Ronald Reagan dies

a_unique_person said:
Reagan promised to reduce the deficit. Instead, he increased it massively, and provided a huge stimulus to the economy. He told Americans they didn't have to be responsible for a damm thing their country had done in the world. They could live in a 'my three sons' sit com forever and ever, and live happily ever after.
Click to expand...
I like how you leave out the Democratic controled congress who passed the laws and spent the money. Life is nice with ideologic blindness. Just ignore the parts that don't fit your world view.
 
Originally posted by Randfan:
I like how you leave out the Democratic controled congress who passed the laws and spent the money. Life is nice with ideologic blindness. Just ignore the parts that don't fit your world view.
Click to expand...

Hmm, I wonder how much of Clinton's fiscal restraint was due to the Republican majority in Congress?

Would it be fair to conclude that say that the Reagan philosophy (regardless of how that might have been applied in practice) caused a paradigm shift in political thought. Without the Reagan presidency, would Clinton have said "The age of big government is over?" Likewise if Margaret Thatcher was evil made flesh how come the Labour Party had to accept most of her reforms to become electable again?
 
Shane Costello said:


Hmm, I wonder how much of Clinton's fiscal restraint was due to the Republican majority in Congress?

Would it be fair to conclude that say that the Reagan philosophy (regardless of how that might have been applied in practice) caused a paradigm shift in political thought. Without the Reagan presidency, would Clinton have said "The age of big government is over?" Likewise if Margaret Thatcher was evil made flesh how come the Labour Party had to accept most of her reforms to become electable again?
Click to expand...

That is just the democratic process at work. Things go too far one way, the get adjusted, too far the other way, adjusted back again.

However, to say that the age of big government is over is laughable. It is just as big as ever.
 
Originally posted by a_unique_person:
However, to say that the age of big government is over is laughable. It is just as big as ever.
Click to expand...

Probably. The key is the fact that at least politicians feel the need to pay lip service to the notion. Nor am I sure that the stats bear out the assertion that government spending is "as big as ever". In Ireland at least it isn't.
 
Carter had the guts to face up to the fact that American support of Iran was unsustainable. It was merely propping up a vicious dictator, every bit as evil as Saddam.

Carter was then pilloried, he caused humiliation of the US because the staff of an embassy that actively supported a regime of terror were held hostage. No he didn't cause it. He was prepared to do the right and moral thing.

I see.

"Having guts" = admitting defeat and running away.

"doing the right and moral thing" = letting the Ayatollah Homeini, a tyrant out of the dark ages, rule Iran without a peep out of the strongest nation in the world.

Oh, I get it! Today is "opposite day"! You mean to say the exact opposite of what you write, correct?
 
Skeptic said:
Carter had the guts to face up to the fact that American support of Iran was unsustainable. It was merely propping up a vicious dictator, every bit as evil as Saddam.

Carter was then pilloried, he caused humiliation of the US because the staff of an embassy that actively supported a regime of terror were held hostage. No he didn't cause it. He was prepared to do the right and moral thing.

I see.

"Having guts" = admitting defeat and running away.

"doing the right and moral thing" = letting the Ayatollah Homeini, a tyrant out of the dark ages, rule Iran without a peep out of the strongest nation in the world.

Oh, I get it! Today is "opposite day"! You mean to say the exact opposite of what you write, correct?
Click to expand...

Like I said, when do you let go of the balloon. In the end, the answer is always, the sooner the better. It's going to be painful either way, but the longer you hold on, the more painful it will be when you let go. Propping up the Shah was a criminal act. The US is now free of the responsibility for harming the people of Iran.

It was only the fact that Ayatollah Homeini was able to claim responsibility for resisting the Shah that he ever gained so much credibility in the first place. Like I said, his faction in the power struggle was the only one strong enough and mad enough to take on the Shah. This gave him a lot of credibility.

Carter did not admit defeat. He faced up to the moral hole the US had dug itself. He could have taken the Reagan tack, and told America to go back to fantasy land, and ignore the plight that the US had helped create for the people of Iran. He faced up to what was always going to be a bad end for the US involvement. That took guts. Reagan, on the other hand, was for some reason lauded for invading Grenada. It was time for America to stand up and feel proud again. What a wank.

