR did make threats in 1982-83 that slowed down the Democratic change in Poland.... when they found out the CIA was helping to Finance Solidarity.
It could be argued therefore, that Reagan slowed down the process and it would have happened quicker if he'd stayed the fuck out of there :P
vidcc
06-17-2004, 12:35 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@16 June 2004 - 13:56
vid-
Any President, of whatever stripe, must earn his teeth before he can use them.
as i said reagan was very good at getting the house to vote in his favour...look how many democrats he convinced to vote for the cuts.
but by your statements you have said that reagan didn't "earn" his teeth as he failed to control the house and they frittered his "extra money" away.
prey tell us all how the dems frittered the money away as well because reagan made heavy cuts in spending in ten out of 15 major federal agencies his first term and 9 out of 15 his second no other administration did that in fact clinton was the closest. ( i am stating this from memory so if anyone has more accurate information please let us all know).
whatever the reason i say once again with different words, these are just excuses for failures and the buck always stops here.
Reagan entered office with teeth that prompted the Iranians to free the hostages within minutes of Reagan's inauguration, and please don't raise any BS about a "prearrangement". The Iranians were scared.
i dissagree with your opinion on this and i also suspect that you would never have that opinion if it had been a democrat in office in the same circumstances.
I am not going to debate the policy of removing comunism because it was interference in another nations politics, something we would not stand for if another nation tried to do it to us and it also gives strength to criticism of our foreign policy. Besides i have no doubt that if it wasn't for the fact that a reformer like Gorbachev was the leader, Reagan would have stood no chance and the cold war would have got colder
As far as "Billy Boy" is concerned, I will say he was a resounding success compared to Carter, but my disgust at his personal comportment precludes me waving his banner, sorry.
sorry to hear you can be blinded to achievement because of human error. I am absolutely sure that no other president has lied or had an indiscresion. Of course Reagan didn't have to lie, if he ever did actually hear the question he would forget the answer.
QUOTE (j2k4 @ 16 June 2004 - 13:56)
vid-
Any President, of whatever stripe, must earn his teeth before he can use them.
as i said reagan was very good at getting the house to vote in his favour...look how many democrats he convinced to vote for the cuts.
but by your statements you have said that reagan didn't "earn" his teeth as he failed to control the house and they frittered his "extra money" away.
prey tell us all how the dems frittered the money away as well because reagan made heavy cuts in spending in ten out of 15 major federal agencies his first term and 9 out of 15 his second no other administration did that in fact clinton was the closest. ( i am stating this from memory so if anyone has more accurate information please let us all know).
Reagan made no "cuts", vid; he merely slowed the rate of growth in these agencies.
The Dems have always described such activities as cuts, which is, of course, not accurate.
whatever the reason i say once again with different words, these are just excuses for failures and the buck always stops here.
My confusion burgeons; of which "excuses" do you speak?
For Reagan not managing to hold the deficit line?
I have explained that, and you refuse to accept my explanation, which is an easy thing to do (much like describing the slowing of the growth rate as a "cut"), but is, nonetheless, your right, as an American.
BTW: Have you been naturalized? What's that like?
QUOTE
Reagan entered office with teeth that prompted the Iranians to free the hostages within minutes of Reagan's inauguration, and please don't raise any BS about a "prearrangement". The Iranians were scared.
i dissagree with your opinion on this and i also suspect that you would never have that opinion if it had been a democrat in office in the same circumstances.
Not my opinion, vid: FACT.
Are you denying it happened?
How could I deny it, were it a Democrat who presided?
It is undeniable; only a fool would deny it, and I steer clear of foolishness as a rule.
I am not going to debate the policy of removing comunism because it was interference in another nations politics, something we would not stand for if another nation tried to do it to us and it also gives strength to criticism of our foreign policy. Besides i have no doubt that if it wasn't for the fact that a reformer like Gorbachev was the leader, Reagan would have stood no chance and the cold war would have got colder
Reagan did not remove Communism, vid-he made it unviable; he did it without invading, indeed, as Ms. Thatcher noted: "He did it without firing a shot."
Just for fun, though, I wish you'd describe the standard by which you define Reagan's actions as "interference in another nation's politics".
QUOTE
As far as "Billy Boy" is concerned, I will say he was a resounding success compared to Carter, but my disgust at his personal comportment precludes me waving his banner, sorry.
sorry to hear you can be blinded to achievement because of human error. I am absolutely sure that no other president has lied or had an indiscresion. Of course Reagan didn't have to lie, if he ever did actually hear the question he would forget the answer.
A cheap shot at me, followed by a cheap shot at Reagan.
I would have expect better of you, vid.
vidcc
06-17-2004, 02:43 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@16 June 2004 - 18:40
sorry to hear you can be blinded to achievement because of human error. I am absolutely sure that no other president has lied or had an indiscresion. Of course Reagan didn't have to lie, if he ever did actually hear the question he would forget the answer.
A cheap shot at me, followed by a cheap shot at Reagan.
I would have expect better of you, vid.
sorry if you feel that was a cheap shot at you, it wasn't ment to be it was more a comment on the comment about giving credit. i appologise without reservation if you took offence.
as to the reagan comment, i have to make it absolutely clear that it was not a shot at his tradgic altziemers affliction rather his habbit of putting his hand to his ear and claiming he can't hear whenever the press asked a tough question and the famous "i don't recall" quote ( seeing as we where commenting about presidential standards)
Fair 'nuff.
