Putting things in perspective 2.0

Reagan and His Critics

When Ronald Reagan ran for president, he had the gall (from a liberal standpoint) to proclaim the goal of defeating the Soviet Union in the Cold War. And looking back at the arguments and complaints from Reagan’s critics at the time, they sound eerily familiar. When Reagan started building up the military, his critics warned it would make things worse by provoking the Soviets. When he deployed missiles in West Germany, his critics adopted the disarmament position of left-wing European parties and decried American “unilateralism.” When he called the Soviet Union an “evil empire,” his critics were beside themselves with embarrassment at having a president who thought in terms of good and evil, black and white, rather than in “nuanced” shades of gray.

Reagan taught us that peace can only be achieved from a position of strength. He also insisted on pursuing a way to defend the American people against ballistic missiles, rejecting the previous policy (and still the preferred policy of liberals) of remaining defenseless so that our enemies will not feel threatened. That drove the Soviet Union nuts. At the Reykjavik Summit in 1986, Mikhail Gorbachev offered a reduction in Soviet missiles in exchange for a cancellation of Reagan’s missile defense project. Reagan said no and walked away – again inviting the scorn and derision of American and European liberals. Undaunted, he went to Berlin and demanded that Mr. Gorbachev tear down the wall that divided that city.

And what happened then? The Soviet Union crumbled and the world became a safer and better and freer place. There are valuable lessons for us today in this history of the last years of the Cold War. . . .


Not my work, I will credit the author later in the thread.

Your views on it?

[Ravenstorm]

My view is that comparing Iraq to the Soviet Union is like comparing the common cold to the bubonic plague. It's only a matter of perspective to someone who is legally blind.

Raven

Why then are the exact same arguments being made against it?

[Wezas]

CT, Kranar, any luck with creating that "Political" folder? It would help people avoid political topics that don't have a very descriptive title.

[Back]

Not one Soviet was killed in the brokering of that peace treaty.

The lesson, to me, is that there are better ways of doing things than killing people.

Yes, the world is a safer place now, and I give Reagan props. The scandal that occoured during his term was the raiding of the Savings and Loans, which the Bush's profited from.

Is that so backlash, perhaps you can share where you heard this?

[Back]

I guess you mean the S+L scandal.

Here is just one page on it. (http://www.rationalrevolution.net/bush_family_and_the_s.htm)

It was pretty widely known. How'd you miss it?

[Betheny]

Backlash. IM me. betheny joy. thx.

[Hulkein]

No one was killed Backlash, but there was about 100000000 times more risk. It was either no one died, or the world as we know it today ended.

Iraq is not like that, the death toll for us is in the triple digits.

backlash, a news source please.

PS. A real one.

[Edited on 5-31-2004 by The Edine]

[Back]

Originally posted by The Edine
backlash, a news source please.

PS. A real one.

[Edited on 5-31-2004 by The Edine]

You're a smart guy. Go find one yourself. I'm busy

[Ravenstorm]

Reading up on the author of that does indeed put everything into perspective.

Sean Hannity. And the right complains Michael Moore is biased.

Raven

[Artha]

I haven't seen any documentaries from Hannity...but then I haven't been looking too hard either.

[Warriorbird]

:chuckle: From Hannity? Ha.

[Ravenstorm]

Check books.

Raven

Backlash I know about the S&L scandel, I am looking for something about the George W. Bushes involvment. The site you posted oddly enough Links to other websites for its proof...
I only find one true news sourse in a USA Today link about preston bush, but it has nothing to do with the S&L issue.

Raven do you deny what is written in that piece is true?

[Ravenstorm]

I already stated my opinion on it. And since the title of the book its taken from lumps terrorism and liberalism in the same category, that's all I'm going to say about it as it's not worth my time to give any thought to such bullshit. But feel free to continue to quote him. I'm sure someone will have forgotten how pointless it is to engage you in a debate and you'll be able to bring the automotive corporate center of Sears into the discussion again or some such.

Raven

[Back]

Originally posted by The Edine
Backlash I know about the S&L scandel, I am looking for something about the George W. Bushes involvment. The site you posted oddly enough Links to other websites for its proof...
I only find one true news sourse in a USA Today link about preston bush, but it has nothing to do with the S&L issue.

It dosen't get much better than this. (http://www.fdic.gov/bank/historical/s&l/)

[Ilvane]

heh, Backlash..you rock.:)

-A

[Back]

Originally posted by Ilvane
heh, Backlash..you rock.:)

-A

Yeah, point him to a wordy page so he shuts up for a while. LOL

And THIS is all it says about the bushes

I see nothing about George W. Bush... Read what you google?

1989--President Bush unveils S&L bailout plan in February. In August, Financial Institutions Reform Recovery and Enforcement Act (FIRREA). FIRREA abolishes the Federal Home Loan Bank Board and FSLIC, switches S&L regulation to newly created Office of Thrift Supervision. Deposit insurance function shifted to the FDIC. A new entity, the Resolution Trust Corporation is created to resolve the insolvent S&Ls.

Other major provisions of FIRREA include: $50 billion of new borrowing authority, with most financed from general revenues and the industry; meaningful net worth requirements and regulation by the OTS and FDIC; allocation funds to the Justice Department to help finance prosecution of S&L crimes. Additional bank crime legislation the next year (i.e., the Crime Control Act of 1990) mandates a study by the National Commission on Financial Institution Reform, Recovery and Enforcement to uncover the causes of the S&L crisis, and come up with recommendations to prevent future debacles.

[Back]

Very good. Now, look up who got all that money.

That does not tell me much backlash.
I'm still waiting for an answer to my original question. You posted a website that has legislation that the Government enacted during George Bush Sr. was in office. Now you need to remember that at that time there was a democratic majority in both the house and the Senate was there not? So he must have paid them off with the money he made from the Nazi's right?

[Edited on 5-31-2004 by The Edine]

[Back]

Originally posted by The Edine
That does not tell me much backlash.
I'm still waiting for an answer to my original question. You posted a website that has legislation that the Government enacted during George Bush Sr. was in office. Now you need to remember that at that time there was a democratic majority in both the house and the Senate was there not? So he must have paid them off with the money he made from the Nazi's right?

[Edited on 5-31-2004 by The Edine]

Sounds to me like Edine is implying that Bush is a nazi.Thats fucked up.

You're making unsubstantiated claims, and have nothing to back them up.
If making stupid comments like the above is all you have left to say I wont bother responding anymore... At least not until you say something with substance.

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
I already stated my opinion on it. And since the title of the book its taken from lumps terrorism and liberalism in the same category, that's all I'm going to say about it as it's not worth my time to give any thought to such bullshit. But feel free to continue to quote him. I'm sure someone will have forgotten how pointless it is to engage you in a debate and you'll be able to bring the automotive corporate center of Sears into the discussion again or some such.

Raven
So you are unwilling to say if that is or is not what happened in the 80's during Reagan's involvement in ending the cold war because of who the author is?

That the same arguments are being made now almost verbatim against the conflict in Iraq?

As to Backlashes comment about nobody dying... You seem to have a selective memory on the subject. People here often tout Americas involvement in the politics of other countries wars during that time [Afghanistan] chastising our actions. I am sure many thousands of people died in those conflicts, they might not have been Americans but they were lives all the same.

Edit: To make it directed at the correct person

[Edited on 5-31-2004 by The Edine]

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by The Edine
So you are unwilling to say...

No, I'm willing to say the source you quoted is a pile of shit and it's not even worth my time to think about. If you find someone else saying anything at all similar, someone who doesn't equate liberalism with terrorism, then maybe I'll devote some time to it. Ann Coulter doesn't count either, being just a female version of him.


As to your comment about nobody dying... You seem to have a selective memory on the subject.

Actually, you seem to have a non-existant memory even when it's on the page above you. I made no such claim.

Raven

I did not say you said it Raven, that is what I worded it the way I did

"People here often tout Americas involvement in the politics of other countries wars during that time [Afghanistan] chastising our actions."

And I will see what I can do about finding somebody else saying similar things.

[Back]

Originally posted by The Edine
As to your comment about nobody dying... You seem to have a selective memory on the subject. People here often tout Americas involvement in the politics of other countries wars during that time [Afghanistan] chastising our actions. I am sure many thousands of people died in those conflicts, they might not have been Americans but they were lives all the same.

I read through the thread twice to make sure, because I AM buzed. But, who mentioned Afganistan? Who mentioned nazis?

Me with a sarcastic tone but I think you missed it, due to being buzed.

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by The Edine
I did not say you said it Raven, that is what I worded it the way I did

No? Let's see...


Originally posted by The Edine

Originally posted by Ravenstorm
I already stated my opinion on it. And since the title of the book its taken from lumps terrorism and liberalism in the same category, that's all I'm going to say about it as it's not worth my time to give any thought to such bullshit. But feel free to continue to quote him. I'm sure someone will have forgotten how pointless it is to engage you in a debate and you'll be able to bring the automotive corporate center of Sears into the discussion again or some such.

Raven
So you are unwilling to say if that is or is not what happened in the 80's during Reagan's involvement in ending the cold war because of who the author is?

That the same arguments are being made now almost verbatim against the conflict in Iraq?

As to your comment about nobody dying...

So you quote my entire post. Ask me if I'm unwilling to say something. And then continue directly with 'As to your comment about nobody dying...' and you try to claim you weren't addressing me? In that case, I'm amazed you got accepted into the military. You need to return to college, or grade school, and retake some English classes about how to form a sentence and communicate clearly. Or just learn to admit when you're wrong. But we already know you're incapable of that. Enough of this tripe.

Raven

[Galleazzo]

And Reagan's antics upped the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars. We are STILL paying for that today in higher interest rates and higher prices for everything, and we'll not only pay for the rest of my life but the rest of yours as well.

[Back]

Originally posted by Galleazzo
And Reagan's antics upped the deficit by hundreds of billions of dollars. We are STILL paying for that today in higher interest rates and higher prices for everything, and we'll not only pay for the rest of my life but the rest of yours as well.

Calm down tiger. That was 20 years ago. Unless... you also subscribe to the "it isn't the current administration's fault for this deficit, its the (insert party name here)'s fault!" theory.

[i]Originally posted by Ravenstorm

So you quote my entire post. Ask me if I'm unwilling to say something. And then continue directly with 'As to your comment about nobody dying...' and you try to claim you weren't addressing me? In that case, I'm amazed you got accepted into the military. You need to return to college, or grade school, and retake some English classes about how to form a sentence and communicate clearly. Or just learn to admit when you're wrong. But we already know you're incapable of that. Enough of this tripe.

Raven

My mistake there Raven, I was attempting to word it differently so It would not be directed at you. If my intention was to say YOU i would have used that word. It would have been easier to do it that way.

I don't see what the purpose of your insults there was. I was not being hostile nor attacking you, yet you see it fit to degrade me because you did not like the wording I used.

"People Here"
"You"

I can see the difference between the two statements and it came off clear to me, I'm sorry you did not catch it and I will be more careful in the future when addressing "you"

[Ravenstorm]

Originally posted by The Edine
If my intention was to say YOU i would have used that word.

Such as, exactly where you said to your comment about nobody dying? You are aware that 'your' is a possessive form of the word 'you' right? But let's see how the excuse fits with what was said:


"People Here"
"You"

So instead of [/b]to your comment about nobody dying[/b] it should have been to people here comment about nobody dying. Hmmm. That doesn't really work. So I'll rephrase it for you: to the comment about nobody dying that people made. That does sound better, I think. Well, except for one little problem.

People here didn't make that comment. A single person made that comment. As far as I know, Backlash doesn't come in six packs so he couldn't be addressed as 'people here'. He could be considered 'a person here' but then that would mean that the plural meaning of the word 'you' wouldn't apply if you just meant a single person.

So, either you meant the plural form of the word you meaning 'people here' which is totally inaccurate or you meant the single form of the word you meaning... well, you. Which, since you were directly addressing me, means me. In either case? Wrong. That gets a grade of F. It's summer school for you young man!

Raven

I think we are debating two different things here.
You( you're talking about that part) seem to have a selective memory on the subject. People here (im talking about that part) often tout Americas involvement in the politics of other countries wars during that time [Afghanistan] chastising our actions.

I scrolled back and saw it was Backlash who mentioned that nobody died, my mistake and I altered the post accordingly. (for some reason i assumed it was you who posted it)

Edit: I hope that means I do not have to go to summer school for my "english" on this one Raven :) but perhaps something to work on my reading comprehension might help? (had to beat you to the comment sorry)


[Edited on 5-31-2004 by The Edine]

[Warriorbird]

Debt+deficit = still debt+deficit

Ah to make things a bit more clear, Backlash is not the only one to have made that comment, which is why I used the plural people.

[Galleazzo]

Originally posted by Backlash
Calm down tiger. That was 20 years ago. Unless... you also subscribe to the "it isn't the current administration's fault for this deficit, its the (insert party name here)'s fault!" theory. Calm down, bullshit.

Check this out. The public debt from the end of WWII to when Nixon took office went from 250 billion to 350 billion. Not much with inflation.

By the time Carter was in office the debt doubled to just under 700 billion. When Reagan took office the debt was 826 billion. When he LEFT office it was just under THREE TRILLION. It was over FOUR trillion when Clinton took office. Now Clinton finally did what no one'd done in forty years, start to get the numbers going down again. It was kinda stable his whole second term.

Bush isn't even done with his first term yet and the number is SEVEN TRILLION DOLLARS now. That's 20 thousand bucks for every man, woman and child in the country. If you pay $1000 in taxes this year $250 of it goes to servicing the debt the Republicans gave you. Each and every year. Not PAYING it off, just paying the interest on it. And that goes to the banks, and who owns the banks? You got it right.

What you pay in sales tax and gas tax and all of that shit? A quarter of that goes to pay off the debt. You fill up your tank with gas, about half of that is tax, so you just gave 2-3 bucks to pay off the Republican tax.

I won't vote for another frigging Republican until the day I die, because the Republicans have fucked us forever with their taxes, and then they got the stones to lie about it.

So maybe he ought not suffer with Alzheimer's any more and should get a merciful death so his family doesn't suffer, but I got to say it: fuck Ronald Reagan and fuck anyone who supports what he did to screw us all.

:fu:

[Artha]

You're complaining about taxes...and planning on voting Democrat?

The mind boggles.

[Warriorbird]

Learn to open your eyes, hey. Who's doing and who has done the spending, despite their claims?


[Edited on 6-1-2004 by Warriorbird]