Either way, Iran had to be left to itself to work out it's problems. There is a lot of opposition to the extremist Mullahs in Iran today. One day, they will be out of power, the only reason they are still in power is because they are cheating the political processes.
 
Reagan's War: The Epic Story of His Forty Year Struggle and Final Triumph Over Communism

One of the things I love most about Reagan is that he did what he said he would do, defeat the soviets. The liberals mocked him saying his ideas were naive but he got the last laugh. He worked the Libs into a frenzy and they just couldn't wait for him to die to spit on his grave. I started out feeling sad by all of the vitriol. I'm coming around now. I get to sit back and watch the attempts to re-write history. To spew and puke as much hate as possible to soothe there addled pointy headed little minds. They just can't let go. Clinton does the same for his detractors. The right will always blame the ills of this world on Bill and the left on Ronnie.

For that they both deserve kudos. :D
 
The nearly visceral hatred of Reagan reminds me so much of the same attitudes about Clinton. Both men, while well liked by the majority of Americans, engendered bitter hatred from frustrated opponents. Kind of a "if you can't beat 'em hate 'em" attitude.

Fordama
 
a_unique_person said:
"They could have elected a hand puppet and the cold war would still have ended...(oh wait, they did...)"
Click to expand...

Then I guess we wouldn't want to elect this guy then, eh?

"Free men and women everywhere will forever remember and honor President Reagan's role in ending the Cold War," Kerry said. "He really did believe that communism could be ended in his lifetime, and he helped to make it happen. Perhaps President Reagan's greatest monument isn't any building or any structure that bears his name, but it is the absence of the Berlin Wall."
Click to expand...
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2004/06/06/politics/main621345.shtml
He seems to think rather highly of Reagan in this speech.


Then again there's this story:
Kerry: 'I'm Proud I Stood Against Reagan'

Hipocracy or flip-flopping? Oh, I know... bad news source.

Here's another:
Kerry on Reagan

And this gem:
"We've seen governors come to Washington who don't have the experience with Washington and they get in trouble real fast," the Massachusetts senator said in an interview with The Associated Press. "Look at Ronald Reagan. Look at Jimmy Carter and now, obviously, George Bush."
Click to expand...
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicselections/nation/2003-09-09-kerry-interview_x.htm
 
To spew and puke as much hate as possible to soothe there addled pointy headed little minds. They just can't let go. Clinton does the same for his detractors. The right will always blame the ills of this world on Bill and the left on Ronnie.

I, for one, don't understand the vitrolic hate of Clinton any more than I understand that of Reagen. Clinton is an imperfect human being, to say the least, but he is a very smart, practical, self-made man who was a good president.

If nothing else, Clinton put to rest the whole "government conspiracy" idea: the same government which supposedly is hiding UFOs and has samples of the DNA of everybody since 1954 could not keep the story of the president having oral sex from dominating the headlines.

The whole Starr investigation actually made me thing better of Clinton than I did before. Tens of millions of dollars spent, hundreds of investigators, all spent to find the most dirt you can about one person--Clinton--and that is all they came up with? Big deal!
 
Skeptic said:

If nothing else, Clinton put to rest the whole "government conspiracy" idea: the same government which supposedly is hiding UFOs and has samples of the DNA of everybody since 1954 could not keep the story of the president having oral sex from dominating the headlines.
Click to expand...
Ahh, but that's what they want you to think. :p
 
Skeptic said:
The whole Starr investigation actually made me thing better of Clinton than I did before. Tens of millions of dollars spent, hundreds of investigators, all spent to find the most dirt you can about one person--Clinton--and that is all they came up with? Big deal!
Click to expand...
I couldn't agree more. Of course the willingness to see both the good and bad is the mark of critical thinking. It's funny how you and I are branded apologists and those who refuse to see any good from either president are skeptics.
 
I was in highschool when Ronald Reagan was serving his last term. I would have voted for him had I been of age. Every administration has it's scandals, and Reagan's administration is no exception. I do think he was one of the greatest presidents the US has ever had. This is, of course, opinion and I see many here will disagree with me.