Funny-he was always denigrated for being "merely an actor".
What wasn't too well known was how open he was about having had that as his background aided him greatly during his administration; he was always quite open about it, but this fact was not acknowledged by the media or his detractors.
Skweeky
06-17-2004, 06:39 PM
Just for fun, though, I wish you'd describe the standard by which you define Reagan's actions as "interference in another nation's politics".
RF did,
the CIA were meddling in Poland, and so slowed down the breakup of the Warsaw Pact :P
vidcc
06-17-2004, 08:08 PM
Just for fun, though, I wish you'd describe the standard by which you define Reagan's actions as "interference in another nation's politics".
not going to start going into actual details of how this was done, as sweeky pointed out already RF has given an example.
My point wasn't about details at all it was about the fact that he had a policy to bring down communism in the soviet union, just having that goal is interference.
If one aims to change the politics of another nation because they are against your own (by whatever means one uses) that is interference.
We have freedom of speech here and if we don't like the way our governmant does things we can vote them out, we do not have the right to vote in other nations elections, and we do not have the right to interfere in others nations system of government even if they don't have elections. The only people that have the right to do that are the people of those nations.
Interestingly many people from the old soviet union countries found that they were worse off after the change. Where the state was providing for them they now have to make their own arrangements. Inflation ran amok and many basic goods that where scarce previously became impossible to obtain. Of course there were some that did very well out of the change.
Rat Faced
06-17-2004, 08:11 PM
The Russian Maffia certainly did ;)
Skweeky-
I was responding to vid's contention the U.S. interfered in the internal politics of the USSR, and I disagree that Reagan's strategy fit that particular bill.
Let me put it this way:
Soviet Communism was pretty aggressively expansionist.
This expansion constituted an "interference" in the internal politics of other countries, I would think; I will assume Rat and vid agree on this point, as it would be folly to term the historical intent of the Soviets otherwise.
This fact is not objectionable?
Imagine that, as Reagan was widely thought of as a (insert word signifying conflict here)-mongering "cowboy" who did nothing but provoke; he conducted his military build-up absent any anti-communist rhetoric.
The result would have been the same, except the finger of "blame" for the fall of Soviet Communism would have been more difficult to point at Reagan.
The "interference" argument is fallacious.
As they say down south:
That dog won't hunt."
Rat Faced
06-17-2004, 08:36 PM
So, in other words, if the British Government gave the Democratic Party of the USA a couple of million dollars it just happened to have lying around, you would not say that it was interfering in US politics.
Crap, it would be, and you'd be right to complain. Just like we did when the Tory's interfered to help the US election machinery on the side of the Republicans...just before Clinton was elected...it was none of the Tories business....esp as they were the British Government at the time, and would have to work with whoever won :angry:
The fact that just about every major Corporation interfers in this way via the Republican Party does not alter the fact....at least they can claim they're american, whereas the British Government couldnt.
Can't we ever stay with the same subject?
I might decide to raise the ugly spectre of the evil Neville Chamberlain and his responsibility for WWII again, however facetiously. :P
vidcc
06-17-2004, 09:10 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@16 June 2004 - 18:40
Reagan entered office with teeth that prompted the Iranians to free the hostages within minutes of Reagan's inauguration, and please don't raise any BS about a "prearrangement". The Iranians were scared.
i dissagree with your opinion on this and i also suspect that you would never have that opinion if it had been a democrat in office in the same circumstances.
[i][color=blue]Not my opinion, vid: FACT.
Are you denying it happened?
Iran finally agreed to release the hostages after the US said it would release assets frozen in American and other banks, including the Bank of England, since the embassy was seized.
Iran was at war with iraq and needed money. they did not hand over the hostages "because they were scared" of reagan. my point (probably not well put) was that had it been a democrat president releasing these funds you would be saying he caved in to demands (probably..... just a theory from reading your posts about anything democratic)
sorry for the delay in answering (darn school vacation times) :helpsmile:
Soviet Communism was pretty aggressively expansionist
And American capitalism isn't ? where were the soviets invading?..i know afganistan, but the government there at the time i believe had a communist leaning and asked for help against the rebels.... ahh but rebels are ok as long as they follow our way of thinking, that makes them freedom fighters..... then we get to American funding of the like of bin laden who was considered a freedom fighter back then (vicious circle thread heading this way :lol: )
QUOTE (j2k4 @ 16 June 2004 - 18:40)
Reagan entered office with teeth that prompted the Iranians to free the hostages within minutes of Reagan's inauguration, and please don't raise any BS about a "prearrangement". The Iranians were scared.
i dissagree with your opinion on this and i also suspect that you would never have that opinion if it had been a democrat in office in the same circumstances.
Not my opinion, vid: FACT.
Are you denying it happened?
Iran finally agreed to release the hostages after the US said it would release assets frozen in American and other banks, including the Bank of England, since the embassy was seized.
Iran was at war with iraq and needed money. they did not hand over the hostages "because they were scared" of reagan. my point (probably not well put) was that had it been a democrat president releasing these funds you would be saying he caved in to demands (probably..... just a theory from reading your posts about anything democratic)
sorry for the delay in answering (darn school vacation times)
Now that's odd.
