random off-topic thread - Page 52

TheIncredibleRox · 01-22-2008, 03:13 PM

Quote:

Maybe he should get some of the credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union, but the GOP and their media enablers give him far too much credit. Like Peter Sellers in the movie, "Being There", the USSR's collapse was attached to him. Never mind that it was a failed economic system that would have imploded of its own weight no matter who our president was.

That's nonsense. and I've heard it trotted out by a lot of liberals over the years re: Reagan.

Carter and previous administrations (with, I'll admit, the backing of quite a few Republicans) had pursued the detente policy whole-heartedly. Under detente, the USSR could have survived for decades and decades.

Regan brought it down by A) Demanding accountability and reciprocation from the Helsinki Accords, against the detente (and majority) opinion, thus weakening the USSR's internal controls B) Significantly increasing defense spending, forcing them into an arms race they couldn't possibly win, especially in light of (A).

It worked, and he freed hundreds of millions of people from tyranny, starvation, and general misery. That's nothing to sneeze at; it's perhaps the greatest accomplishment of modern times.

And he didn't walk ass-backwards into it; he did it by rejecting detente, tanding up with the dissidents,and challenging the USSR across several planes.

Another place he scores a lot of points with Conservatives; he was the first to seriously implement supply-side economics. He cut income tax rates across the board, and the top marginal rate I believe from 70% (!!!) to the upper 20's, while either maintaing or increasing government revenue.

It worked. He curbed the crippling inflation he'd inherited from Carter, as well as lowering the unemployment rate. Our GDP grew at tremendous rates.

Roxpert · 01-22-2008, 06:41 PM

About everything you just wrote is false. It's hard to know where to begin.

First, the massive spending on nuclear missles did not uptick dramatically under Reagan. It had been developing over the Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter years. Show me how much it "accelerated" under Reagan, which you claim was what caused the bankrupting of the communist system.

Second, Mikhail Gorbachev has to get the lion's share of the "credit" for the demise of the Soviet Union, although that wasn't really his intention but rather an unintended consequence of his Glasnost and Perestroika policies. Ronald Reagan was the beneficiary (as we all were) of having a leader of the USSR he could deal with and negotiate with in good faith, while at the same time presenting a tough public front in calling the USSR the "Evil Empire".

Third, detente WAS the right policy to have with a nation led by Breshnev and other Communist bureaucrats. You may not remember this, but we came very close to WW III and nuclear holocaust in the pre-detente period during the Cuban missile crisis. At least, that sort of near calamity never happened again, thanks to the ratcheting down of tensions and lines of communication that detente encouraged.

In short, your Conservative war-mongoring machine my have gotten us all killed if employed during a time before a reasonable leader in Gorbachev came into power. Thank goodness Reagan wasn't in power when Kennedy was, is all I can say.

As for the tax cuts under Reagan, you fail to mention that revenues did NOT provably rise as a result, yet the DEFICIT did, and in fact went to record levels in the mid 80's. Republicans never balance the budget....they just talk a good game.

Reaganomics, by the way, was called "voodoo economics" by none other than George Bush Sr. The reason we had an expanding economy in the 1980's was due to the technological revolution, expanding productivity, and the Federal Reserve's skillful reduction of interest rates under Paul Volker, the best Fed chairman of my lifetime. It had little to do with Reagan's tax cuts which led to deficits and the gap between rich and poor growing wider on his watch.

Otherwise, everything you wrote was 100% correct.

TheIncredibleRox · 01-22-2008, 09:20 PM

Quote:

First, the massive spending on nuclear missles did not uptick dramatically under Reagan. It had been developing over the Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter years. Show me how much it "accelerated" under Reagan, which you claim was what caused the bankrupting of the communist system.

I said an arms race, referring to more than just nuclear missiles. Sources say he increased defense spending in the neighborhood of 40% during his first term.

Quote:

Second, Mikhail Gorbachev has to get the lion's share of the "credit" for the demise of the Soviet Union, although that wasn't really his intention but rather an unintended consequence of his Glasnost and Perestroika policies.

Right, and why did Perestroika happen? Because of what I said; A) Reagan stood up with dissidents to enforce the agreements of Helsinki, B) Drew the Soviets into a situation where, in order to compete, they would have to change.

The Detente crowd, during this time, was advocating Reagan not provoke things by pushing the issue with refuseniks, or allowing emigration, press liberalization, etc (basically, all the things that led to the Soviets losing their grip on power). In fact, they were advocating increasing trade, aid, and technology transfers with Russia in order to 'engage them' instead of compete against them, or 'provoking' them by seeing to it they kept their commitments. Basically, they were setting them up to be propped up for decades and decades further. If Helsinki doesn't get enforced, this doesn't happen.

It's not as if Gorbachev (and a large bloc of the Communist party) woke up one morning and just said "hey, those Americans are so swell, let's just do what they want for the heck of it!" Reagan's policies absolutely made it happen.

Quote:

The reason we had an expanding economy in the 1980's was due to the technological revolution, expanding productivity, and the Federal Reserve's skillful reduction of interest rates under Paul Volker, the best Fed chairman of my lifetime.

Well, obviously a liberal could spin it this way. Most notable economists disagree. In other words, the reason a technical revolution occured is because tax rates reached low enough levels to spur a higher degree of investment. And, as has been shown time and time again, lower levels of taxation increase productivity.

By the way, who appointed Paul Volker?? Ohh yeahhhh...

Edit: by the way, opening with "everything you just wrote is false," and then backing it up with nothing more than your own opinions and venemous conjecture, is quite a bold and thick-headed statement. We each have our own opinions, and I try to cite fact in mine rather than just trying to make the person on the other side look foolish or evil somehow. Let's settle down the rhetoric here.

Or else my "Conservative war-mongoring (sic) machine" will be unleashed. And I just put new batteries in it.

Roxpert · 01-22-2008, 09:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheIncredibleRox

I said an arms race, referring to more than just nuclear missiles. Sources say he increased defense spending in the neighborhood of 40% during his first term.

Most of that was in R&D programs, not hardware, that the Soviets didn't have to match. I'll provide a link if you wish.

Quote:

It's not as if Gorbachev (and a large bloc of the Communist party) woke up one morning and just said "hey, those Americans are so swell, let's just do what they want for the heck of it!" Reagan's policies absolutely made it happen.

Fantasize, if you wish, that Reagan had more to do with the opening up of the USSR (and presumably Eastern bloc) than Gorbachev and the people of that nation (Yeltsin and other reformers). That, as I wrote earlier, is all Republicans have left to hold onto now that Conservative governance has been exposed as morally/ethically bankrupt and is discredited in the minds of the majority of Americans, and the VAST majority of the western world (not to mention rest of the world, which despises us thanks to BushCo). The Reagan Mythology is powerful "glue".

By your logic, it was also Reagan that led "Red China" to embrace capitalism after the end the Cultural Revolution under Mao, and it was Bush Sr. that prompted good behavior from the Chinese by being US Ambassador to China in the '70's and speaking out against the Tianamen Square massacre as president in 1989. C'mon, TIR, not every major change in countries around the world happen as a result of our policies, or the Conservatives. Fact is, they all have their own free will, and your claim that the USSR would have lasted decades longer if we kept with detente is a back-door endorsement of the Communist economic system as sustainable!

Quote:

By the way, who appointed Paul Volker?? Ohh yeahhhh...

A bipartisan Congress, which approved of Reagan's appointment, something that has been lost in this day and age.

Quote:

Edit: by the way, opening with "everything you just wrote is false," and then backing it up with nothing more than your own opinions and venemous conjecture, is quite a bold and thick-headed statement. We each have our own opinions, and I try to cite fact in mine rather than just trying to make the person on the other side look foolish or evil somehow. Let's settle down the rhetoric here.

By the way, opening up a response to me (after I called for a truce, no less) by calling what I wrote "nonsense" is what provokes my response. Look at your posts more carefully if you wish to avoid those types of responses. OK?

Quote:

Or else my "Conservative war-mongoring (sic) machine" will be unleashed. And I just put new batteries in it.

Is that supposed to be some sort of threat, Adam? You just don't seem to want a truce, do you?

TheIncredibleRox · 01-22-2008, 11:11 PM

Quote:

Is that supposed to be some sort of threat, Adam? You just don't seem to want a truce, do you?

It was a freaking joke, based on your venemous (mis)characterization of me. Sheesh.

There's no reasoned debate with you without it getting personal and way too intense. I know, you'll take some out of context quote now and put that on me.

I put forth a very simple argument about the differing philosiphies of Detente and Reagan's foreign policy, why one worked, and why the other didn't. You can disagree; that's fine. You once again largely ignored the arguments I laid forth and instead turned it into a larger moratorium on Conservatism and how I'm a twisted, hoodwinked, and hateful lemming of the war machine.

I'm done talking politics with someone who can't do so in a more civil manner than you'd see in a 6th grade class president election.

Roxpert · 01-22-2008, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheIncredibleRox

It was a freaking joke, based on your venemous (mis)characterization of me. Sheesh.

There's no reasoned debate with you without it getting personal and way too intense. I know, you'll take some out of context quote now and put that on me.

I put forth a very simple argument about the differing philosiphies of Detente and Reagan's foreign policy, why one worked, and why the other didn't. You can disagree; that's fine. You once again largely ignored the arguments I laid forth and instead turned it into a larger moratorium on Conservatism and how I'm a twisted, hoodwinked, and hateful lemming of the war machine.

I'm done talking politics with someone who can't do so in a more civil manner than you'd see in a 6th grade class president election.

Claim "victim" if you are losing a debate, TIR. Claim it's 6th grade mentality and personal, when in fact the only one making it so was you in claiming that I was saying I'm "the better person".

As a matter of fact, you just made it personal again by claiming I said you are a "twisted, hoodwinked, and hateful lemming". Hmm, I never thought to ever write THOSE words, but you did.

All I wrote was a very thorough discourse for why the Reagan era is a myth, and that Conservative governance is bankrupt. Notice I wrote "G-O-V-E-R-N-A-N-C-E". That is not the same as "philosophy", which (as I've written) has some valid points. Notice in the past I wrote that neither camp is in full possession of the truth, yet you mischaracterize my posts as being personal after you have done more than your fair share to try to make it that way.

Maybe it's because your political ideas don't have a solid leg to stand on? BTW, I don't think you're a lemming. I think you are misguided and perhaps too indoctrinated in right-wing ideology to think objectively. You can't even remember the Reagan era, and are conversing with someone who not only remembers it, but lived it as a California resident when he was governor and screwing around with a conservative re-make of the Golden State.

Perhaps someone 30-years older than you who has "been there, done that" is someone you could learn from, if you'd open your mind a little? On a final note, before calling once again for a truce, I find it regrettable that the right-wingers on this board constantly have to resort to playing victim and claiming that I make it personal. Maybe it's a personal affront when I expose the political ideals you've grasped as being wrong for this country and world. But I'm not and never have said you don't have something to offer, or that I'm a better person. Never have I belittled you personally, though you've attempted to make this a personal battle. And I know you personally too! You could just pick up the phone if you wanted to air out our differences sometime in a manner that you'll know will be civil.

Jack Dobb · 01-22-2008, 11:19 PM

"Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in!" - Michael Corleone, Godfather III (1990).

Good grief. I can't believe I just went back and re-read every single post since my last one. There were some doozies. For example:

724 - Newman, Jan. 13, acting like a minimalist, wondering why Bush got so excited about five little speedboats. Can you say, "USS Cole"? That's OK -- Clinton struck back at al Qaeda after that one... um... You're right, it's not like it was Yemen -- it was that friendly nation of Iran, which came back with the classic "that video is fake!" after they had been caught red-handed.

726 - Newman, Jan. 13, saying there was no al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded. Think there was no terrorist threat in Iraq before the war? Really?

American Thinker: Iraq's Role in Terrorism

736 - Roxpert, Jan. 15, talking about the "remarkably efficient" VA health care system. I spent about 25 years of my life in government health care and believe me, I'll never go back. Comparing health care to the mail, public health care is like first-class mail, private health care is FedEx. You get what you pay for.

737 - Roxpert, Jan. 15, saying that liberals believe in a government that takes care of its citizens. You left out, "and someone else foots the bill."

739 - Roxpert, Jan. 15, "my liberal values are more in line with the tradition of making progress in America..." That just made me throw up in my mouth.

742 - Newman, Jan. 16. Everything. Just... everything.

749 - Roxpert, Jan. 16. "Conservatives do nothing, NOTHING, to help America via governmental action." At last check, tax cuts and national security are governmental actions, and they have inarguably helped America. Use a few more all-caps, maybe that would cover up facts.

751 - Roxpert, Jan. 17. Laughable comparison of America to a condo complex, replete with capital letters galore. Nice argument for a flat tax -- condo owners pay a pro rata share of condo fees, unlike the "progressive" tables of the Internal Revenue Code.

754 - Newman's rhetorical anti-Bush questions, which are as relevant as debating the Rockies' choice of starters for Game Five.

760 - Newman's embarrassingly naive encapsulation of the Reagan years. I love how you simplified Reagan's response to a terrorist attack as "cutting and running." Priceless.

765 - Newman's heavy dose of Chicken Littlism.

767-769 - Roxpert's "debunking" the Reagan role in improving our national defense. Never mind that the defense budgets went to modern, more effective and accurate weapons delivery systems (including Stealth bombers, MX missiles and Trident submarines, which will remain staples in American defense for the next 30 years), he had the balls to park medium-range missiles within spitting distance of Moscow and wisely refused to sign an arms-reduction accord which would have required us to give up the right to defend ourselves in space. Oh, and he punched Khadafy in the mouth every time he deserved it, too. I wish we had an anti-terror President in office from 1992 to 2000.

I could go on, but I have to wake up early so I can go to work and then give a third of my income to the government. Have a nice day.

BigRapidsJackass · 01-22-2008, 11:36 PM

This is what's wrong with politics today.

Obama says something obvious -- that Reagan was a "transformitive" President, and that the Republican Party introduced far more ideas into the political discourse than the Democratic Party during the 1980s and early '90s -- and he's excoriated by his line-toeing Democratic opponents.

Without getting too complicated here, I will give you a clear, obvious, nonpartisan report card of the economic policies of the Presidents who have served in my lifetime:

Kennedy: B (the first supply sider; generally a success)
LBJ: D (never met a spending commitment he didn't like)
Nixon: F (anyone remember the wage-price freeze? disastrous)
Ford: F (even better: "WIN" buttons on every lapel. It stood for "Whip Inflation Now." Perhaps the most asinine economic policy ever. We'll kill inflation by a patriotic appeal for not raising prices! That'll work!!)
Carter: F (stagflation, fought by more priming of the Keynsian pump, resulting in mortgage interest rates of 12+ percent, resulting in a deep recession)
Reagan: A- (restored some sanity; rationalized the income tax structure; relieved a crushing tax burden; the "minus" is for failing to control government spending as promised, but it's hard to find much fault here given what came before him)
Bush I: C (read my lips: a tax increase at the end of the normal growth cycle = recession)
Clinton: A- (if Reagan was a right place/right time guy, I guess Clinton was, too. Reaped the peace dividend, but I can't complain; good for him; implemented a fairly sensible tax increase, left fiscal policy in far better shape than where he found it)
Bush II: C- (tax cut? O.K., fine. Total inability to control government spending, even though he controlled the "small government" party that in turn controlled both branches of Congress? Inexcusable.)

No, the President is not solely (or even primarily) responsible for the economy. But look at what I just did, and try to divine some kind of political agenda in it. You can't. Am I a brilliant person, that one in a million who can see through the biases to get to the truth? I hope not, but when you read things like those said in this exchange, it makes me wonder ...

Roxpert · 01-22-2008, 11:40 PM

Rightwingers of this message board:

We liberals, moderates, and progressives will never change your minds. You are ideologically stuck to the limited vision of Conservatism, which has been exposed as a vision that cannnot govern. From the "Contract with America" under Newt Gingrich to the total incompetence and malfeasance of the Bush/Cheney administration, Conservatism has been shown to be bankrupt in its application when it has held all the power. That's why America votes for more Democratic state legislators, congresspeople, and governors. That's why more Americans identify themselves as part of the Democratic party than the GOP (reversing a trend during the height of the Reagan years).

If only you could acknowledge that your tidy little philosophy of limited government, individual responsiblity, and militaristic interventionist foreign policy has driven this nation into the ditch will progress begin to be made. But we know you won't ever admit such. Fact is, conservatism, in the true sense, has NOT been ruling this country. RADICAL imperialism has been, and no true conservative would stand for our arrogant foreign policy and running up record deficits as has happened under Reagan and the Bushes.

You Conservatives ought to realize that those who represent you in our government have destroyed our image overseas. Talk to any Europeans you may know, you'll find out. Even in Great Britain, you won't want to tell any Brit you're an American. They will say, "How can you possibly defend what America is doing nowadays!" They and other Europeans despise us now, thanks to Bush, Cheney, and our "go it alone" foreign policies.

Conservatives can be very nice, and smart people. TIR is in real life. Problem is they are misguided, IMO. And our nation is paying the price. Let's just hope we don't enter depression before progressive politicians have a chance to improve matters in this country over the next many years.

But I know I won't convince a single one of you.

Roxpert · 01-22-2008, 11:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRapidsJackass

Reagan: A- (restored some sanity; rationalized the income tax structure; relieved a crushing tax burden; the "minus" is for failing to control government spending as promised, but it's hard to find much fault here given what came before him)
Bush I: C (read my lips: a tax increase at the end of the normal growth cycle = recession)

A- ? LOL, I love how forgetful some people are about the Reagan years, almost as forgetful as Reagan himself! Remember Iran/Contra? In actual fact, it was an impeachable scandal that "the Teflon President" wriggled out of by practically claiming senility when testifying under oath. The "I can't recall" defense was made famous, and used to this day by dishonest Republicans such as Alberto Gonzales. No, Reagan had MORE than his fair share of scandals all around him. They are well-documented. I did like him more than the current GOPers, and he was a fine communicator. But how over-rated is this guy becoming anyway!?! An A- sounds like "grade inflation" to me in evaluating a presidency.

BigRapidsJackass · 01-23-2008, 12:01 AM

Umm, Roxpert, those were my grades based on the Presidents' handling of THE ECONOMY only. With respect to handling of foreign affairs, Reagan was a mixed bag. I happen to think that the fall of the Soviet Union far outweighs the bad, but the bad was pretty bad: Iran-Contra, the "secret wars" in Central America, support for dictators in Chile and Argentina, tacit encouragement of Saddam Hussein, etc, etc. The impact of US foreign policy is so complex that I'll resist the temptation to assign letter grades to foreign policy performance. I'll just give them a thumbs up/thumbs down:

JFK: +
LBJ: -
Nixon: - (despite China, which was outweighed by Vietnam)
Ford: -
Carter: -
Reagan: +
Bush I: +
Clinton: + (this is a very close call)
Bush II: - (the necessity of defeating the Taliban squandered by the unnecessary adventure in Iraq)

EDIT: And welcome back to the fray, Jack Dobb. Here's a big mistake:

Quote:

I love how you simplified Reagan's response to a terrorist attack as "cutting and running." Priceless.

Sure, "cut and run" may not be fair. But it's not wildly wrong. I spent a significant time working for/studying under a true national security hawk. And I can tell you that the Reagan response to attack on the Marine compound in Lebanon is always, always, used as the classic example of the worst-possible response to terrorism. Later reports show some of the proto-al Qaeda leaders referring to how the U.S. withdrawal from Lebanon after the attack showed them how the American people and government lack the stomach for taking big losses in terrorist actions. It enabled many future terrorists. I stand by my statement that Reagan, overall, proved to be a tremendous President on the national security and world affairs front. But this was a huge mistake, and even the most conservative theorists recognize that.

By the way, I never understand the constant complaining about the mail. I have never in my life had a piece of mail lost. I don't think the Government has any business being in the mail delivery business anymore (sorry Newman), but I have zero complaints with mail delivery itself. On the other hand, I've missed filing deadlines with courts because FedEx and DHL inexplicably failed to deliver on time (with no excuses such as weather). Service at the Post Office? O.K., now that sucks ...

BigRapidsJackass · 01-23-2008, 12:11 AM

Quote:

From the "Contract with America" under Newt Gingrich to the total incompetence and malfeasance of the Bush/Cheney administration, Conservatism has been shown to be bankrupt in its application when it has held all the power.

Talking about something that has been distorted in the minds of the public ... Roxpert, I'm confused by the sneering reference to the "Contract with America." You seem to be saying that the Republicans "held all the power" but were unable to deliver. In other words (not to sound like Hillary picking of Barack here), the Contract itself contained good ideas, but the failure was in the execution?

That must be it, because if you go back and read the Contract itself, I think you'll be hard-pressed to find much that is objectionable. (Sure, you might disagree on the reference to the death penalty as part of the crime bill or a couple similar things, but overall what's the problem here?)

Republican Contract with America

Roxpert · 01-23-2008, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRapidsJackass

JFK: +
LBJ: -
Nixon: - (despite China, which was outweighed by Vietnam)
Ford: -
Carter: -
Reagan: +
Bush I: +
Clinton: + (this is a very close call)
Bush II: - (the necessity of defeating the Taliban squandered by the unnecessary adventure in Iraq)

I give JFK an incomplete. His deft handling of the Cuban Missile Crisis was offset by Bay of Pigs. And he was in office too short a time to be graded.

LBJ, I agree, was a big fat minus on foreign policy. The "Great Society" was a fine effort of liberal social progress, but he became married to Vietnam the way that Bush now is married to Iraq.

Nixon, I give a weak minus. He inherited Vietnam and took too long to get out, but his intelligence and skill in dealing with the Soviets and opening the U.S. to China almost negated that. But he failed to remove our troops.

Ford, I'd assign a neutral. He did get us out of Vietnam, and didn't get us into trouble anywhere else. But he didn't do anything particularly noteworthy as the caretaker of the White House.

Carter, a big +. You are quite wrong about him, Jackass. We all remember his inability and even ineptitude in getting the hostages out of Iran, but some seem to forget that he forged the one Mideast peace treaty that stands to this day, between Begin and Sadat. He also advanced the cause of human rights in the world as the foremost champion for it of all modern presidents. Those accomplishments outweighed the failure to release the hostages, which wasn't totally his fault.

Reagan? A neutral. It's a plus that the USSR collapsed after his term was over, and he made America morale strong again. However, I'll never excuse him for Iran/Contra, supplying Iraq with weaponry, including chemicals, and the other situations you described, Jackass.

Bush I - A positive. He was skilled in diplomacy and foreign affairs. He actually built a coalition for Gulf War I, and I was not against that war the way it was done. He was a career diplomat and a pragmatist, so that helped. Brent Scowcroft, George Schultz, and Jim Baker were all respected on foreign affairs, and I doubt Bush I would have gone into Iraq in 2003 the way his son did.

Clinton - I agree, a plus. Kosovo was a huge success for him. He had some mis-steps too, but I'll always respect his skills in dealing with foreign leaders with DU's own Madeline Albright at the helm.

Bush II - The worst minus in history. Iraq was the single biggest strategic blunder in US foreign policy history, and we will be there for 20 years at great cost as a result. Yes, no further terrorist attacks since 9/11. Yes, 9/11 happened on his watch, and he ignored the PDB that may have prevented it if he weren't so incurious. Just a total misguided incompetent.

Roxpert · 01-23-2008, 12:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigRapidsJackass

That must be it, because if you go back and read the Contract itself, I think you'll be hard-pressed to find much that is objectionable. (Sure, you might disagree on the reference to the death penalty as part of the crime bill or a couple similar things, but overall what's the problem here?)

Republican Contract with America

They couldn't govern, Jackass. It's in the execution, and the GOP held all the power from 2001 through 2006.

BigRapidsJackass · 01-23-2008, 12:32 AM

Well, if your problem is with lack of execution, I agree.

Proves my point about skepticism of government in general: the great freshman class of 1994 almost immediately became obsessed with holding onto its own power and quickly ignored the promises that got them there.

As for the foreign policy grades: Ford didn't really "get us out" of Vietnam. He let Vietnam collapse after the North blatantly violated the Paris Peace Accord. The fall of Saigon was shameful. Not entirely his fault, since nobody had the stomach for more war by that point. I kind of see that kind of end in Baghdad. Sorry, but I do.

Carter: I agree, kind of a mixed bag. Actually, the "Reagan" military buildup began with Carter's response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. His advocacy for human rights also set the stage for a lot of other good things (Mandela's ultimate success in South Africa for one.) And his Middle East successes have yet to be equaled. OK, I'll overlook Iran and give him a +

Clinton: Kosovo vs. Rwanda. Lame responses to terrorism vs. free trade advocacy. Another mixed bag, but I'll keep it a +

And Bush I should get more credit. He did coalition building the right way. And he surrounded himself with sane people who could control Cheney (Scowcroft, Powell). A big +, probably the biggest on the list.

01-22-2008, 06:41 PM	#767 (permalink)
Roxpert Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Denver Posts: 1,059	About everything you just wrote is false. It's hard to know where to begin. First, the massive spending on nuclear missles did not uptick dramatically under Reagan. It had been developing over the Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter years. Show me how much it "accelerated" under Reagan, which you claim was what caused the bankrupting of the communist system. Second, Mikhail Gorbachev has to get the lion's share of the "credit" for the demise of the Soviet Union, although that wasn't really his intention but rather an unintended consequence of his Glasnost and Perestroika policies. Ronald Reagan was the beneficiary (as we all were) of having a leader of the USSR he could deal with and negotiate with in good faith, while at the same time presenting a tough public front in calling the USSR the "Evil Empire". Third, detente WAS the right policy to have with a nation led by Breshnev and other Communist bureaucrats. You may not remember this, but we came very close to WW III and nuclear holocaust in the pre-detente period during the Cuban missile crisis. At least, that sort of near calamity never happened again, thanks to the ratcheting down of tensions and lines of communication that detente encouraged. In short, your Conservative war-mongoring machine my have gotten us all killed if employed during a time before a reasonable leader in Gorbachev came into power. Thank goodness Reagan wasn't in power when Kennedy was, is all I can say. As for the tax cuts under Reagan, you fail to mention that revenues did NOT provably rise as a result, yet the DEFICIT did, and in fact went to record levels in the mid 80's. Republicans never balance the budget....they just talk a good game. Reaganomics, by the way, was called "voodoo economics" by none other than George Bush Sr. The reason we had an expanding economy in the 1980's was due to the technological revolution, expanding productivity, and the Federal Reserve's skillful reduction of interest rates under Paul Volker, the best Fed chairman of my lifetime. It had little to do with Reagan's tax cuts which led to deficits and the gap between rich and poor growing wider on his watch. Otherwise, everything you wrote was 100% correct. Last edited by Roxpert; 01-22-2008 at 07:17 PM.

01-22-2008, 11:19 PM	#772 (permalink)
Jack Dobb Rookie Member Join Date: Dec 2007 Posts: 14	Happy New Year "Just when I thought I was out... they pull me back in!" - Michael Corleone, Godfather III (1990). Good grief. I can't believe I just went back and re-read every single post since my last one. There were some doozies. For example: 724 - Newman, Jan. 13, acting like a minimalist, wondering why Bush got so excited about five little speedboats. Can you say, "USS Cole"? That's OK -- Clinton struck back at al Qaeda after that one... um... You're right, it's not like it was Yemen -- it was that friendly nation of Iran, which came back with the classic "that video is fake!" after they had been caught red-handed. 726 - Newman, Jan. 13, saying there was no al Qaeda in Iraq before we invaded. Think there was no terrorist threat in Iraq before the war? Really? American Thinker: Iraq's Role in Terrorism 736 - Roxpert, Jan. 15, talking about the "remarkably efficient" VA health care system. I spent about 25 years of my life in government health care and believe me, I'll never go back. Comparing health care to the mail, public health care is like first-class mail, private health care is FedEx. You get what you pay for. 737 - Roxpert, Jan. 15, saying that liberals believe in a government that takes care of its citizens. You left out, "and someone else foots the bill." 739 - Roxpert, Jan. 15, "my liberal values are more in line with the tradition of making progress in America..." That just made me throw up in my mouth. 742 - Newman, Jan. 16. Everything. Just... everything. 749 - Roxpert, Jan. 16. "Conservatives do nothing, NOTHING, to help America via governmental action." At last check, tax cuts and national security are governmental actions, and they have inarguably helped America. Use a few more all-caps, maybe that would cover up facts. 751 - Roxpert, Jan. 17. Laughable comparison of America to a condo complex, replete with capital letters galore. Nice argument for a flat tax -- condo owners pay a pro rata share of condo fees, unlike the "progressive" tables of the Internal Revenue Code. 754 - Newman's rhetorical anti-Bush questions, which are as relevant as debating the Rockies' choice of starters for Game Five. 760 - Newman's embarrassingly naive encapsulation of the Reagan years. I love how you simplified Reagan's response to a terrorist attack as "cutting and running." Priceless. 765 - Newman's heavy dose of Chicken Littlism. 767-769 - Roxpert's "debunking" the Reagan role in improving our national defense. Never mind that the defense budgets went to modern, more effective and accurate weapons delivery systems (including Stealth bombers, MX missiles and Trident submarines, which will remain staples in American defense for the next 30 years), he had the balls to park medium-range missiles within spitting distance of Moscow and wisely refused to sign an arms-reduction accord which would have required us to give up the right to defend ourselves in space. Oh, and he punched Khadafy in the mouth every time he deserved it, too. I wish we had an anti-terror President in office from 1992 to 2000. I could go on, but I have to wake up early so I can go to work and then give a third of my income to the government. Have a nice day.

01-22-2008, 11:40 PM	#774 (permalink)
Roxpert Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Denver Posts: 1,059	Rightwingers of this message board: We liberals, moderates, and progressives will never change your minds. You are ideologically stuck to the limited vision of Conservatism, which has been exposed as a vision that cannnot govern. From the "Contract with America" under Newt Gingrich to the total incompetence and malfeasance of the Bush/Cheney administration, Conservatism has been shown to be bankrupt in its application when it has held all the power. That's why America votes for more Democratic state legislators, congresspeople, and governors. That's why more Americans identify themselves as part of the Democratic party than the GOP (reversing a trend during the height of the Reagan years). If only you could acknowledge that your tidy little philosophy of limited government, individual responsiblity, and militaristic interventionist foreign policy has driven this nation into the ditch will progress begin to be made. But we know you won't ever admit such. Fact is, conservatism, in the true sense, has NOT been ruling this country. RADICAL imperialism has been, and no true conservative would stand for our arrogant foreign policy and running up record deficits as has happened under Reagan and the Bushes. You Conservatives ought to realize that those who represent you in our government have destroyed our image overseas. Talk to any Europeans you may know, you'll find out. Even in Great Britain, you won't want to tell any Brit you're an American. They will say, "How can you possibly defend what America is doing nowadays!" They and other Europeans despise us now, thanks to Bush, Cheney, and our "go it alone" foreign policies. Conservatives can be very nice, and smart people. TIR is in real life. Problem is they are misguided, IMO. And our nation is paying the price. Let's just hope we don't enter depression before progressive politicians have a chance to improve matters in this country over the next many years. But I know I won't convince a single one of you. Last edited by Roxpert; 01-22-2008 at 11:45 PM.

01-22-2008, 11:36 PM	#773 (permalink)
BigRapidsJackass Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,147	This is what's wrong with politics today. Obama says something obvious -- that Reagan was a "transformitive" President, and that the Republican Party introduced far more ideas into the political discourse than the Democratic Party during the 1980s and early '90s -- and he's excoriated by his line-toeing Democratic opponents. Without getting too complicated here, I will give you a clear, obvious, nonpartisan report card of the economic policies of the Presidents who have served in my lifetime: Kennedy: B (the first supply sider; generally a success) LBJ: D (never met a spending commitment he didn't like) Nixon: F (anyone remember the wage-price freeze? disastrous) Ford: F (even better: "WIN" buttons on every lapel. It stood for "Whip Inflation Now." Perhaps the most asinine economic policy ever. We'll kill inflation by a patriotic appeal for not raising prices! That'll work!!) Carter: F (stagflation, fought by more priming of the Keynsian pump, resulting in mortgage interest rates of 12+ percent, resulting in a deep recession) Reagan: A- (restored some sanity; rationalized the income tax structure; relieved a crushing tax burden; the "minus" is for failing to control government spending as promised, but it's hard to find much fault here given what came before him) Bush I: C (read my lips: a tax increase at the end of the normal growth cycle = recession) Clinton: A- (if Reagan was a right place/right time guy, I guess Clinton was, too. Reaped the peace dividend, but I can't complain; good for him; implemented a fairly sensible tax increase, left fiscal policy in far better shape than where he found it) Bush II: C- (tax cut? O.K., fine. Total inability to control government spending, even though he controlled the "small government" party that in turn controlled both branches of Congress? Inexcusable.) No, the President is not solely (or even primarily) responsible for the economy. But look at what I just did, and try to divine some kind of political agenda in it. You can't. Am I a brilliant person, that one in a million who can see through the biases to get to the truth? I hope not, but when you read things like those said in this exchange, it makes me wonder ...

01-23-2008, 12:32 AM	#780 (permalink)
BigRapidsJackass Veteran Member Join Date: Nov 2006 Posts: 1,147	Well, if your problem is with lack of execution, I agree. Proves my point about skepticism of government in general: the great freshman class of 1994 almost immediately became obsessed with holding onto its own power and quickly ignored the promises that got them there. As for the foreign policy grades: Ford didn't really "get us out" of Vietnam. He let Vietnam collapse after the North blatantly violated the Paris Peace Accord. The fall of Saigon was shameful. Not entirely his fault, since nobody had the stomach for more war by that point. I kind of see that kind of end in Baghdad. Sorry, but I do. Carter: I agree, kind of a mixed bag. Actually, the "Reagan" military buildup began with Carter's response to the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. His advocacy for human rights also set the stage for a lot of other good things (Mandela's ultimate success in South Africa for one.) And his Middle East successes have yet to be equaled. OK, I'll overlook Iran and give him a + Clinton: Kosovo vs. Rwanda. Lame responses to terrorism vs. free trade advocacy. Another mixed bag, but I'll keep it a + And Bush I should get more credit. He did coalition building the right way. And he surrounded himself with sane people who could control Cheney (Scowcroft, Powell). A big +, probably the biggest on the list.