It seems to me that people equate Reagan with the Bushes because they belong to the same political party. I happen to think that Reagan had far more in common with Clinton, especially in leadership abilities, command of the English language, and the ability to communicate with and understand the common man. GWB is no Ron Reagan.

To me, the terms of Ronald Reagan enabled people to heal from Vietnam. It became ok again to join the military and be proud of service to the country. It became ok for youth to be involved in service to their country and to have other ways of showing their patriotism besides protests-which was fine too. Regardless of how one feels about his economic policies, he did come into office when inflation was outrageous and interest rates equally so.

He was a strong leader, even if you didn't agree with his policies. He made a decision and stuck to it. He communicated his positions well to the American people and to the world. I can understand why people who disagree with his policies do not like the man. He was his beliefs, he lived his beliefs, he did not waver on his beliefs. He was true to himself, and by doing that I'm sure he believed that he was doing what the American people voted for. In his second election he took every state except for Minnesota (my state) and the District of Columbia. I think that is an indisputable fact.

It's a very sad thing that his last years were spent in solitude, unable to recognize his family and friends. Unable to read or to ride his horses. The only upshot seems to be Nancy Reagan's appeal to conservative America to rethink their opposition to stem cell research. Maybe, Reagan's legacy will bring about some needed change in the rigid position of the right in regards to such issues. I hope so. One may not like Reagan, but he did bring change. Change to the American consciousness, although, again, many might dispute that. It's what I believe, it's what I lived and I saw.

I think it's a great testament to our great democracy that those who have great vitrol towards Reagan feel free to speak it. But, seeing the outpouring of grief towards his death should make some realize that he was beloved by many. I don't think the debate should be stopped regarding his presidency, in fact, I think he would be enjoying it. That's what America and the west is all about after all.

I remember Ron Reagan fondly, maybe because he's part of my youth. Maybe I would feel differently if he was president now. I don't know, as such things are truly unknowable. But I do know that a part of me was stricken with sadness at his passing. And I see that much of the country joins me in grief.
 
I think the Reagan backlash is a counterweight to all the Reagan = Jesus praise. I mean hes held in such high regard that its annoying to his dislikers. (the same will happen wh Clinton)

When Nixon died everyone was so low key that it wasnt that big a deal. I've haerd more bashing abour Ron than tricky Dick.

By the way..........THAT BRILLCREAM BASTID' TRASHED TEH ENVIRoNMENT!!:p
 
Like I said, when do you let go of the balloon. In the end, the answer is always, the sooner the better. It's going to be painful either way, but the longer you hold on, the more painful it will be when you let go. Propping up the Shah was a criminal act.

Which is why the US should have given up on western Europe and let it be dominated by Communism. After all, everybody knows that in the end Communism will win there; the only question is, is it going to be before or after the US sinks more money into it? You always let go of the baloon in the end, you know, so it is better to cut and run now.

Oh wait, I'm sorry. Is it 2004 already? I thought it was 1984; I was just on my way to protest Reagen's insane, simplistic escalation with the USSR. He actually thinks of putting nuclear missiles there! Doesn't he know that won't help stop the inevitable Soviet advance, and will only make it into a nuclear conflict instead of merely a defeat? He's crazy, CRAZY, I tell ya'!

This, of course, is the "Vietnam Syndrome": the idea that any conflict the US is involved in is inevitably headed for defeat, is unwinnable, is nothing more than a sinkhole one throws money into, and therefore the "corageous" thing is to cut and run as soon as possible. It is PRECISELY this attitude that Reagen changed. He believed, quite rightly, that the US CAN win conflicts, if it stays the course and does "silly" and "simplistic" things like putting misslies into western Europe.

There was in fact nothing inevitable about Khomeini's or North Vietnam's victory, and more than there was in the USSR's or Nazi Germany's victory, both of which were often predicted at the time. But in one case there was a president who cuts and runs and a nation which was unwilling to fight, and in the other, a president who stood his ground and made clear that he will fight, and a nation that backed him.
 
One account of Reagan's War in Central America:

link

by Sister Laetitia Bordes, s.h.

John D. Negroponte, President Bush's nominee as the next ambassador to the United Nations? My ears perked up. I turned up the volume on the radio. I began listening more attentively. Yes, I had heard correctly. Bush was nominating Negroponte, the man who gave the CIA backed Honduran death squads open field when he was ambassador to Honduras from 1981 to 1985.