I could have sworn we favored Iraq in that conflict... :huh:
QUOTE
Soviet Communism was pretty aggressively expansionist
And American capitalism isn't ? where were the soviets invading?..i know afganistan, but the government there at the time i believe had a communist leaning and asked for help against the rebels.... ahh but rebels are ok as long as they follow our way of thinking, that makes them freedom fighters..... then we get to American funding of the like of bin laden who was considered a freedom fighter back then (vicious circle thread heading this way )
Oh, yes-of course, you're right-I had forgotten how the U.S. totally subdued the entire Eastern Bloc for 40 years by vicious application of Capitalism; I particularly remember Hungary in 1956....
vidcc
06-17-2004, 09:31 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@17 June 2004 - 14:29
Iran finally agreed to release the hostages after the US said it would release assets frozen in American and other banks, including the Bank of England, since the embassy was seized.
Iran was at war with iraq and needed money. they did not hand over the hostages "because they were scared" of reagan. my point (probably not well put) was that had it been a democrat president releasing these funds you would be saying he caved in to demands (probably..... just a theory from reading your posts about anything democratic)
sorry for the delay in answering (darn school vacation times)
Now that's odd.
I could have sworn we favored Iraq in that conflict... :huh:
the release of funds was not in support of iran of the war, it was to secure the release of the hostages. The USA was "supposed" to be neutral in that conflict. Had Iran not been at war i am not sure that the hostage situation would have ended as it did because the original demands were for the return of the shah which didn't happen.
Rat Faced
06-17-2004, 09:48 PM
Oh, yes-of course, you're right-I had forgotten how the U.S. totally subdued the entire Eastern Bloc for 40 years by vicious application of Capitalism; I particularly remember Hungary in 1956....
And the US hasnt had a part to play in any way in making a country not lean to the left, of course...
Both countries were as bad as each other, fighting a war via 3rd party countries, instead of letting them decide there own future in their own way.
Originally posted by Rat Faced@17 June 2004 - 15:56
Both countries were as bad as each other, fighting a war via 3rd party countries, instead of letting them decide there own future in their own way.
While I'd still regard this as taking wild license with reality, I also note that it constitutes quite a concession on your part, Rat.
Hey, everybody!
Rat said the Soviets were just as bad as the U.S.!
Pass it on! :D
BTW-How would you describe the U.K.'s current relationship with Russia?
I really have no clue; hadn't even thought about it. :huh:
Originally posted by vidcc+17 June 2004 - 15:39--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 17 June 2004 - 15:39)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@17 June 2004 - 14:29
Iran finally agreed to release the hostages after the US said it would release assets frozen in American and other banks, including the Bank of England, since the embassy was seized.
Iran was at war with iraq and needed money. they did not hand over the hostages "because they were scared" of reagan. my point (probably not well put) was that had it been a democrat president releasing these funds you would be saying he caved in to demands (probably..... just a theory from reading your posts about anything democratic)
sorry for the delay in answering (darn school vacation times)
Now that's odd.
I could have sworn we favored Iraq in that conflict... :huh:
the release of funds was not in support of iran of the war, it was to secure the release of the hostages. The USA was "supposed" to be neutral in that conflict. Had Iran not been at war i am not sure that the hostage situation would have ended as it did because the original demands were for the return of the shah which didn't happen.[/b][/quote]
Okay, vid-
The release took place about 30 minutes after Reagan was sworn in.
Do you believe the Ayatollah would commit to such a schedule and knuckle under to Reagan's political mores so the latter could make an impression of toughness that didn't exist?
I think not; the last thing Khomeini would have done would have been to allow Reagan to show him up as a political favor.
Not in a million years.
Without the added stimulation of Reagan's being Reagan, I believe the Ayatollah would have negotiated a slight delay to allow himself to save a bit of face; I'm sure the offer of access to the heretofore "frozen" funds came with implied...um...implications.
The fact of the timing leaves no other conclusion.
In my opinion, of course. :)
Rat Faced
06-18-2004, 12:13 AM
Originally posted by j2k4+17 June 2004 - 23:27--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 17 June 2004 - 23:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@17 June 2004 - 15:56
Both countries were as bad as each other, fighting a war via 3rd party countries, instead of letting them decide there own future in their own way.
While I'd still regard this as taking wild license with reality, I also note that it constitutes quite a concession on your part, Rat.
Hey, everybody!
Rat said the Soviets were just as bad as the U.S.!
Pass it on! :D
BTW-How would you describe the U.K.'s current relationship with Russia?
I really have no clue; hadn't even thought about it. :huh: [/b][/quote]
Hows that a concession?
Ive always maintained that extreme of Left and Right Wings are equaly bad :P
Its just we havent had many "Socialists" in here claiming Russia/China were the best thing since sliced bread....which is of course, also utter crap.
Any country/system that relies on the "goodness" of human nature to succeed will fail, even if they try to force said "goodness", which is self defeating.
Any country that goes the opposite route and decides that those that are unable to look after themselves deserve what they get.. deserves to and will fail, although it will last longer, due to the suppresion of Rights and the people taking that much longer to manifest themselves.
The end results are the same, collection of money and power within a small circle of elite causing disaffection amongst the populace as a whole.
Companies must be given freedom and incentive to grow, but made to face their responsibilities towards the country as a whole.
The only reason the USA still exists today, is because the Republicans dont stay in power long enough to destroy the country from within....in my opinion, of course ;)
:P
vidcc
06-18-2004, 01:15 AM
J2
the timing was more a snub for Carter as i recollect. They could have been released earlier.
The hostage ordeal began in November 1979 when a group of radical Iranian students stormed the American embassy in Tehran. Everyone inside was taken captive.
The students were angered by American support for the Shah, who fled into exile in January 1979 and arrived in the United States in October for cancer treatment. They demanded the Shah's return to stand trial for alleged crimes in office.
They had the backing of the Iranian government, led by Ayatollah Khomeini. But their demands for the Shah's extradition were foiled when he fled to Cairo.
The students still refused to release their hostages, however, until President Carter was defeated in the US elections. This paved the way for fresh negotiations with the Algerians acting as intermediaries
President Carter applied economic pressure by halting oil imports from Iran and freezing Iranian assets in the United States. At the same time, he began several diplomatic initiatives to free the hostages, all of which proved fruitless. On Apr. 24, 1980, the United States attempted a rescue mission that failed. After three of eight helicopters were damaged in a sandstorm, the operation was aborted; eight persons were killed during the evacuation. Secretary of State Cyrus Vance, who had opposed the action, resigned after the mission's failure.
In 1980, the death of the shah in Egypt and the invasion of Iran by Iraq made the Iranians more receptive to resolving the hostage crisis. In the United States, failure to resolve the crisis contributed to Ronald Reagan's defeat of Carter in the presidential election. After the election, with the assistance of Algerian intermediaries, successful negotiations began. On Jan. 20, 1981, the day of President Reagan's inauguration, the United States released almost $8 billion in Iranian assets and the hostages were freed after 444 days in Iranian detention; the agreement gave Iran immunity from lawsuits arising from the incident.
I have another question, vid:
To what do you mainly attribute Reagan's defeat of Carter-the economic straits and overall malaise (his general fecklessness) or the hostage situation?
Not looking to score any points, just interested in your opinion. ;)
Personally, I would go exclusively with option 1, under which, BTW-I also would list his boycott of the Moscow Games.
I actually didn't hold the hostage crisis (apart from the fiasco in the desert) against him (well, he did kinda really blow the situation with the Shah)....No, wait-yeah, yeah I did hold it against him.
But I'll stick with option 1, anyway. :)
Originally posted by Rat Faced@17 June 2004 - 18:21
The only reason the USA still exists today, is because the Republicans dont stay in power long enough to destroy the country from within....in my opinion, of course ;)
The only reason the U.K. exists today is Margaret Thatcher having saved it...
...my opinion, as usual. :P
vidcc
06-18-2004, 03:51 AM
Carter had troubles. he did achieve about 8 million new jobs and reduced the budget defecit however he had problems with high inflation and interest rates ( a problem if growth gets too fast) and the measures taken to combat this caused a short recession (this is where the voters suffer most). As to the maliase well i think it really started with the nixon watergate episode with people not trusting government and the hostage situation probably hammered the final nail in..
as to my oppinion i think it was a mixture of both that caused the defeat with the hostages taking a bit of a lead. Americans in general see themselves as supreme in the world and patriotism is never easier to raise than when some "tin pot" nation dares to be cheeky. Carter made every effort to resolve the situation diplomatically and when he did send the unsuccessful rescue mission in the nation saw it as Carters failure.
Reagan to his credit saw an opportunity and took it. He raised patriotism to such a level that he could have been the worst president ever and he would still be loved. America needed to feel good about itself and reagan was very good at saying the right things to achieve that and that's what the voters saw in the campaign.
if you want to know my view of presidents post Nixon/Ford i would have voted in this order should they all be miraculously up for election today and needed to be put in order :blink:
1. Clinton (i can hear your boos)
2. Bush snr.
3. Carter
4. Reagan
5. Bush jnr. (although i might need a gun pointed at my head to pull the lever :lol: and need to be heavily sedated for many years afterwards :lol: )
I am unashamedly impressed with the jobClinton did even with the problem with his zipper. If Bush jnr has a scandle of the same standard i would not use it against him. (there were rumours that Ronnie and Maggie would have made the beast with 2 backs if viagra was invented back then :lol: )
BigBank_Hank
06-18-2004, 04:19 AM
Originally posted by vidcc@17 June 2004 - 22:59
5. Bush jnr. (although i might need a gun pointed at my head to pull the lever :lol: and need to be heavily sedated for many years afterwards :lol: )
I am hear by placing my application to be first in line to hold that position :D :P
Busyman
06-18-2004, 04:58 AM
It's amazing how some folks tow the party line no matter what....like it's their religion.
Everything is good about their party.
They don't make mistakes.
Missteps are someone elses fault.
Good things that happen during their Presidents reign are only because of their President.
I see through your bullshit. It actually makes some of you actually dishonest.
I can understand this if you were the one actually running for office.
There is line between trying to get elected and being truthful. :lol: :lol:
...but here, this is a forum though. Cut the shit. You are not a Senator. You are not even head of your community association (if you even have one). <_<
btw I am non-partisan.
vidcc
06-18-2004, 05:35 AM
Originally posted by BigBank_Hank+17 June 2004 - 21:27--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (BigBank_Hank @ 17 June 2004 - 21:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-vidcc@17 June 2004 - 22:59
5. Bush jnr. (although i might need a gun pointed at my head to pull the lever :lol: and need to be heavily sedated for many years afterwards :lol: )
I am hear by placing my application to be first in line to hold that position :D :P [/b][/quote]
Ahh a man that really does believe in the republican ethic :lol: :lol:
rollwave
06-18-2004, 06:13 AM
OK this is too easy. Let me take 'em one at a time. 1)"the rich got richer": Everyone got richer under Reagan, especially African-Americans. African Americans made the biggest gains under RR (I hate to burden you with facts). But the people who reeaally got rich in the 80's were super-libs like Barbera Streisand, John Kerry, and George Soros(he's the guy who is trying to buy the election for Senator Flip Flop). Why don't these people give some of that money back to the people? Why does Kerry need 500 million?! Can't he get by on...say...10 million? No of course not! Like most libs its all talk and no action. The truth is that the Reagan Revolution brought the US the highest standard of living for all Americans that the world has ever seen. That's what low taxes and freedom does. It works every time it's tried. 2) "a nasty recession" : There was a recession the first 2 years of RR's term coming out of the hapless Carter years, but the economy rolled after the tax cuts kicked in ( very similar to G W Bush's first 2 years as evidenced by a now robust economy. I know,I know the libs in the media is trying to ignore the economy). Carter gave us 14% mortgage rates and 12% inflation. RR brought those down, thanks to his appointee Alan Greenspan. So...which policies worked best? Carter or Reagan?3) "rampant inflation" : Ha, ha, ha...this one is soooo wrong it's unbelievable, but I know libs are long on talk and short on facts. Inflation was through the ceiling under Carter as I mentioned earlier...please! Read a history book and get back to me. 4) "Said nothing against apartheid" : That may be true. I don't know so I'll give you that one. RR had a pretty full plate what with fixing the economy and destroying communism.
Good night and God bless Nancy Reagan and Laura & George Bush. :D
Originally posted by rollwave@18 June 2004 - 00:21
OK this is too easy. Let me take 'em one at a time. 1)"the rich got richer": Everyone got richer under Reagan, especially African-Americans. African Americans made the biggest gains under RR (I hate to burden you with facts). But the people who reeaally got rich in the 80's were super-libs like Barbera Streisand, John Kerry, and George Soros(he's the guy who is trying to buy the election for Senator Flip Flop). Why don't these people give some of that money back to the people? Why does Kerry need 500 million?! Can't he get by on...say...10 million? No of course not! Like most libs its all talk and no action. The truth is that the Reagan Revolution brought the US the highest standard of living for all Americans that the world has ever seen. That's what low taxes and freedom does. It works every time it's tried. 2) "a nasty recession" : There was a recession the first 2 years of RR's term coming out of the hapless Carter years, but the economy rolled after the tax cuts kicked in ( very similar to G W Bush's first 2 years as evidenced by a now robust economy. I know,I know the libs in the media is trying to ignore the economy). Carter gave us 14% mortgage rates and 12% inflation. RR brought those down, thanks to his appointee Alan Greenspan. So...which policies worked best? Carter or Reagan?3) "rampant inflation" : Ha, ha, ha...this one is soooo wrong it's unbelievable, but I know libs are long on talk and short on facts. Inflation was through the ceiling under Carter as I mentioned earlier...please! Read a history book and get back to me. 4) "Said nothing against apartheid" : That may be true. I don't know so I'll give you that one. RR had a pretty full plate what with fixing the economy and destroying communism.
Good night and God bless Nancy Reagan and Laura & George Bush. :D
Ah, a Limbaugh fan. :)
Good man. ;)
Busyman-you attribute a blindness you would know does not exist, were you paying attention.
You have not afforded anyone here, especially me, any opportunity at all to discuss Reagan's shortcomings, as you have been so busy attacking, under cover of your black "perspective."
As one who has "made it", on his own terms (unless you are a product of affirmative action), you are a sterling example of what Reagan stood for:
Self reliance.
I regard you, more-or-less, as a success story, though I'm sure this doesn't impress you much.
Your pronouncements, which you no doubt intend to be blunt, hard-hitting, and "painfully" honest, lack any semblance of grace; would that you felt it necessary to construct them with as much care and attention to detail as you do other things.
vid-
You noted, correctly, that:
Reagan to his credit saw an opportunity and took it. He raised patriotism to such a level that he could have been the worst president ever and he would still be loved. America needed to feel good about itself and reagan was very good at saying the right things to achieve that and that's what the voters saw in the campaign.
The question is, therefore, do you find this "talent" of Reagan's to be of any value whatsoever?
chalice
06-18-2004, 10:07 AM
Originally posted by j2k4+18 June 2004 - 02:11--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 18 June 2004 - 02:11)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@17 June 2004 - 18:21
The only reason the USA still exists today, is because the Republicans dont stay in power long enough to destroy the country from within....in my opinion, of course ;)
The only reason the U.K. exists today is Margaret Thatcher having saved it...
...my opinion, as usual. :P [/b][/quote]
Some of us have no desire for a United Kingdom.
Originally posted by chalice+18 June 2004 - 04:15--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (chalice @ 18 June 2004 - 04:15)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by j2k4@18 June 2004 - 02:11
<!--QuoteBegin-Rat Faced@17 June 2004 - 18:21
The only reason the USA still exists today, is because the Republicans dont stay in power long enough to destroy the country from within....in my opinion, of course ;)
The only reason the U.K. exists today is Margaret Thatcher having saved it...
...my opinion, as usual. :P
Some of us have no desire for a United Kingdom. [/b][/quote]
I have gathered as much.
Morning, Chalice. :)
chalice
06-18-2004, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by j2k4@18 June 2004 - 10:22
I have gathered as much.
Morning, Chalice. :)
Morning J2. :)
I'm no fan of Maggie. Poor Dennis knew when to get out.
vidcc
06-18-2004, 04:48 PM
Originally posted by chalice@18 June 2004 - 03:15
Some of us have no desire for a United Kingdom.
i have an off topic question about that chalice, i won't ask it here (not the longue and such a large off topic swing is not appropriate) if you are as i think from Northern Ireland then you would be one of the few people entitled to answer it so with your permission may i pm it?
chalice
06-18-2004, 04:51 PM
Originally posted by vidcc+18 June 2004 - 16:56--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 18 June 2004 - 16:56)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-chalice@18 June 2004 - 03:15
Some of us have no desire for a United Kingdom.
i have an off topic question about that chalice, i won't ask it here (not the longue and such a large off topic swing is not appropriate) if you are as i think from Northern Ireland then you would be one of the few people entitled to answer it so with your permission may i pm it? [/b][/quote]
Be my guest, Vid. :)
vidcc
06-18-2004, 05:21 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@18 June 2004 - 03:10
vid-
You noted, correctly, that:
Reagan to his credit saw an opportunity and took it. He raised patriotism to such a level that he could have been the worst president ever and he would still be loved. America needed to feel good about itself and reagan was very good at saying the right things to achieve that and that's what the voters saw in the campaign.
The question is, therefore, do you find this "talent" of Reagan's to be of any value whatsoever?
In my usual passionate and non politician way i can state quite categorically and without any doubt in my mind whatsoever....yes and no :lol: :lol:
i shall explain so i don't cause the confusion i have in some of the earlier post :lol:
yes we need someone that can make us feel that he is a strong confident leader so there is value in that. raising moral in dire times is certainly a valuble "talent" to have, however it is one thing to talk a good fight and another to do what one promises.
we have debated some of the things that i felt Reagan lacked on and not many good things even though i tried to agree with some things but just felt a bit of restraint would have been better before unleasing the beast.
After 9:11 we heard speeches such as "we are going to kick some ass" and other such patriotism raising speeches. They were needed and after making such a speech Bush could have had a free run to abolish taxes for everyone earning $1,000,000 per year and nobody would have noticed :lol: . A speech that says " We will look into the cause and see what we can do limit our chances of being a target again" just wouldn't work, but the second if put into action would possibly have more long term beneficial results.
This is not to say that we should let things pass by unpunished.
here's a question for you. :D
If a meteor the size of the moon was going to hit the earth in 48 hours, who do you think would be able to break the news to you and make you think you stood a chance of suvival even though it was hopeless..Reagan, Bush jnr. or Clinton...that's where you will see the value of the "talent" in question :D
Skweeky
06-18-2004, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by chalice@18 June 2004 - 10:15
Some of us have no desire for a United Kingdom.
Im all in favour of self determination of every Country in the Kingdom...except Scotland.
And thats only 'till we can move the border further south....say Watford. ;)
Rat Faced
06-18-2004, 07:26 PM
Originally posted by Skweeky+18 June 2004 - 19:32--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Skweeky @ 18 June 2004 - 19:32)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-chalice@18 June 2004 - 10:15
Some of us have no desire for a United Kingdom.
Im all in favour of self determination of every Country in the Kingdom...except Scotland.
And thats only 'till we can move the border further south....say Watford. ;) [/b][/quote]
Erm....that was me, as you probably gathered
:lol:
vidcc
06-18-2004, 07:28 PM
Originally posted by Rat Faced+18 June 2004 - 12:34--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced @ 18 June 2004 - 12:34)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'>
Originally posted by Skweeky@18 June 2004 - 19:32
<!--QuoteBegin-chalice@18 June 2004 - 10:15
Some of us have no desire for a United Kingdom.
Im all in favour of self determination of every Country in the Kingdom...except Scotland.
And thats only 'till we can move the border further south....say Watford. ;)
Erm....that was me, as you probably gathered
:lol: [/b][/quote]
I am begining to suspect you are the norman bates of the board...do you talk in different voices too? :lol: :lol: :lol:
Rat Faced
06-18-2004, 07:32 PM
She tells windows to remember her....so i come in, and im logged in as Skweeky.
It sometimes takes me a couple of posts to realise :lol: :lol:
Originally posted by vidcc@18 June 2004 - 11:29
here's a question for you. :D
If a meteor the size of the moon was going to hit the earth in 48 hours, who do you think would be able to break the news to you and make you think you stood a chance of suvival even though it was hopeless..Reagan, Bush jnr. or Clinton...that's where you will see the value of the "talent" in question :D
I'm afraid I wouldn't be able to equivocate as you did, vid.
I could not be beguiled by any of them in that circumstance, though I'd love to have chatted with ole' Ronaldus Magnus. ;)
Busyman
06-18-2004, 08:47 PM
Reagan endorsed a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion.
Originally posted by Busyman@18 June 2004 - 14:55
Reagan endorsed a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion.
So?
He was against abortion, as was his right.
Besides, even behind the bully pulpit of the office, "endorsing" is not quite the same as abusing judicial fiat, is it?
Abortions can still be obtained all across the fruited plain, yes?
Busyman
06-20-2004, 07:00 AM
Originally posted by j2k4+18 June 2004 - 17:02--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (j2k4 @ 18 June 2004 - 17:02)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-Busyman@18 June 2004 - 14:55
Reagan endorsed a constitutional amendment to outlaw abortion.
So?
He was against abortion, as was his right.
Besides, even behind the bully pulpit of the office, "endorsing" is not quite the same as abusing judicial fiat, is it?
Abortions can still be obtained all across the fruited plain, yes? [/b][/quote]
He also endorsed appointments of anti-abortion judges and new restrictions on family planning programs that involved abortion services.
(I actually agree with the latter, just not as an amendment)
The Constitution gives rights. It doesn't them away (well except Prohibition).
Originally posted by Busyman@20 June 2004 - 02:08
The Constitution gives rights. It doesn't them away (well except Prohibition).
The actual function of the Constitution is somewhat vague these days, what with our activist and agenda-driven judiciary.
Roe v. Wade, for example, is probably the all-time worst example of judicial activism, and not for the reason(s) you might think. ;)
Rat Faced
06-20-2004, 12:27 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@20 June 2004 - 12:25
Roe v. Wade, for example, is probably the all-time worst example of judicial activism, and not for the reason(s) you might think. ;)
Wouldnt you say "The Gore Exception" was?
:rolleyes:
Laymans Guide to the Gore Exception (http://hometown.aol.com/marklevineesq/myhomepage/election.html)
Originally posted by Rat Faced@20 June 2004 - 07:35
Wouldnt you say "The Gore Exception" was?
:rolleyes:
"Was" what?
Honest to God, Rat; at base, the Florida/Supreme Court situation was nothing more than the Dems hoist on their own petard.
Jusy because you can find links to sites sympathetic to Gore (and you can do it all-day-long, as I'm well aware) doesn't mean they are correct, all it means is they can't get over it. ;)
Rat Faced
06-20-2004, 12:47 PM
Justice John Paul Stevens (Republican appointed by Ford):
"Although we may never know with complete certainty the identity of the winner of this year's Presidential election, the identity of the loser is perfectly clear. It is the Nation's confidence in the judge as an impartial guardian of the rule of law."
Justice David Souter (Republican appointed by Bush):
"Before this Court stayed the effort to [manually recount the ballots] the courts of Florida were ready to do their best to get that job done. There is no justification for denying the State the opportunity to try to count all the disputed ballots now.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg (Democrat appointed by Clinton):
Chief Justice Rehnquist would "disrupt" Florida's "republican regime." [In other words, democracy in Florida is imperiled.] The court should not let its "untested prophecy" that counting votes is "impractical" "decide the presidency of the United States."
Justice Steven Breyer (Democrat appointed by Clinton):
"There is no justification for the majority's remedy . . . " We "risk a self-inflicted wound -- a wound that may harm not just the court, but the nation."
Well, these 2 Republican Justices that sat on that supreme court differ to yourself in their opinion :P
Edit: Added 2 Democrat Justices remarks.... these are the 4 that voted on the rule of Law, and not because their wifes were collecting names for the Bush Administration's appointees ( Justice Thomas (Republican) ) or sone were working as Bush's Lawyers (Justice Scalia (Republican) ) or wished to retire unless a Democrat was elected (Justice's Rehnquist and O'Connor (Republican) )
Im merely following on a topic, and saying that there is a worse case of Judicial Activism than the one you quoted.. ;)
Q: Is that a legal reason to stop recounts? or a political one?
A: Let's just say in all of American history and all of American law, this is the first time a court has ever refused to count votes in order to protect one candidate's "legitimacy" over another's.
Q: Aren't these conservative justices against judicial activism?
A: Yes, when liberal judges are perceived to have done it.
It would follow then that you believe Stevens and Souter to be "Conservative" Justices?
Just so we're clear, Rat, Thomas and Scalia are the only constructionists amongst the Supremes.
Activism is the order of the day for the rest, depending on the issue, of course.
BTW-Where did your second quote come from? ;)
Rat Faced
06-20-2004, 01:01 PM
From the original source above... The Gore Exception.
As the guy that hosts that is an Atorney at Law, I'll assume he knows more about the Laws of the USA than either of us :P
Especially as he's quoting 4 Supreme Court Justices that voted against, and gives reasons that 4 out of the 5 that voted for should have dismissed themselves from the case anyway....
Edit:
This aint about the results and whether Gore won or lost... it was about "Judicial Activism", whereby the Supreme Court made sure that Bush Won before the results were known :P
You brought the subject up ;)
Originally posted by Rat Faced@20 June 2004 - 08:09
This aint about the results and whether Gore won or lost... it was about "Judicial Activism", whereby the Supreme Court made sure that Bush Won before the results were known :P
You brought the subject up ;)
What is "activist" about interpreting the laws as they stand?
That is what happened in Bush/Gore, no matter what your expert says.
The activism I was referring to was Roe v. Wade.
clocker
06-20-2004, 03:03 PM
Just to be clear, j2....
When you agree with the decision (Bush is President) that is "interpreting the laws as they stand", hence OK.
When you don't ( Roe v. Wade) then that is the dreaded "judicial activism".
Having your cake AND eating it too is a comfy position to be in, isn't it?
Who won? Roe or Wade?
And who are they in the first place?
Originally posted by clocker@20 June 2004 - 10:11
Just to be clear, j2....
When you agree with the decision (Bush is President) that is "interpreting the laws as they stand", hence OK.
When you don't ( Roe v. Wade) then that is the dreaded "judicial activism".
Having your cake AND eating it too is a comfy position to be in, isn't it?
Okay, to be clear, then:
I feel Roe v. Wade is flawed and constitutes judicial activism because it deprived the citizenry of the U.S. of their right to a proper public debate on the subject of abortion and it's legality.
It also trampled the issue of state's rights into the bargain.
If the question had been decided by public referendum, as would have been right and proper, all the concurrent and coincidental issues could have been incorporated into the debate, and the people would have at least have had the satisfaction of having "had their say", which is very important, especially when a constituency ends up on the losing end of a proposition.
Such "democratic" exercises aren't favored by the courts, however, as concern for minorities has, for decades, trumped the old, worn-out caveat of "majority rule".
I feel that, had the issue undergone such a debate and referendum, women would have access to abortion, but would exercise that access with a bit more consideration for the act, which consideration should honestly not offend anybody.
Liken it if you will to the gymnastics required by law (not always enforced, BTW) in order to buy a gun; not too long ago, you wanted a firearm, you went and bought one-it was just that simple.
Now, you have registrations, waiting periods, etc., none of which could be said to be impinging on lawful access to guns, and frankly, I can't remember the last time I actually heard anybody bitch about having to "wait for their gun".
I still hear the statement that goes something like, "from my cold, dead hands..." quite often; I don't think the gun lobby is dead, or even suffering to any extent, do you?
Now:
What would have been wrong with that scenario, instead of the one we currently have, caused by a Court which felt compelled to find a right that didn't exist, and in the process over-rode the wishes of the people it represents?
The public, at the time (and probably to this day), would not have given blanket approval to any right-to-abortion, but neither would it have denied access to same.
And just think:
We wouldn't be subject to the ongoing rancor over the subject, we wouldn't have a total re-hash of the issue every time there's a Presidential election, it wouldn't be a litmus test that keeps judges from being appointed, we wouldn't be wasting time and money subsidizing two very large and lucrative lobbies, we wouldn't be putting up with clinics being bombed, or Doctors being shot, and we wouldn't be at each other's fucking throats constantly over this issue, which, frankly, should have been disposed of thirty-odd years ago. ;)
vidcc
06-20-2004, 06:19 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@20 June 2004 - 10:34
we wouldn't be putting up with clinics being bombed, or Doctors being shot, and we wouldn't be at each other's fucking throats constantly over this issue, which, frankly, should have been disposed of thirty-odd years ago. ;)
Good morning J2.
I am not going to debate the rights and wrongs of abortion, however for some reason i find it hard to believe that the sort of terrorist that bombs abortion clinics at present would be unlikey to continue if all of your suggested criterior had taken place and it had ended in favour of abortion. i also feel that we would still debate the issue should it arise.
Originally posted by vidcc+20 June 2004 - 13:27--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (vidcc @ 20 June 2004 - 13:27)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'> <!--QuoteBegin-j2k4@20 June 2004 - 10:34
we wouldn't be putting up with clinics being bombed, or Doctors being shot, and we wouldn't be at each other's fucking throats constantly over this issue, which, frankly, should have been disposed of thirty-odd years ago. ;)
Good morning J2.
I am not going to debate the rights and wrongs of abortion, however for some reason i find it hard to believe that the sort of terrorist that bombs abortion clinics at present would be unlikey to continue if all of your suggested criterior had taken place and it had ended in favour of abortion. i also feel that we would still debate the issue should it arise. [/b][/quote]
We'll never know, will we.
More's the pity.
Good afternoon, BTW. :)
vidcc
06-20-2004, 06:28 PM
Originally posted by j2k4@20 June 2004 - 11:32
Good afternoon, BTW. :)
sorry i'm on mountain time, still morning here. Actually it's still the 20th century :(
Then you're not actually posting on this board, are you? ;)
Your name wouldn't happen to be Wells, would it? :huh:
Rat Faced
06-20-2004, 08:28 PM
Originally posted by clocker@20 June 2004 - 15:11
Just to be clear, j2....
When you agree with the decision (Bush is President) that is "interpreting the laws as they stand", hence OK.
When you don't ( Roe v. Wade) then that is the dreaded "judicial activism".
Having your cake AND eating it too is a comfy position to be in, isn't it?
Very well put sir :rolleyes:
Originally posted by Rat Faced+20 June 2004 - 15:36--></div><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td>QUOTE (Rat Faced @ 20 June 2004 - 15:36)</td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteBegin-clocker@20 June 2004 - 15:11
Just to be clear, j2....
When you agree with the decision (Bush is President) that is "interpreting the laws as they stand", hence OK.
When you don't ( Roe v. Wade) then that is the dreaded "judicial activism".
Having your cake AND eating it too is a comfy position to be in, isn't it?
Very well put sir :rolleyes:[/b][/quote]
Given the latter instance was activism and the former was not, the shoe fits very nicely indeed, gents.
Sometimes it just works out that way.
Thanks for the cake.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.3 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.