My mind went back to May 1982 and I saw myself facing Negroponte in his office at the US Embassy in Tegucigalpa. I had gone to Honduras on a fact-finding delegation. We were looking for answers. Thirty-two women had fled the death squads of El Salvador after the assassination of Archbishop Oscar Romero in 1980 to take refuge in Honduras. One of them had been Romero's secretary. Some months after their arrival, these women were forcibly taken from their living quarters in Tegucigalpa, pushed into a van and disappeared. Our delegation was in Honduras to find out what had happened to these women.

John Negroponte listened to us as we exposed the facts. There had been eyewitnesses to the capture and we were well read on the documentation that previous delegations had gathered. Negroponte denied any knowledge of the whereabouts of these women. He insisted that the US Embassy did not interfere in the affairs of the Honduran government and it would be to our advantage to discuss the matter with the latter. Facts, however, reveal quite the contrary. During Negroponte's tenure, US military aid to Honduras grew from $4 million to $77.4 million; the US launched a covert war against Nicaragua and mined its harbors, and the US trained Honduran military to support the Contras.

John Negroponte worked closely with General Alvarez, Chief of the Armed Forces in Honduras, to enable the training of Honduran soldiers in psychological warfare, sabotage, and many types of human rights violations, including torture and kidnapping. Honduran and Salvadoran military were sent to the School of the Americas to receive training in counter-insurgency directed against people of their own country. The CIA created the infamous Honduran Intelligence Battalion 3-16 that was responsible for the murder of many Sandinistas. General Luis Alonso Discua Elvir, a graduate of the School of the Americas, was a founder and commander of Battalion 3-16. In 1982, the US negotiated access to airfields in Honduras and established a regional military training center for Central American forces, principally directed at improving fighting forces of the Salvadoran military.

In 1994, the Honduran Rights Commission outlined the torture and disappearance of at least 184 political opponents.

It also specifically accused John Negroponte of a number of human rights violations. Yet, back in his office that day in 1982, John Negroponte assured us that he had no idea what had happened to the women we were looking for. I had to wait 13 years to find out. In an interview with the Baltimore Sun in1996 Jack Binns, Negroponte's predecessor as US ambassador in Honduras, told how a group of Salvadorans, among whom were the women we had been looking for, were captured on April 22, 1981 and savagely tortured by the DNI, the Honduran Secret Police, before being placed in helicopters of the Salvadoran military. After take off from the airport in Tegucigalpa, the victims were thrown out of the helicopters. Binns told the Baltimore Sun that the North American authorities were well aware of what had happened and that it was a grave violation of human rights. But it was seen as part of Ronald Reagan's counterinsurgency policy.

Now in 2001, I'm seeing new ripples in this story.

Since President Bush made it known that he intended to nominate John Negroponte, other people have suddenly been "disappearing", so to speak. In an article published in the Los Angeles Times on March 25 Maggie Farley and Norman Kempster reported on the sudden deportation of several former Honduran death squad members from the United States. These men could have provided shattering testimony against Negroponte in the forthcoming Senate hearings. One of these recent deportees just happens to be General Luis Alonso Discua, founder of Battalion 3-16. In February, Washington revoked the visa of Discua who was Deputy Ambassador to the UN. Since then, Discua has gone public with details of US support of Battalion 3-16.

Given the history of John Negroponte in Central America, it is indeed horrifying to think that he should be chosen to represent our country at the United Nations, an organization founded to ensure that the human rights of all people receive the highest respect. How many of our Senators, I wonder, let alone the US public, know who John Negroponte really is?
Click to expand...
 
Given the history of John Negroponte in Central America, it is indeed horrifying to think that he should be chosen to represent our country at the United Nations, an organization founded to ensure that the human rights of all people receive the highest respect.
Click to expand...
:dl:

You mean the same United Nations that put Syria on it human rights panel. Come on, you've got to be kidding. ALL people recieve the highest respect? In other words, if terrorists blow up a bus killing men women and children it is ignored by the U.N. When Israel kills the leader of a terrorist group it is condemned by the U.N. and this is respect for the human rights of all people?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom