Subscribe to Listverse
Ronald Reagan was the 40th president of the United States of America, from 1981-1989. He is considered a heroic figure in the Republican party and conservative movement. His most famous quote may be “General Secretary Gorbachev, if you seek peace, if you seek prosperity for the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe, if you seek liberalization: Come here to this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, open this gate! Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!” He also once quipped “I hope you’re all Republicans,” to the surgeons treating him after he was shot.
Reagan’s legacy is mixed, with supporters pointing to a more efficient and prosperous economy and a peaceful end to the Cold War. Critics argue that his economic policies caused huge budget deficits, quadrupling the United States national debt and that the Iran-Contra affair lowered American credibility. There is no doubt, however, that Reagan was a great and inspirational public speaker.
1. A people free to choose will always choose peace.
2. Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today’s world do not have.
3. Democracy is worth dying for, because it’s the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.
4. Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn’t pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same.
5. How do you tell a communist? Well, it’s someone who reads Marx and Lenin. And how do you tell an anti-Communist? It’s someone who understands Marx and Lenin.
6. Information is the oxygen of the modern age. It seeps through the walls topped by barbed wire, it wafts across the electrified borders.
7. It has been said that politics is the second oldest profession. I have learned that it bears a striking resemblance to the first.
8. We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.
9. I call upon the scientific community in our country, those who gave us nuclear weapons, to turn their great talents now to the cause of mankind and world peace: to give us the means of rendering these nuclear weapons impotent and obsolete.
10. There is no limit to what a man can do or where he can go if he doesn’t mind who gets the credit.
11. We in government should learn to look at our country with the eyes of the entrepreneur, seeing possibilities where others see only problems
12. A leader, once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets rough.
13. In America, our origins matter less than our destination, and that is what democracy is all about.
14. The work of volunteer groups throughout our country represents the very heart and soul of America. They have helped make this the most compassionate, generous, and humane society that ever existed on the face of this earth.
15. The men of Normandy had faith that what they were doing was right, faith that they fought for all humanity, faith that a just God would grant them mercy on this beachhead or the next. It was the deep knowledge — and pray God we have not lost it — that there is a profound moral difference between the use of force for liberation and the use of force for conquest.
16. The government’s view of the economy could be summed up in a few short phrases: If it moves, tax it. If it keeps moving, regulate it. And if it stops moving, subsidize it.
17. Coercion, after all, merely captures man. Freedom captivates him.
18. The nine most terrifying words in the English language are, ‘I’m from the government and I’m here to help.’
19. I have left orders to be awakened at any time in case of national emergency, even if I’m in a cabinet meeting.
20. My fellow Americans, I am pleased to tell you I just signed legislation which outlaws Russia forever. The bombing begins in five minutes. [Said during a radio microphone test in 1984]
Contributor: rushfan
1 PlasmaTwa2
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:05 am
Neat list, I suppose. Hope this is the first comment, too.
2 redcladhero
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:13 am
Quotes are always fun.
3 NailGlue
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:13 am
I didn’t realise he was so insightful…Cool list.
4 Devildog
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:20 am
Best President Ever
5 Redcaboose
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:23 am
Great words from a not so great Presdent.
6 Peeps
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:29 am
Much of Reagan’s greatness was his understanding of what government should do and (more importantly) his understanding of what government should not even try to do. Thanks for the list.
7 HAL9000
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:29 am
G-d awful president. Even the scab air traffic controllers that replaced the unionized ones Reagan fired eventually unionized under his watch.
Then there were the AIDs infected people Reagan ignored until it started killing his friends.
Nothing great about this man unless you’re blind and dumb.
8 jfrater
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:44 am
I know very little about Reagan, but I do like the quotes – thanks for the list rushfan
9 EsBravo
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:58 am
ahhh..”The Gipper”, that is one of Ronald’s nicknames; while there were many problems with the 80′s, it, for the most part was a time of prosperity and overall peace (for America). Regan brought us out of the recession of the late 70′s, and the country flourished. Regan was not perfect, nor is any other president; but he was a man of principles and integrity.
BTW, Regan was much smarter than what certain people gave him credit for.
10 WarningDontReadThis
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:01 am
I liked nr 7 and the last three the best. I don’t know if I like Reagan seeing as I know very little about him, but the qoutes were funny
11 chunkylover77
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:32 am
EsBravo Reagan sold weapons to BOTH the Iraqi’s and the Iranian’s during their war in the 80′s, and when caught, had Ollie North take the fall for it. Look up the Iran/Contra Affair. He was dirtier than most would like to admit. Still love quote #1 though!
12 jajdude
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:42 am
Conservatory guns on the list, g – Contra be one hydra of a game, remakes be damned yo
13 tokiloki12
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:23 am
cool list
14 Corey
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:47 am
How long before these comments turn into a debate about Bush? I’m thinking soon. And around comment 100, we’ll hit the Obama-is-a-socialist debate.
Anyway – I’m far from a conservative, but Reagan was a great man.
15 PC
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:39 am
Quote 3 on this list:
“Democracy is worth dying for, because it’s the most deeply honourable form of government ever devised by man.”
What he didn’t mention is that right wing totalitarianism is also acceptable to him.
Examples:
Chile
Nicaragua
16 tim
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:43 am
I think he’s best known for “Mr Gorbachev, tear down this wall!”
Also for those not familiar, #19 refers to the time when he actually did fall asleep in a cabinet meeting.
17 Katie
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:53 am
Mr Reagan once called Princess Diana Princess David. He also had Alzheimer’s disease during the last few years of his second term.Go figure.
18 Spange
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:01 am
I really enjoyed this list, some really cool quotes. Not being old enough to pay attention during his terms as prez all I know of him is the odd bits and pieces I have read about Contra, Nicaragua and something about military jets and the Iron Bitch so it was a surprise to see he could be insightful, funny and self-deprecating.
19 Late O’Day
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:26 am
You left out: “Trees cause more pollution than automobiles do.”
20 SomeBloke
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:30 am
Some good quotables here, even though most (if not all) of them were probably written for him by others.
21 Ducky23
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:44 am
Reagan is by a far and very wide margin the best President of recent years. He possessed an enormous understanding of what the role of government should be and fought for Peace. He stood up for what was right and good. Something that has been lost in the hype of the last few years. It’s sad to see our country going down the drain. My prayer is that there is another man or woman, like Reagan, somewhere that can really help. Not just give handouts.
22 LordCalvert
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:56 am
Ronald Reagan is easily the greatest President to ever hold the office.
23 jake ryder
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:59 am
I was quite surprised that the “Tear down this wall.” quote was not here.
I don’t understand why many American consider Reagan a great president. I’m not saying he wasn’t, I am not American and always found him to be very blaise. I think he benifitted greatly by being in office during the 80′s when things were booming, I don’t think American properity had anything to do with him. The rest of the western world had the same boom and with no Reagan.
24 SoCalJeff
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:00 am
I don’t agree with most of his politics, but I’ll agree he was quotable and inspired many including a movement of young American conservatives.
@17…That’s incorrect about Alzheimer’s in his last few years as President. He was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s 6 to 7 years after he left office and suffered with it for more than 10 years until his death in 2004. Alzheimer’s consists of more than memory issues, if that is your suggestion. People who have lived through Alzheimer’s with a loved one really can testify to the difference (it’s not pretty). Having been a Alzheimer’s care giver, I’ve always respected how Nancy Reagan dealt with his Alzheimer’s.
25 Exlud
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:20 am
He was a horrible president with great speechwriters. Of course he could deliver lines, he was an actor! It was second nature even in his more addled years.
26 boomshine
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:38 am
He was shot? I never realized!! Maybe bevause I was only born in 87 and i’m English.
JFrater maybe you could do a list of Top 10 people in the public eye who were shot and lived to tell the tale? (50 cent not included as he’s too obvious)
27 Katie
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:42 am
He’s still a retard.
28 Nicosia
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:04 am
I was born in 77, so when Reagan was president, I was a tiny child. My Mammaw was very active in the Republican party, and talked about him all the time… So much so, that I thought he was a long-lost relative. I thought Reagan was the grandpa or uncle that lived far away and had a very important job.
29 JwJwBean
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:17 am
#23 Jake ryder: That quote was in the introduction. Did you not read the introduction?
30 Cat
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:37 am
I’m surprised “keep the government poor and remain free” didn’t make the cut.
31 NiNiNiNiNiNi
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:44 am
Ronald Reagan can burn in hell.
32 bulldada
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:44 am
Reagan was a heavy weight president like Washington, Jefferson and Lincoln.
Every president since Reagan has been a disgrace, especially Obama.
33 Creosote
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:45 am
#3???????????????????????????
I’m assuming this one was said after he got sick, because apparently he forgot that the Founding Fathers despised democracy so much that they founded a Republic, and thus Reagan was president over a Republic and not a democracy.
34 bucslim
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:48 am
Great President, great quotes, great list, great author.
35 Todd
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:52 am
Regan was a warmongerer.
36 slipstick
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:52 am
#32 bulldada: Wow, the man has been in office a month and you’re already labelling him a disgrace. I think you need to turn off the Limbaugh.
37 Strobel
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:09 am
The picture right before number 11 was one of the major reasons that he was shot. Hinckley, being from Texas, was confused after the 136th viewing of his one true love (a 12 year old Jodie Foster) and in an attempt to provide… mistook Reagan for a deer!
Just kidding…
Hinckley never would’ve cheated on his own sister like that.
38 Devildog
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:13 am
of course if you are “give me give me” American you are going to think he was a bad president, Was is not a Democrat that said Ask not what your country can do for you but what you can do for your country? Give me Give me what I need Mr. President just look at them asking President Obama for cars, jobs, and benefits what a disgrace… completely opposite of what President Reagan stood for (stand on your own two feet, work hard and you will better yourself)
no wealth distribution socialist garbage ideology
39 mitchsn
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:16 am
8. We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.
Amen.
40 JUNQUEMAN
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:18 am
I suppose this isn’t the time to say–THIS LIST IS TOO AMERICAN!
41 Joe13
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:19 am
Alzheimer’s is not a disease that hits you all at once. There’s a gradual decent that takes years before your denial about it is overwhelmed and you go get your diagnosis. I’m talking about my father and President Ronald Reagan. He was obviously impaired before his second term began. He was not a stupid man, he was sick. His last term was an embarrassment. After he left office, Grover Norquist, Karl Rove’s mentor decided to rewrite history and turn Reagan into a hero. Conservative republicans fell in line and hence we have people actually thinking he was a “great president.”
42 Dickens
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:24 am
There’s no doubt that he was a great liaison between the government and the people, but you’ve got to admit that it’s pretty ironic that so many of these quotations glorify freedom in such a way. Certainly he was maintaining a binary between Russia and The United States, but the policy’s of his administration didn’t quite let freedom ring equally for all Americans.
43 dole
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:27 am
Reagan was an actor that recited words (and quotes)that his speech writers put in front of him. The problem was he was such a good actor that a lot of people believed him. He was a dangerous man and we are lucky to have survived during his watch.
44 bombkitten
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:51 am
i hate that your ruined the Sunday list with this bum. I want a bloody entertaining list. Its okay you have a chance to redeem yourself tomorrow.
45 segue
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:58 am
Ronald Reagan in regard to creating a Redwood National Forest,” a tree is just a tree, after all, I mean, how many do you have to look at?”
46 Tom
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:24 am
I used to have Alzheimer’s. At least, I think that’s what the doctors said… if my memory serves me correctly…
47 Phender_Bender
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:47 am
Great list! I love Reagan and his quotes, but my personal favorite was not on here!
Here it is: “A scientist is someone that takes something that works and theory and tries to make it work in reality, an economist is someone that takes something that works in reality and tries to make it work in theory.”
I first read ^^ quote in the book “Naked Economics” when I was taking economics 101 in college, great book, even if you aren’t in economics, it really explains a lot.
48 Phender_Bender
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:49 am
@ 40. JUNQUEMAN
Correct me if I am wrong, but haven’t there been Churchill and Thatcher quote lists on here before?
49 wsouthstreet
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:01 am
You forgot,
Homeless people want to be like that.
If you need money for your school hold a bake sale.
and…yeah…trees cause pollution. (classic republican BS)
or words to that effect.
50 Time Cop
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:04 am
Great list!!!!!! Fantastic President.
#32-100% correct.
51 MadMonkey
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:08 am
Reagan was FTW. Best President ever…
52 Speedpig
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:24 am
I am so inspired right now that I have craped my pants. If you all will excuse me I need to find a flag to wipe myself with.
53 AFJumper03
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:26 am
-Slipstick, I don’t know if he is a disgrace, but I don’t think any president has spent as much money as he has in such a short amount of time. I wonder if any president’s approval rating has dropped as fast as his. The poll I saw yesterday on CNN said his approval has dropped over 10% in one month. Can’t keep that up long…
The honeymoon is over…
54 Smarter Than HAL9000
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:35 am
Hey HAL9000 Reagan knew that AIDS was not something politicians should deal with. Also, those air traffic controllers he fired were breaking the law. Anyone else who breaks the law is fired so why shouldn’t they have been? And as far as that fact that the new ones unionized under his watch, that is no sign of failure on his part. He was not trying to destroy unions, he was enforcing the law – something modern officials have forgotten and what the union critics have forgotten is that Reagan was the only US Predident to be a union member and also a union president (he was president of SAG two times and still a member of SAG when he died) but Reagan always put priniciple over emotion. You don’t see that any more.
55 danmoo
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:42 am
Wow #32: obama a disgrace… i believe he has been in office for 33 days. That still leaves him with a few hundred to go. Get over it, he won, mccain lost. lets get on with trying to fix our country that started to go downhill with “reaganomics”
56 I know nothing
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:43 am
Thatcher was his puppet nuff sed
57 I know nothing
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:44 am
Btw good list though
58 Mom424
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:52 am
He was quote-worthy and charismatic. Too bad he started the huge mess that you, I, and the rest of the world are paying for right this very moment. You cannot trust the rich to do what is right; unless of course it results in further riches. De-regulation and improper oversight of what few rules were left in place, and the climate of greed he fostered, are responsible for the banking failure and recession we are experiencing today.
59 danmoo
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:59 am
you are exactly right mom424. his “fiscal”spending policies were a joke. as were the two bush’s
60 YogiBarrister
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:24 pm
You mean 20 famous quotes from the screenwriters who wrote the movies he was in. The most overrated president ever, the worst president in my lifetime. Yes, I know about the last one, but he was following the Reagan gameplan. Every economic woe we are facing today was due to the deregulation and discredited trickle down theories from his administration. Reagan famously stated that government can’t solve problems, only cause them. Then he proved himself right.
61 YogiBarrister
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:28 pm
Too many blustery Americans on this list…as usual
62 Maggot
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:32 pm
40 JUNQUEMAN I suppose this isn’t the time to say–THIS LIST IS TOO AMERICAN!
As soon as I read the list title, I wondered how long before someone trotted out that lame joke again. It was funny the first five billion times I heard it, but it’s long overdue for retirement.
63 Youknowwho
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:34 pm
How is it if someone mentions “W”, everybody says “He is to blame for this financial mess”. Of couse so is “HW”. Now Reagan put us here? If I am not mistaken, Reagan left office over twenty years ago and did lead us through quite a turn-around from the Carter years.
64 ABrutalKind
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:38 pm
Are you trying to prove you don’t have a liberal bia. This is the most pointless list ever. This would still be a pointless list if you had a Democrat President. It is merely a collection of quotes by a person that can either be regarded as the best president or the worst. There is too much division. A list of quotes by someone that most people like would be great but this is a horrible choice for a list. It would be like putting up a list of quotes from Gorbachev. He was just as politically important in international politics. I am an American and I believe this list is too American.
65 Youknowwho
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:39 pm
#60 “You mean 20 famous quotes from the screenwriters who wrote the movies he was in.”
Thank goodness no other president has used speachwriters especially the current one. I’m sure he writes all his own material.
66 ABrutalKind
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:45 pm
On a more biased note, the Iran-Contra scandal was just despicable and horrendous. You cannot excuse his and our governments behavior. I vote neither for republican nor democrat, but rather for the one that I think will do the least harm to the world.
67 Loose Cannon
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:50 pm
::Grabbing my popcorn::
This should be an interesting thread. I bet this beats the 10 Most Evil Women or Men!
68 Rosa
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:56 pm
I’m not particularly familiar with this president, but the quotes are quite good. They range from funny to insightful.. I particularly like #5 and #8.
Good list, rushfan.
69 ABrutalKind
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:57 pm
Also I just want to point out that actions speak louder than words and his actions did not promote freedom, and liberty for all. You can laud his quotes all you want but you can’t laud his actions. Talk all you want, I don’t want talk I want words that reflect action.
70 Pearlytom
February 22nd, 2009 at 12:58 pm
did u know ppl that America is a continent and not just one country??
u should stop calling us ppl americans…
71 NiNiNiNiNiNi
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:47 pm
Bulldada: Are you seriously comparing that fuck to our greatest presidents? Man, you need a real historical perspective here. Obama has only been president for a month and he’s already way better than Reagan.
72 Wally
February 22nd, 2009 at 1:57 pm
I personally like number 5. After the fall of the USSR, the communist movement shifted to the democrat party, and its instrument: Global Warming.
If people are so envious of the wealthy, then why not take the risks or work as hard as those with money? Me working 60 to 70 hours a week and going into massive debt for an education only to have what I have earned given to somebody else is just immoral. The top 1% pay 40% of taxes. Without the wealthy, we’d have nothing.
Never should we ever leave it to government to redistribute the wealth. Taking from one and giving ot another is theft.
No president has ever been better.
73 Phender_Bender
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:01 pm
Make a good list and leave it up to the comments to ruin it. You could have a list of quotes from Hitler for all I care, as long as they are good quotes. Honestly who (forgive me, I am about to curse) the heck cares what he did during his term, this isn’t a list of “Best Presidents and Why Democrats Are Dumb” list, its a list about quotes (again forgive me, but I have a bit of a potty mouth) darnit.
74 Knuckles
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:19 pm
Oh, Puh-LEEEZE! The only one of these that wasn’t written by a speechwriter is the last one, and it really shows the true mindset of the man. Second worst president ever, nothing but a mindless figurehead, esp. during the second term. He’s ultimately the one to blame for the fiscal sh*tstorm we face now (sure, cut taxes for the filthy rich and big biz, that’ll make them spread the wealth around hardy har). Keep up the adulatory comments, though, they’re hilarious.
That said, I do admit that seeing Ron in his seventies, with his shirt off, doing real ranch work, was very impressive; he looked great for a guy his age. He was building a barbed-wire fence, and this made Bush and his constant brush-clearing out Crawford way look even more ridiculous.
75 Adrian
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:21 pm
nice point, people tend to forget about the truth or beauty in a quote by shooting the messenger, i remember one politician who said, “you know even hitler said the sky was blue” , when talking about stupidity in politics, the next day, what was the paper’s headline’s.
“Politician agrees with Hitler”
WTF!!!.. it just a quote, if the guy delivering the message is not fan of congruence that he’s problem, we must have the hability to take the value in the quote for our own, or general benifit. .
76 mediaguy
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:25 pm
Great and entertaining list. I am of the opinion that Reagan was one of our greatest presidents, and I voted enthusiastically for Obama in the last election.
Different circumstances, different policies. I don’t understand the ideological concept of not being willing to admit or understand that in any good policy debate, both sides have legitimate views that should be considered based upon their merits, regardless of what view one decides to support.
Too many sheeple, not enough thinkers. No matter what side of the fence.
77 Jael
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:27 pm
Wheres “I hope you are all Republicans”? To me, that is Reagan’s greatest quote.
78 Anon
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:34 pm
AFJumper03, (53),
“I wonder if any president’s approval rating has dropped as fast as his. The poll I saw yesterday on CNN said his approval has dropped over 10% in one month. Can’t keep that up long…”
Poor old Ron. After all this time too, and dropping still! Personally I blame the too-close association with the rusted-iron Thatcher woman, and also that horrid ‘Spitting Image’ puppet satire stuff we Brits used to laugh so cruelly at.
79 xyzgon
February 22nd, 2009 at 2:51 pm
To all the people saying that somebody else wrote these.
OF COURSE HE HAD SPEECHWRITERS!! I mean, come on! This may shock you but just about every president uses speechwriters. And also I’m of the mind that he was a fantastic president. Solidly in the top ten.
80 SMSx523
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:00 pm
I am pretty sure that someone else actually made these quotes up when writing his speeches.
81 jaimo
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:09 pm
folks, has anyone here even read the 1,000 page “stimulus” garbage that presbo and the clintonistas helped put through? I HAVE!! It is NOTHING but pork barrel spending and thank-you payouts for all the liberal special interest groups (I’m sorry, but how exactly does giving over 4 BILLION dollars of our grandchildren’s money to ACORN do one single thing for this economy?). By the way, you wanna blame someone for the rise of radical islam, blame carter! It was by his actions that the shah of iran was disposed and aya-toilet was allowed to take power. So, before we criticize anyone about spending, we need to look at the HUGE transfer of wealth into corrupt and impotent social welfare programs that encourage laziness and an entitlement mentality. Reagan was about equality of opportunity (as were the framers of the constitution) whereas our current president (as the rest of the socialist liberals) are in favor of equality of outcome. Liberals, get over it. Nobody “owes” you a job, a car, a house or anything else and you do not have a “right” to it. You only have the right to not be discriminated against in your pursuit of such things based on certain factors such as race, religion, gender, and sexual orientation. You don’t have the skills necessary and are too lazy to aquire them? TOO BAD!!
82 Crimanon
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:11 pm
Some of these, while being possibly unintentional screw-ups, feel some how right.
I can’t even remember if he was Actually funny. Was Reagan known for being a joker, or just a bad actor?
83 k1w1taxi
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:17 pm
pearlytom (70)
What would you prefer? Yanks or the old Aussie favourite Seppos, Capitalist Dogs, Imperialist Running Dogs
Cheers
Lee
84 k1w1taxi
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:21 pm
Wally (72)
Seems Noblesse Oblige didn’t survive the trip across the Atlantic
Cheers
Lee
85 Crimanon
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:22 pm
32. bulldada “Every president since Reagan has been a disgrace, especially Obama.”
How about you give him more than two months before you start screaming to get him out of office. America the impatient.
86 ABrutalKind
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:23 pm
The reason the government is in the crapper is not because of just Republicans or Democrats, but rather the selfish human nature inside of us all. Stop blaming people and accept responsibility. We have voted in bad presidents and okay ones but few good ones. We have become blinded with all of this partisanship and have become oblivious to the fact that we keep electing people that are only concerned with themselves and their friends. The only great presidents are the selfless ones. Who sacrifice for what is right, not what helps their political career.
87 YogiBarrister
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:23 pm
Xyzgon #79, Obama writes his own speeches. It’s not Reagan’s speechwriters I’m concerned about, it’s the screenwriters. Even before he was diagnosed with Alzheimer’s, he would confuse and conflate actual events with scenes from movies he was in. Terrifying to think he was the Commander in Chief, thank God he wasn’t in Dr. Strangelove.
88 Joseph52
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:30 pm
I voted for Reagan twice because I wanted to help push the USSR to its collapse. Now I see that Mikhail Gorbachev and the accumulated forces of Russian history had more to do with that than Reagan. I guess I was voting on image more than reality.
Reagan began his 1980 campaign in Neshoba County, Mississippi, where three civil rights workers were slain in 1964. His speech was a deliberate signal to white racists that it was OK to vote Republican. Reagan said that the Voting Rights Act of 1965 had insulted the South. And there is now evidence that Reagan’s people were working to prevent the release of the American hostages who were being held in Iran at the time of the presidential campaign, in order to harm Carter’s re-election chances. If true, this would constitute an act of treason on the part of Reagan’s advisers.
Under Reagan, the federal debt exploded. Under Reagan, 241 U.S. Marines were massacred by terrorists, Marines who should never have been as vulnerable to attack as they were. (Imagine if a Democratic president had allowed that!) Under Reagan, the U.S. supported a murderous savage in Guatemala who slaughtered 300,000 of his own people. Under Reagan, the U.S. supported brutal death squads in El Salvador. Under Reagan the U.S. continued to diplomatically support the Cambodian Khmer Rouge against Vietnam. Under Reagan, contrary to myth, Federal taxes were NOT substantially cut, and in fact in 1986 a huge tax increase was necessary to undo some of the damage Reagan’s earlier, foolish tax cuts had inflicted. Under Reagan weapons were illegally transferred to Iran, a crime for which Reagan could have been impeached and convicted, and Reagan lied about this arms deal relentlessly. Under Reagan, U.S. weapons were sent to Iraq, which allowed Saddam to butcher many of his own people. Reagan tried to privatize Social Security, tried to gut environmental protections, and he really did say that trees were a major source of pollution.
Oh, and by the way, for all the conservatives commenting on this thread: when Reagan went to Moscow in 1988 to negotiate with Mikhail Gorbachev he was bitterly denounced–by conservatives.
As Ronnie once said: “Facts are stupid things.” (Look it up if you don’t believe me!)
89 Joseph52
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:32 pm
BTW, jaimo, the assertion that the stimulus bill contains $4 billion for ACORN is an absolute damned lie and I’m calling you on it right here and now.
90 Joseph52
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:40 pm
Hey, right-wingers! Got a guessing game for you!
HIGHER APPROVAL RATING UPON LEAVING OFFICE: Clinton or Reagan?
STRONGER ECONOMIC GROWTH DURING HIS TERM IN OFFICE: Clinton or Reagan?
MORE FEDERAL OFFICIALS INDICTED FOR WRONGDOING IN HIS ADMINISTRATION: Clinton or Reagan?
MORE AMERICANS KILLED BY TERRORISTS DURING HIS TERM IN OFFICE: Clinton or Reagan?
Guess real hard.
91 Ducky23
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:43 pm
Right on #81
92 Crimanon
February 22nd, 2009 at 3:45 pm
Is it GOP bashing time again? My, how the time goes by.
93 astraya
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:01 pm
Pearlytom @ 70: did u know ppl that America is a continent and not just one country??
u should stop calling us ppl americans…
I would love to calls USAns something different to avoid confusing u ppl with Canadians, Mexicans and Tierra del Fuegans. As the continent of America was named after Americo Vespucci, u ppl barely escaped being Vespuccians. (Or it if it was named after Richard Amerike, u barely escaped being a Dick-head.)
94 Crimanon
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:04 pm
astraya: I could hug you for that!
95 Rhymenocerous
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:14 pm
Ronnie had to sacrifice poor people to defeat Communism. He didn’t know it would implode.
96 Phender_Bender
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:15 pm
@Crimanon #92
It’s always GOP bashing time. Also, this just in Reagan caused 9/11, Pearl Harbor, he designed the Death Star, he tried to assassinate himself, he’s the reason my wife had a miscarriage, and most of all he put the hole in the o-zone layer. On top of that, when he was president he was a serial killer who claimed the lives of 37 men and boys age 14-27 and buried them in his crawl space in suburban Chicago house. He also is behind the false spotting of the Loch Ness Monster. Also, his first year as president he was diagnosed with paranoid schizophrenia, he often thinks that, like YogiBarrister said, he invented the cotton gin, the self-lubricating band saw, and of course designed the Mazda Miata (of which only the last is true).
One last thing, if you take “Ron Reagan” and replace several letters you get “SATAN 666″ which isn’t surprising because if you look at his retinas you will see a flaming goat skull and the cover of the third Harry Potter book in a color that only true believers can see, but they say that once you see them you will be granted one wish, and if you choose to make a wish it will come true if you wear your pajamas inside out and say “snow day” six times in a row before bed, and don’t talk to anyone for the average gestation period of a golden jackal. But if that wish does come true everything will turn to stone except that which is already stone, that will turn into paintings of Joe Bonamassa (legendary blues guitarist and singer).
Everything I wrote ^^ can be read if on midnight on Halloween you take a copy of the book “Cold Mountain” and read it in the mirror after saying Cat Stevens’ real name five times with the lights out and a pecan scented candle has been burning for 30 minutes.
Assuming you didn’t read what I wrote up there (which you probably shouldn’t have) what I was trying to say was they are just quotes, not (excuse my French, not literal French of course, I only speak English, some German, and a little Spanish, no French at all. In this case French is referring to a curse word I am about to write) gosh darned statements about why Democrats are the scourge of the world.
97 Crimanon
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:21 pm
Stir that nest!
98 astraya
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:26 pm
Phender_Bender seems to be giving bucslim a run in the “most hilarious rant” competition. Except that bucslim wouldn’t aplogise for saying “gosh darned”. (And may not even say “gosh darned” in the first place.)
99 Crimanon
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:31 pm
my money is on the pro.
Loose_Cannon: Are you finished munching the popcorn? I’d love to see what you have to say.
100 Diamond_Dragon
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:39 pm
I think his greatest quote is “Aww shut up!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Je4cbBY0R0Y For videoproof of him saying it! At least it deserves a bonus spot
101 Davo
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:40 pm
damnit…theist
102 Crimanon
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:41 pm
Welfare’s purpose should be to eliminate, as far as possible, the need for its own existence.
We don’t have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven’t taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much.
…I like those two
103 rocknopera
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:45 pm
Fantastic list… I love it.
104 Phender_Bender
February 22nd, 2009 at 4:46 pm
@Crimanon: Do you just hang around on listverse all day? I wish I could, but I have the internet attention span of a harpsichord. Outside of the internet I could literally stare at one piece of patio furniture all day, even if that specific piece wasn’t all that entertaining (I know some benches can be quite fun to look at).
105 kazorek
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:01 pm
I think the legacy Reagan left behind has done more damage than he did. He had a mini-cult of personality thing going on and it gave rise to Republicans version 2.0. The sentiment is there already in these quotes. For instance “spreading democracy by force” is only justifiable under bullshit, idealized pretenses; and thats exactly what he used. He set a precedent of using this overblown, egomaniacal-patriotism ideology to justify and make political decisions. His legacy nursed an “acceptable” ignorance in the government that George W. (not to mention Sarah Palin) embodied. He also helped strengthened the sentiment that if your not a Christian, your not of the “best” American patriots.
And he took the solar panels off the white house. What the hell? Why? Did he just think they were ugly? His influence in the U.S. social conscious has cost us dearly. Good thing its dying. Its exciting to think my government will finally open their eyes after 8 years of “going with their gut.”
106 kazorek
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:11 pm
Also, I think its funny most American kids are led to believe that the Soviet Union was an evil place that ended by being crushed by democracy and America is basically the one who did the crushing. In fact, I’m pretty sure most American’s born in the mid eighties or later still don’t realize that the Soviet government made the choice to abandon communism. I wasn’t aware of it until I was like 21.
107 Wally
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:15 pm
Oh no! Someone (72) is using my nickname – and he sounds like an asshole! Nothing like me!
108 Crimanon
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:18 pm
Phender: I haven’t Versed this consistently in a while. Fortunately, it’s around the time that I get back into LV that I end up finding a job.
If I don’t stay interested in something, my ears start ringing and my mind starts racing. Always with sound and busy fingers. I need to get away from Facebook and myspace, and spend more time at The LV. 4 LIFE!
109 Blogball
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Thanks for the list Rushfan!
I’m going to stay out of the political debate. I just wanted to add that I live very close to the Reagan Library and have visited there a couple of times. No matter what your politics are you would have to admit he had an extremely interesting life. Sportscaster, actor, SAG President, Governor of California and President for 8 years. It’s all there to see at the library including the old Air force One. My favorite part is a piece of the Berlin Wall with very colorful artistic drawings and paintings on one side (west side) and just black ugly spay paint on the other side (east side). I would recommend it to everybody interested in history.
110 Anon
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:28 pm
Phender_Bender,
We purchase paint specially to entertain friends just like your good self. We invite them to come around and watch it dry. They get so bored with bloddy barbies. None of your quick-dry cellulose stuff either. That would be insulting. We go for water-based emulsions. All-night winter sessions are fave. Really panders to that long, patient ability to concentrate against all odds. Should you decide to accept an invitation and come on down to our Vespucci part of Amerigo, we could hire a local artist to portray the eponymous R.R. in slow-dry paint too, if you liked?
111 Kevin
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:58 pm
Kazorek,
The Soviet Union chose to stop practicing Communism after all its satellite countries were breaking/broken away, a world audience was watching, and it became no longer economically possible to run it. They technically gave it up voluntarily, but they basically were forced to by the circumstances. If the world audience wasn’t watching, especially Americans, I can promise you that the tanks would have rolled in and crushed all the dissenters in Poland and beyond. Why wouldn’t they? They’ve done it before.
And the Soviets were terrified of Reagan. The KGB helped to fund anti-Reagan campaigns. The Soviets were terrified of the Star Wars program and it sent them into a spending frenzy.
As for all of your anti-Bush comments etc., I can almost promise you that the 40 millions Muslims now free to choose their own gov’t will put Bush in a better light years down the road than our own media. Hopefully the American people will follow suit. I think 9/11 showed us that we can’t allow world events to go on around us and not pay attention. Non-interventionism is a nice idea that made sense in Washington’s time, but with nuclear bombs and some crazy people out there, life just isn’t so easy anymore.
112 Poinov
February 22nd, 2009 at 5:59 pm
ooooooooooh, this will be a great addition if they ever have a “most controversial list” list. plz continue the rage war.
113 Phender_Bender
February 22nd, 2009 at 6:13 pm
Anon, I will accept your invitation. I am, as my radiator says, a bit of an adrenaline junkie. I’ve only watched paint a few times (nearly died once).
114 Anon
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:22 pm
Phender_Bender, (112),
Phender, be warned. It’s an addiction acqired by repetition, and once acquired, extremely difficult to break.
115 Struth
February 22nd, 2009 at 7:50 pm
There is only one thing more boring than politics and that is a list about some old actor loon and the things he was told to say.
116 RandomPrecision
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:01 pm
top 5 greatest presidents of all time, no doubt.
the last quote is the best.
117 MadMonkey
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:08 pm
87. YogiBarrister…
You are kidding, right? LMAO.
118 jfrater
February 22nd, 2009 at 8:23 pm
Jubbs: we had a Clinton one long ago.
119 segue
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:03 pm
110. Anon: Phender_Bender, We purchase paint specially to entertain friends just like your good self. We invite them to come around and watch it dry…
****
When I was a script supervisor, we often had to literally watch paint dry while waiting to work…of course, we were being paid to watch the paint dry, or not watch it (as was our preference). One of my favorite (stupid) ways to waste time waiting for a shot to get off, was the food prep girl situating the Kraft macaroni so that no holes were face to camera (the company thought it gave a sexual connotation to the dish)!
120 MiSaNtHrOpE
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:31 pm
I like Bulldada… he’s entertaining. But he would be less scary if he lived somewhere else.
Our national debt isnt as bad as people say it is, and right now we need to do whatever we can to get our economy back on track. Of course there will be pork–but if that pork includes new roads and school systems and construction projects, I say fine. It puts people to work and corrects our infrastructure, which means that you dont have to fear that the bridge youre on in a traffic jam Monday morning will collapse and leave you and your car floating downstream.
I think its morbidly ironic that the God-fearing Oil Party voted to double our deficit in 8 years with wanton spending and destructive mutations of necessary programs (abstinence only, anyone?) now wants to talk morality and philosophy of responsible government. I dont care if you believe that now, or that you “lost your way.” You didn’t do that when you were in power so shut the eff up.
I heard some Red representative bawling about how the stimulus package should go to the auto industry a few days ago. Is this what you would do if McCain had won? You would dump $800 billion into the pockets of Wall Street leeches and spoiled beggars? That’s not even an investment. Look. Under such a policy, those leeches would not use it to create new jobs, or even guarantee the survival of the company (innovation). You think they give a damn about social responsibility? You think they would use the money the way our society needs them to? You’re smarter than that; or so I thought.
Though it is quite strange to take Obama’s promise at face value, I think he is still doing much more than McCain and your party of Limbaugh and O’Really? could ever do.
121 astraya
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:39 pm
Do you have plasma-screen-digital-sound paint? Colour paint, even? Or are you limited to black-and-white paint?
This discussion seems to have split in two: those who are talking about Ronald Reagan and those who aren’t.
122 Alencon
February 22nd, 2009 at 9:48 pm
I doubt the words are actually his (except for the last one of course). As far as I know his most famous original quote was “Where are the jelly beans?”
Which, interestingly enough, is not to take anything away from someone who (1) understood his limitations, (2) was very, very good at choosing talented subordinates and (3) was just smart enough to listen to those subordinates.
123 Phender_Bender
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:09 pm
astraya #122: What could possibly be a third option. That’s like saying “there are only two colors, those which are tickle me pink and those which are not.” Now I like tickle me pink as much as the next heterosexual male, but you can’t go through life refusing to admit the existence of other colors. In fact when I was in college I joined a group specifically devoted to color awareness, they were called the rainbow club. Me and the guys in the rainbow club would often hang out at a techno/cosmopolitan club called The Tool Box. We had rainbow bumper stickers. My favorite thing to do with the boys was to go to a leather store called Leather Daddy’s and buy some chaps (we liked to dress in costume) and run around the town promoting other colors. We were so prevalent that we were even in a parade (the theme was pink!).
Also, Ronald Reagan’s middle name was Wilson and he was the first president to be born with a conjoined twin (that kid from Growing Pains).
124 guy
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:10 pm
i like reagan.
125 c w
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:33 pm
what an amazing president, i hope for another one like him.
126 Shauna
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Considering it’s conservative season (kill the wepubwican) I make the following comments behind an Acme Safe-T Boulder. Kazorek, I am thrilled to see that the Soviet propaganda machine was successful! It’s always nice to know something worked according to plan. Unfortunately, those of us who studied history well after we were “like, 21″ have discovered that the Soviets only “chose” to abandon communism when they didn’t have a “choice” to do otherwise. Might I humbly suggest that you pick up “Animal Farm” by Orwell. Don’t be fooled by the funny animals – it is actually about communism and those who were as happy in it as a (note the literary reference) pig in slop. Do you really think that a small group of people becoming insanely rich off the backs of poor laborers would “choose” to abandon that system? Hmmm…..
127 Anon
February 22nd, 2009 at 10:42 pm
astraya and Phender,
We DO have colour, and we are working on adding sound. But we need to be terribly careful not to overstimulate our guests. The Chilean Health Service doesn’t cater for the dire consequences of that.
Oh yes, the discussion split in two. Right I’ll just be off to watch some Ronald Reagan quotes dry then.
Phender Stratocaster,
Ronald Reagan must be the first president to be born with a middle name which is also the name of another president and a British Prime Minster too. I hope he’s in the Guinness Book of Records on that score.
I’m with you on the rainbow. Our household can better measly paint samples too and go the whole hog with the Royal Horticultural Society’s colour chart. A few billion or so different shades, tints and tones there.
Not so sure about the chaps though. As the next heterosexual male, I’m a bit keener on the gals.
128 Rhymenocerous
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:00 pm
New Zealand: Ewe Should Come!
129 k1w1taxi
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:30 pm
Shauna (127)
What do you think the majority of said small group are doing these days? They are all Filthy rich (or their heirs) or running the quote democracy unquote that is modern Russia. Only now they don’t have to run around in silly uniforms and drive around in ZILs.
Cheers
Lee
130 k1w1taxi
February 22nd, 2009 at 11:41 pm
Kevin (111) So where was Bush in Darfur? North Korea (remember them, they actually threatened to Nuke the USA), Iran? Georgia?
Cheers
Lee
131 MiSaNtHrOpE
February 23rd, 2009 at 1:01 am
LOL @ Kazorek.
They couldnt really choose to do anything, as military spending skyrocketed to match Reagan’s Star Wars bluff, and the rest of the Soviet economy simply collapsed. C’mon people study your history.
132 theSKIN
February 23rd, 2009 at 2:00 am
Surprise, surprise, surprise…..
Never ending conservative bashing on the internet, without backed evidence. Reagan caused today’s economy with deregulation, today’s Iraq war, terrorists, and so much more. OMG he took tax breaks from the rich and big businesses. Blah, blah, blah….. How about instead, of repeating what you heard from your friend about how Reagen and playing mini monica lewinskys, read up on some economics, economical history, and political history and get off of Clinton please.
Deregulation did not cause the collapse of today’s economy. Businesses giving out loans to people that couldn’t pay them back did. Simple as that, (less)government didn’t cause this problem, businesses that were greedy and didn’t make sound economical decisions systems did. Now instead of letting these companies die out(capitalism), we decide to fuel the fire and bail these banks out of financial trouble(socialism.) Now we will continue down the path of bad business and the dollar will continue to shrink, when we should of let these companies die out, giving away to the wiser businesses to thrive, survival of the fittest.(I don’t even want to go into how the bailouts and stimulus are lowering the power of the dollar, remember kids it’s not how much money you have, but how strong it is, just look at kenya.) Now on a moral look at the economy, wouldn’t government telling the private sector what to do with it’s money be called fascism?
There you have it the economic situation in lay-man terms.
Now I often hear people tell me that Reagen is the reason we have today’s extremest Muslims. These radical muslims started hating the west, after WW2, when the UN and Israel were founded. With continue economical and military support to Israel and interventionism/imperialism policy’s in the area(Yes, Reagan and all presidents since WW2 were apart of this, which i disagree with, I don’t think he is perfect. Intervention=bad) Yes, terrorists are the scum of the earth and no it’s not our fault for their actions.
It seem when in argument about Reagan, people always bring up Bill Clinton. He was an average president in a great time, INTERNET BOOM!!! That is all i have to say about that subject. Oh yea, Clinton and Al Gore for that matter was quoted several times saying that the “Saddam problem” would need to be solved militarily.(I am no way for the war, but don’t call Bush a warmonger and then turn around and love Clinton.)
I don’t agree with Reagan with everything(interventionism mainly) but, he probably was our last true conservative president(besides Bush’s first term until he started spending liberal), now that we have rino’s running the GOP. This country was built on (modern sense)conservative views, its drifting the wrong way.
Rant over.
ps sorry for the grammatical errors it’s late and i did that quick
133 Kazorek
February 23rd, 2009 at 2:36 am
The Soviets and the US were rivals but that doesn’t mean that “we” defeated them. I’m shocked at everyones responses really. Do you think the Soviets were like “uh-oh we better be a democracy so they don’t kick our ass?” You guys act like its a universal truth that democracies are better communist states, like the Soviets secretly knew democracies were better. They were in trouble and they needed to figure out what they could do about it. It was their best option but it wasn’t their only one. We didn’t “win” shit except bragging rights because outlasted them.
And I have read Animal Farm and 1984, they were pretty much the story of Stalin’s Soviet Union (and great books). George Orwell was still a communist, those books aren’t about the evils of communism, they’re books about the evils of the Soviet leadership at the time.
134 Dev
February 23rd, 2009 at 2:57 am
man oh man do I miss the Gipper…we need such a man or women of his ilk right now in the Whitehouse and yet we end up with a stark raving looney socialist…oy….
Ronnie wasn’t perfect but he was the best President in the U.S. in modern times…I liked JFK and FDR also, warts and all…just to show I can be partisan…ha ha ha..
135 Kevin
February 23rd, 2009 at 4:09 am
k1w1taxi,
Bush condemned North Korea and what’s going on in Darfur. Bush even had the balls to chastise China when he arrived during the Olympics. Then again, it’s pretty obvious that Iraq was the biggest threat in the 90s and the early 21st century. We invaded once, and Clinton bombed it once during the 90s. North Korea wasn’t the biggest threat to the United States. The Commies there have reasons not to attack the United States and even bigger reasons not to attack us. The terrorists in the Middle East have no qualms blowing themselves up. Darfur is just a tragedy. Besides, I would bet that if Gore won the election in 2000, he would have invaded Iraq too anyway. It’s simply a no brainer. A country with a past of trying to build nuclear weapons and a country with the occasional terrorist living in its borders. I’ll admit it’s very difficult for me to come to terms with the deaths in Iraq, but I can’t help but feel that it was necessary at the end of the day.
Kazorek,
No, we didn’t directly defeat them. But the CIA did a fantastic job of weakening them and the United States surely did a great job competing against it, which forced a huge burden on its economy. Even more importantly, the United States constantly chastised its behavior internationally and when the Soviet Union started going into serious debt, held it over their head. There is of course the United States funding of anti-Communist regimes as well, especially Afghanistan. America played its part well during the Reagan years. And yes, there is without a doubt a ton of evidence showing that democracies are naturally better than Communist societies. Ahem… Gulag Archipelago, Black Book of Communism, etc.
136 Kalyan
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:07 am
theSKIN: Are you serious? Business taking loans that they couldn’t meet led to the current crisis? De-regulation had no role?
Come on. Why don’t you give us all a break! I am no fool to blame this crisis on Reagan but Reagan’s admin was a dud on economic policies. Why can’t conservatives just accept the truth?
By the way, i am a conservative. I think Reagan’s enduring legacy is pushing USSR over the cliff and ending Cold War. But he scores a zero on economics.
137 Kalyan
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:08 am
got carried way: I meant Why can’t REPUBLICANS just accept the truth? and not Why can’t conservatives just accept the truth?
138 xDr
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:28 am
Do you really think that any of the presidents here mentioned had anything to do with… anything actually! It’s like saying that Achmed the dead terrorist is a real terrorist! And a dead one too! He’s like a zombie terrorist!!! We are all doomed!!!
Go figure…
I just see this as blown opportunities to be great.
P.S.
Great comments! More democracy here than in the U.S.!
Greetings to Vespuccia!
139 Kalyan
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:30 am
theSKIN: Like it or not, militant Islamic fundamentalism started during Reagan era when US funded the opponents of their opponents.
So it started with Iraq. US supported Iraq in early 80s in it’s war against Iran. US supported the Afghan Mujahideen-Pak ISI in their war against USSR/Afghan puppet govt. The problem was fundamentalism (regardless of religion) is a frankenstein. it is easy to feed & grow one but difficult to starve & kill it.
So, post Iraq-Iran war, Saddam turned to Kuwait. Post-Afghanistan, ISI created Taliban. The seeds for both these disasters lay in the 1980s US funding but it isn’t just Reagan’s fault.
1. Bush Sr. had the golden opportunity to depose Saddam in 1991. He had the global mandate & the UN mandate. He instead was satisfied in just freeing Kuwait and watched quietly as Saddam massacred thousands in the basra rebellion. in fact you will be surprised to know that Dick Cheney in 1991 defended the decision of not going after Saddam as it wasn’t worth more casualties. We know now how many more (4500+)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gulf_War#The_end_of_active_hostilities
2. Taliban: Afghanistan is too difficult a terrain to address conventionally. When CIA funded Pak’s ISI to train mujahideen, little did they know that they were funding the core of today’s islamic fundamentalism. Taliban grew from the money that US poured into the region. Bush Sr. (in parts) and Clinton should take the blame in not stamping out Taliban as it was getting started.
In short, i am not a blind Reagan follower. As i stated earlier, he had more foreign affairs hits than misses. But what he missed, his successors missed bigger creating today’s environment. He takes minority blame for the 2 mistakes – Iraq & Taliban but these 2 mistakes is his successors, not his.
140 Callie
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:29 am
nice job rush! wonderful list for a wonderful man.
141 Phender_Bender
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:49 am
Last night, while shopping for egg white omelets, I discovered another secret agenda of Reagan. He had a third eye located between his thyroid gland and his tapetum lucidum. It is for watching Angry Beavers in 3D. Also his aunt had a secret love affair with Billy Corgan from the Smashing Pumpkins.
142 DiscHuker
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:01 am
there is no winning in a war, no matter how justified, because the general public only has their personal interests in mind.
kalyan: you said this “He instead was satisfied in just freeing Kuwait and watched quietly as Saddam massacred thousands in the basra rebellion” speaking of President Bush Sr. the exact opposite of this is what some were critizing President Bush Jr. for. they called him a war monger and having a personal vendetta and that he was “finishing his father’s war” for not simply freeing the iraqi people but hunting down saddam as well.
this is why a man like reagan was so admirable. look at quote #12 “A leader, once convinced a particular course of action is the right one, must have the determination to stick with it and be undaunted when the going gets rough.” when a plan is has been made, stick to it. don’t pander. be a leader and take us where your vision leads you.
143 Steve
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:36 am
Worst. President. Ever.
144 Joss
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:42 am
Favorite list of all time.
However, my personal favorite Reagan quote is missing – “I’ve noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.”
145 Kase
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:11 am
I don’t like Regan.
And the Iran-Contra affair makes me angry.
That is all.
-Kase
146 Cybogen
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:47 am
I always liked Regan. How about one of his most famous quotes said at the beginning of most of his sentences with a long pause….”WELL……..”
147 Dander
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Ahhhhh… the sound of empty heads sniping at each other’s party affiliation instead of recognizing the government and not the other party is the true enemy. The twanging of stupidity directed at each other instead of the country’s “leadership” is music to the ears of the government who wants a divided pool of slaves rule.
Good job, morons, keep focusing on the other party instead of (GASP!) thinking for yourselves and seeing that you are only doing what your party leadership wants its puppets to do.
Way to go, twits! Keep your ire focused on your fellow American citizen instead of on the American government who is financialy raping you and pillaging your children’s futures.
How proud you will be when you sit your child down and explain you were too busy hating each other to pay attention to the grwoing monster that has enslaved you both.
Yep, good job, America! Way to keep the dream alive!
148 theSKIN
February 23rd, 2009 at 12:48 pm
Kaylan, when i get home from school i will respond a little more detail.
How can you call yourself conservative, but u don’t agree with his economical decisions?
Yes, Reagan intervention did cause some terrorism, but ever since WW2 these muslims, hate us since we were meddling around in there biz. So every president since then, love or hate, has had a equal role in it.
So instead of blaming the people that made these poor financial decisions, you want to blame the government?
149 YogiBarrister
February 23rd, 2009 at 1:31 pm
theSKIN, you are blaming the people who took out loans they couldn’t afford to pay back. Reagan, both Bushes and Clinton deregulated our finacial institutions which allowed for the bad loans. But you are missing the point. Everybody knows full well why the Soviet Union collapsed. It was the war in Afghanistan. So what do the rightwing lunatics under Reagan do? They pay terrorists like Bin Laden to fight the Soviets, set up the Taliban after they leave, prop up Saddam Hussein to fight Iran, dismantle the energy independence programs set up by Carter. Flash forward twenty years. What do the rightwing lunatics under Bush do? They repeat every mistake made by the Soviets. It’s the wars stupid people! That’s why we are broke. In fact we haven’t even paid off the Vietnam War yet. Rightwing policies; the endless wars, destruction of the middle/working-class, and most importantly, having corporations regulate our government, instead of the other way around are the reasons why we are in such trouble, Stop blaming poor working class people for our problems.
150 evilk8
February 23rd, 2009 at 3:16 pm
Sounds crazy – but when i was a diplo-brat our family lived next to (for a short time) a retired producer from 20th Century Fox who said that he had been one of Regan’s speech writers. Old Mort Swartz.
151 Sam
February 23rd, 2009 at 3:21 pm
This is my favorite one from Reagan. Especially after readng so many retarded statements on this board
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they are ignorant, but that they know so much that isn’t so” – Ronald Reagan
152 Loose Cannon
February 23rd, 2009 at 3:46 pm
YogiBarrister – So what do the rightwing lunatics under Reagan do? They pay terrorists like Bin Laden to fight the Soviets..
Ahem!
Interview with Zbigniew Brzezinski,
President Jimmy Carter’s National Security Adviser
Question: The former director of the CIA, Robert Gates, stated in his memoirs ["From the Shadows"], that American intelligence services began to aid the Mujahadeen in Afghanistan 6 months before the Soviet intervention. In this period you were the national security adviser to President Carter. You therefore played a role in this affair. Is that correct?
Brzezinski: Yes. According to the official version of history, CIA aid to the Mujahadeen began during 1980, that is to say, after the Soviet army invaded Afghanistan, 24 Dec 1979. But the reality, secretly guarded until now, is completely otherwise Indeed, it was July 3, 1979 that President Carter signed the first directive for secret aid to the opponents of the pro-Soviet regime in Kabul. And that very day, I wrote a note to the president in which I explained to him that in my opinion this aid was going to induce a Soviet military intervention.
http://www.globalresearch.ca/articles/BRZ110A.html
As usual Yogi you never let the facts get in the way of a good tirade
153 Anon
February 23rd, 2009 at 5:19 pm
150. YogiBarrister
“It’s the wars stupid people! That’s why we are broke.”
Oh, Yogi, you’re so right. (Great?) Britain was rich before WW1 and less rich afterwards, but still rich. We started to beat shit out of Hitler when everyone else had either lost or not yet joined in, and we continued fully committed against the axis powers to the end. Despite a good measure of generosity from you folks, it cost us nearly everything. All but a slender reserve of gold, dollars and negotiables. We ended up almost stony broke. Austerity in victory was fucking miserable. I know, I lived through it. We finally worked our way through to comfort, but always had debt repayment (plus interest) problems until Maggie mortgaged off the whole of our not inconsiderable North Sea Oil wealth to cancel it. And we WON that friggin war!
154 k1w1taxi
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:08 pm
the SKIN (133)
Partially correct. Deregulation set the scene for the Greed to run amok. As Alan Greenspan has admitted he was wrong to allow as much deregulation as he did, but his defence is that he thought the banks had enough Survival Instinct to counteract their greed. He was wrong (his words).
However having got to this point you are seriously telling me that that the US Government should have just walked away from the entire situation and let the strongest survive? Utterly untenable in any democracy! How many banks and financial institutions have NOT needed Government help? You would allow the Death of GM and Chrysler (and if they went I suspect Ford would follow)? How many hundreds of thousands of unemployed and homeless are you prepared to put up with in the name of following your capitalist Dogma?
Fascist socialism? Socialist fascism? either way sounds like an oxymoron to me.
Cheers
Lee
155 OsiruS
February 23rd, 2009 at 6:34 pm
Reagan is a classic example of “Do as I say, not as I do”
156 Loose Cannon
February 23rd, 2009 at 7:31 pm
OsiruS – Reagan is a classic example of “Do as I say, not as I do”
As opposed to every other politician, who simply say ‘Do as I say.’
157 Tellit
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:03 pm
Ronald Reagan like other great presidents (Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt) was the right man for the hour. Divine providence has periodically rescued America from itself by providing great leaders at critical points in history. Reagan intuitively perceived that the misguided idealism of communism, socialism and liberalism, were threatening to shipwreck the world. He was the helmsman, who helped right the ship.
Ronald Reagan was clearly human, but even with his occasional foibles and frailties, he stood as a great spokesman, leader and president, to a country adrift in a sea of doubt. Reagan’s grand view of America as “a city set on a hill” helped a country regain faith in itself after the turmoil of the 1960s and 70s. Certainly Reagan was an actor, and he played the starring role of president in a manner worthy of an academy award.
Those blinded by their own bias, lack the objectivity to give Reagan his rightful place amongst America’s greatest. The words of those insignificant voices that are critical of Reagan will dissipate like the hot air that they are. But Ronald Reagan has taken his seat next to America’s great presidents, and his life, and his words, will live on in infamy and inspire Americans for generations to come. I am one American who is grateful to have lived in his time.
158 YogiBarrister
February 23rd, 2009 at 8:59 pm
Loose Cannon #153, so in other words, the CIA under Carter successfully prosecuted a war by proxy, one that led to the downfall of the Soviet Union. Why then do the dim bulbs on the right credit Reagan? I wasn’t against hiring Bin Laden to defeat the Soviets, it’s what Reagan did afterwards that screwed us. That’s when we started to cozy up to the Saudis, the folks who brought us 9/11 and who continue to support Bin Laden, even to this day.
Tellit # 158, God man get a freakin’ brain will you? You are the type of true believer that will have to lose everything before you wake up. Then of course you’ll blame Obama.
Before Reagan, America was the coolest country in the world. Now we are considered to be the douchiest. We have become country that caters to selfish, blustery oafs and lacks basic common sense. It all started with Reagan’s premise that the government is evil and all the power must be given to big business.
159 YogiBarrister
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:04 pm
Oh yeah Tellit, you completely ignored Reagan’s connection to the crack epidemic. He was directly responsible for it. That’s how he funded the Contras, that’s the deal he made with Central American thugs in exchange for waging war on the Sandinistas, workers’ rights activists and the Catholic Church. History will not be kind to Reagan once the FOIA docs are made public.
160 Loose Cannon
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:37 pm
YogiBarrister – I wasn’t against hiring Bin Laden to defeat the Soviets
You weren’t? Let’s review the tape, shall we?
-Yogi-just 9 comments up:-So what do the rightwing lunatics under Reagan do? They pay terrorists like Bin Laden to fight the Soviets…
Seriously?
And then you go on: the CIA under Carter successfully prosecuted a war by proxy, one that led to the downfall of the Soviet Union.
So, you really believe that the Afghanistan war is what brought the Soviet Union down? It had nothing to do with the first president in the history of the cold war to refuse to negotiate with an ‘Evil Empire’? Nothing what-so-ever to do with him standing at the Berlin Wall daring the Soviet leader to tear it down? Nothing at all to do with Reagan refusing to confine Strategic Defense Initiative research to the labs and walking away from the “the most far-reaching arms-control agreements in the history of the Cold War” in Reykjavik?
Yogi, seriously, get a clue.
161 Kalyan
February 23rd, 2009 at 9:59 pm
DiscHuker: Two wrongs don’t make a right.
Bush Sr. was wrong in not bringing a logical conclusion during Gulf war when he had the global mandate. Bush Jr acted like a cowboy, used 9/11 as an excuse to invade Iraq when he had no mandate and used flimsy evidence (at best) or lies (at worst) to attack Iraq.
In 2003, there was no reason for US to invade Iraq. Once UN resolution 1441 was adopted, Saddam knew that his bluff game was over and started cooperating with UN weapons inspector. In fact, the UN inspectors asked for more time that Bush wasn’t ready to give.
I agree with your statement on leaders not pandering and taking decisive action. Neither Bush Sr nor Bush Jr can claim to be leaders.
162 YogiBarrister
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:03 pm
Loose Cannon, are you completely daft? Of course the war in Afghanistan is what brought down the Soviet economy. The Vietnam War, and the current clusterf%@k in Iraq/Afganistan are what brought down our economy. War ruins the economy, even if you win.
BTW I love how rightwingers give Reagan or the Pope credit for all the hard lifting Lech Walesa did in Poland. Yeah, I know, he was a labor activist, we all know how terrible those people are, yet he did a whole lot more than Reagan. Now please tell me you were only joking when you said that they tore down the Berlin Wall because Reagan asked them to. Here’s the problem I have with you Loose Cannon, your stupidity is costing me a ton of money, not to mention all the US troops lives that you ruined, all the innocent civilians that you accidently murdered with your foolish lobbying.
163 Kalyan
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:09 pm
theSKIN: I am a conservative because i believe in free market principle only to the extent that companies have the right to enjoy their profit IF AND ONLY IF they are willing to endure the pain of losses.
Be it democrats or republicans, they have shown that they will walk the extra mile to ensure that corporate losses are nationalized and corporate profits are privatized. that isn’t free market principles. reagan & bush sr had S&L crisis; Clinton had LTCM meltdown; Bush had 2008 financial crisis – all of them spent public money to bail out private companies.
164 Nially Bob
February 23rd, 2009 at 10:40 pm
I am a political centrist who was not born within US territory but has a thorough knowledge of the societies politics and political history (Having studied politics) and in my opinion Reagan was a good President; likely not “the best” but certainly good. He had excellent leadership skills, capable staff assisting him and maintained himself during times of crisis. With this said, none of it was due to him being Republican, a President is a person, not a party, to state otherwise is simply irrational. It is due to this sentiment that I am often confused why there is such an elaborate following of Reagan amongst the Republican party.
Additionally, quote 14 is an extraordinarily subjective claim. Was Reagan aware of how many civilisations exist or have existed on earth, or for that matter is he aware of how he possesses a detailed knowledge of how humane, generous and compassionate each of these civilisations are/were? Bizarre.
165 rocknopera
February 23rd, 2009 at 11:37 pm
How trivial the arguments…
166 joanne
February 24th, 2009 at 4:57 am
is there a list of “funny or controversial silvio berlusconi quotes” in listverse? he’s so great you can easily search these on google but still i think it would be great on the site
167 Tellit
February 24th, 2009 at 5:41 am
#165 Nially Bob: “I am often confused why there is such an elaborate following of Reagan amongst the Republican party”.
Google “Reagan Democrat” and you will find he had a substantial following amongst democrats as well (that is – rational democrats).
168 jane
February 24th, 2009 at 9:16 am
He had some good writers; he delivered lines better than many post-TV presidents. The mistakes he made politically and financially are still shaking the world we live in. Remember his handlers became W’s handlers- and they were all trained by Nixon’s handlers. Superb. The whole party’s ethics are “remarkable.”
169 BoyhodshoMTop
February 24th, 2009 at 9:27 am
Thank you!
170 Dannycass
February 24th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
You should have added this to the list…
“I’ve noticed that everybody that is for abortion has already been born.” ~ Ronald Reagan, 22 September 1980.
171 SarahJ
February 24th, 2009 at 7:36 pm
I like this list – I quite liked Reagan too – though I never had to live in his country
172 Jubbs
February 24th, 2009 at 10:18 pm
JFrater: Sorry, took me a while to respond, i thought i had read one =D.
173 theSKIN
February 24th, 2009 at 11:15 pm
Yogi, how are you still arguing? You are a fucking joke. Do you even know what you are talking about? Let’s see here “left-wing politics” were in power when Vietnam escalated, the current wars didn’t start the recession, and you claim that wars hurt the economy, but the biggest growths in the American economy were after major wars.(Wars are bad, but they help the economy, we shouldn’t enter wars to help the economy.) You are so blind by your political affiliate that you don’t even look at facts. No, one can argue with you when you make up shit to confirm your argument.
You also confuse the hell out of me. You jump from one side to the other, which leads me to believe that you just spew what some liberal lune says.
BTW http://www.opencongress.org/bill/111-h25/show
Oh yea please pass. This will encourage people, rich to poor, to save money.
174 patriarch_fall
February 25th, 2009 at 2:30 am
good list, hehehe
175 lo
February 25th, 2009 at 4:43 am
from all of us vespuccians- if anyone could think of a name for us (that wasn’t an insult) actually related to the name of our country other than “americans” i’d be happy to use it.
but “unitarians” is taken (by a religion and a philosophy), “statesians” just doesn’t work, and “america” is the only other word of note in the name. we are uniquely disadvantaged by being the only country both share our name with our continent and share our continent with other countries (so, no australia doesn’t count.) in this one instance only, our seeming egotism and blithe disregard for our neighbors isn’t really our fault.
176 lo
February 25th, 2009 at 4:49 am
regardless of his politics and policies, these are good quotes, reagan had great writers.
but you forgot his best and most telling quote of all:
“My name is Ronald Reagan. What’s yours?”
(The boy said) “Mike Reagan. I’m your son.”
“Oh……, I didn’t recognize you.”
-after delivering remarks at the prep school graduation of his adopted son from his first marriage. the story is attributed to michael reagan himself.
177 YogiBarrister
February 25th, 2009 at 10:46 am
theSKIN said…”you claim that wars hurt the economy, but the biggest growths in the American economy were after major wars. Wars are bad, but they help the economy…”
What orifice did you pull that “fact” out of? There were recessions and inflation after every war, and that’s in the countries that win. Go back and do some research before you spout that crap.
Are you seriously suggesting that the Vietnam War helped our economy? That “leftwing” politics that got us into that mess? The war helped defense contractors at the expense of every other sector of our economy. Are you seriously suggesting that borrowing trillions of dollars from China and Saudi Arabia to fight two wars (not even counted in Bush’s deficit) is good for economy?
Your appalling ignorance is what has caused every war, every recession in history. You see my tiny thinking “friend”, the world is full of squirmy people like you. In every nation there are people saying and doing stupid shit that incites war. Wars are the root cause of all our economic woes and dim little f%@kwads like you will cause the extinction of the human race.
178 theSKIN
February 25th, 2009 at 12:41 pm
I’m done with you, your a moron, anyone that know anything about economical history, knows that Americans biggest growths were after major wars. You know nothing of economics, you do realize the defense sector is one of our biggest industries? You also claim that the wars started the recession, once again anyone that knows anything about the economy knows that’s not the truth.
You are whats wrong with this country, spewing out crap that is not corrected or even close to accurate. People eat that crap up because usually its coming out of some one that looks motivated and correct, but nope just an energized moron.
Do research before you make yourself look like a fool on this site once again.
179 Randall
February 25th, 2009 at 1:13 pm
theSKIN:
Sorry, twit-boy, but you’re the moron here—mainly because you weren’t content with arguing your point, but because you went on to make the asinine blunder of accusing another individual of “knowing nothing” about economics when clearly you know pretty much spit about it, yourself.
To begin with, it’s generally agreed, by most economists that I know of, that the Vietnam war helped to push the US economy over into recession or near-recession. Certainly most economists agree that the recent over-the-top spending on the war in Iraq has also done little good for our economy. Wars CAN economically ruin nations, theSKIN–this is well known. In fact, it’s the norm.
What’s arguably HELPED the US economy (but to what extent it helped is still debated) is the PEACETIME spending on certain military programs. But it isn’t simply a matter of throwing money at the military and voila, the economy grows. That’s not how it works.
You seem to be referring at least in part to the economic “boom” that the US economy experienced post WWII. But even here you have to be careful. Many economists (and history backs them up on this) have said that it wasn’t the massive spending on WWII that brought the US out of the Great Depression—because much of that spending was solely related to one-time military needs that were immediately and heavily scaled back with the close of the war—but rather the reinvigoration of the economy brought on by post-war desires for housing and retail goods, in combination with spending money pumped into the economy via government programs such as the GI Bill.
In fact, the signs at the time were that the economy was really not getting much better during the wartime period. If direct military spending was factored out, things were actually pretty static.
What has in fact rarely happened in US history is severe *damage* to the economy due to war. Iraq hasn’t helped–it’s diverted funding from all kinds of programs and left us with a huge deficit and even greater debt. That can’t be argued to be “good” or “helpful” by any standards.
In short, it’s a myth that “war breathes life into the economy” and that if we’re in economic trouble, all we have to do is start a war to get out of it. That’s a cutesy, but really quite inaccurate little myth.
180 Randall
February 25th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Yogibarrister:
Hate to disagree with you, Yogi, but in fact, no—the war in Afghanistan is not what brought the USSR down. It was a factor, yes, but not a terribly large one, and only one amongst many.
Who was more responsible for that? Well sorry, but surely not Lech Walesa. Walesa was a brave man with a lot of chutzpah, no doubt. But the graveyards of Eastern Europe and Russia (not to mention lots of unmarked graves) are replete with brave human beings with chutzpah. Secret police usually had no problem dealing with such guys.
There were basically three people who were “responsible” in a sense for the fall of the Soviet Union—if any individual human beings can be said to be “responsible” (it really had more to do with large, politico/economic factors that were going on for years). One was Pope John Paul II. Another was Mikhail Gorbachev. And the last was Ronald Reagan. Of the three I’d say Reagan had the least to do with it. Yes, the massive military spending during Reagan’s administration helped push the USSR over the edge, but more is made of that than the facts truly warrant.
181 YogiBarrister
February 25th, 2009 at 2:06 pm
theSKIN said…”I’m done with you, your a moron”
182 YogiBarrister
February 25th, 2009 at 2:21 pm
Randall, but they didn’t kill Walesa, and the strikes he led certainly impacted the Soviets influence in Eastern Europe. Please elaborate on why you think Pope Paul II was more important. Is it because Poland is a Catholic nation and was more inclined to follow him over a union organizer? That having a pope from an Eastern Bloc united Catholics from around the world in opposing Soviet hegemony?
The US did have a recession immediately following WWII. It’s only because the rest of the world was so devastated by it that we seemed to be doing well. We had recessions after WWI, The Korean War, the Vietnam War, Desert Storm, and of course the two-headed folly that we are engaged in now.
183 Randall
February 25th, 2009 at 2:47 pm
YogiBarrister:
It’s been argued that a great crackdown on the Solidarity movement did NOT occur BECAUSE of the fact that John Paul II (you incorrectly referred to him as Paul II, which is a different pope) was pope at the time. The fact is, Yogi, that the USSR DID try to kill the Pope–so they did, obviously, view him as the greater threat–and a great enough threat to actually attempt an assassination of THE POPE, which is not something even the commies would have done lightly.
Did he “unite” Catholics against the USSR? To some extent, sure. But he was more than symbolic. Through some direct action, but mainly through words and diplomacy, he stood as an unassailable figure that drew a line of demarcation between west and east on the issue of the freedom of the Eastern Bloc nations. He was also a voice for human rights in all communist countries, and drew the world’s attention on party activities in those countries. Totalitarianism can’t operate in harsh light; it needs diversion, subterfuge and silence within which to operate. John Paul brought attention to first Poland and then all of Eastern Europe–and partly through his own direct desire to do so. In the Stalinist era this might not have made much difference. But in the more open era of detente, perestroika and glasnost, he was definitely a force that caused trouble for the continuation of Soviet policy, both in political AND economic terms.
184 Dan
February 25th, 2009 at 10:21 pm
I know Regan is a polarizing figure, but you can not deny some of these quotes are very insightful and relevant.
Just because a man may or may not have done things you agree/disagree with is no reason to say they never had wisdom, some of my favorite quotes are from philosophers I disagree with.
Oh, and my personal favorite Regan quote: “Trust, but verify”
185 Nially Bob
February 26th, 2009 at 1:24 am
#168 Tellit: Thank you for the insight but it’s not so much his following that is strange to me but how overwhelmingly loyal and stringent said following is. Many republicans almost appear to consider Reagan ‘untouchable’ in a sense and, as you stated, this is also true of some groups of democrats.
186 Bobby
February 26th, 2009 at 2:34 pm
He had good speach writers.
187 Tellit
February 26th, 2009 at 3:57 pm
Ronald Reagan was a a great orator and also a prolific writer, having written over 10000 letters in his lifetime. Anyone who would take the time to read a few of of the letters that he wrote in his own handwriting, or read his published personal diary that was written during his years as president, might not give so much of the credit to his speech writers. Reagan definitely had speech writers as all presidents do, but he crafted many of his best speeches or at the very least, edited them to his own liking.
188 steelers
February 27th, 2009 at 7:14 pm
reagan stank
189 adpr08
February 28th, 2009 at 10:46 pm
Nothing is more polarizing than a successful Republican.
190 segue
March 1st, 2009 at 6:30 am
190. adpr08: Nothing is more polarizing than a successful Republican.
****
There is an enormous difference between a popular man and a successful man. Reagan was the former, but never the later.
191 T.C
March 1st, 2009 at 6:48 am
What a complete arse the man was….
192 adpr08
March 1st, 2009 at 3:59 pm
He was popular because of his accomplishments. Like all facts it doesn’t require someone’s acceptance to be true.
193 Cybogen
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:50 am
RONALD REAGAN: “Well….”
194 professor funky
March 2nd, 2009 at 5:20 pm
Reagan was a fundamentally decent and simple man, a perfect combination for the selfish interests that used and exploited him for their own benefit. His long list of morally questionable actions are just a symbol of this, as is the fanatical anti-communism that has been used to stifle dissent since WWII. Whether it’s his attempt to crush the Sandinistas, his support of the Contras, Irangate and continued support of dicatators world wide, or the beginning of the disastrous economic policies that are bearing fruit today on Wall Street – it’s clear he was completely absorbed by the ideology of money and national security as justifying even the worst selfishness and support for even the most horrific murderers abroad. Like Bush, he just didn’t have the character and guile to counter these dark forces and we are now all paying the price.
195 adpr08
March 2nd, 2009 at 7:51 pm
That is only a list of your interpretation of events.What IS clear is enough people agreed with Reagan and approved of him that when he ran the second time he carried every state but one. We elect our leaders to do what we want them to do. A huge part of Regan’s success (and long lasting popularity)came from doing what the people wanted and not what self important zealot type of liberals who always think they know better told him to do. If your ego is so inflated that democracy is not good enough for you there is nothing stopping you from leaving. I’m sorry, I just can’t stand to see a good man libeled like that.
You are entitled to your opinion but no one is required to to accept your twisted interpretations as fact.
196 segue
March 2nd, 2009 at 9:28 pm
adpr08, nothing is libel if it’s true. Why don’t you research some of the accusations and see for yourself?
And your ridiculous statement that if we don’t like democracy (why? because we don’t like Reagan? that doesn’t even make sense. Have you ever read The Bill of Rights? The Declaration of Independence? Obviously not, or if you have you haven’t understood either document) we can leave, is spurious at best, at worst, the product of a muddle-headed brain, an inability to think logically.
I’m not going to give you any clues, not one. I’m not going to make your job easier. You have made the absurd statements, the out and out loopiness of logic.
No, adpr08, the ball is in your court. Discover what he did to the mental health system while he was gov. of CA., what he tried to do to the state Parks system, then go on to his miserable two-term presidency. RESEARCH! Don’t accept mommy and daddy’s word for it.
197 Kevin
March 3rd, 2009 at 8:30 pm
Professor Funky,
I think, in light of Communism’s terrible crimes, it was more than okay for there to be an anti-Communism movement. As for Reagan’s policies causing the “mess we’re in today”, that is INCREDIBLY inaccurate. I’ll point out this article, which you’ll notice was written during the Clinton administration for some proof:
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9C0DE7DB153EF933A0575AC0A96F958260&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=1
Really, much of the blame for the current crisis lay at the feet of the Federal Reserve, and Reagan did NOTHING significant during his administration to somehow unhinge Wall Street or the housing market. As for Iran-Contra, there seems to be ample proof that he knew nothing of the affair, but think of it whatever you want as I know you’ll never question your current convictions anyway. As for your assertion that he didn’t care about human rights, at least a portion of the credit needs to go to Reagan for bringing the Cold War and Soviet totalitarianism to an end. Does that not count for something? KGB documents show the Soviets were incredibly afraid of Reagan and were even more incredibly afraid of the “Star Wars” program which sent them into a tizzy of spending – much as Russia is afraid of the missile defense today.
Finally, you throw in a jab at Bush (no surprise). I find it interesting that Bush overthrows the Taliban and Saddam Hussein, but you criticize Reagan for not doing enough against dictators and for supporting murderers abroad. Where is the logic in that? I’ll bet you criticize Bush for invading Iraq, even if the alternative was to go to bed at night with Saddam Hussein as dictator of nearly 20 million Muslims. But nevermind that kind of logic or any facts, there are some conservatives to bash! I hear a lot of talk about the abuse of human rights in the world, but it seems to me that conservatives like Reagan or Bush were the only ones to do something about it recently.
198 professor funky
March 6th, 2009 at 10:35 am
A major problem with such discussions is their tendency to degenerate into personal attacks, name calling and ideological labeling. I believe I may have much to learn from those who disagree with me and struggle to overcome the discomfort from having my own convictions tested. I try to show utmost respect to those who provide facts and good arguments, whatever their political perspective. If you can’t do this, I have no time for you.
As far as the replies to my comments on Reagan:
1. The fact that so many people approved of Reagan is a very poor test of the ethics of his administration. Are we so foolish as to think the people are always right? Are always fully informed? Are always free of prejudice and invulnerable to propaganda and manipulation? To me, it is quite clear that people often don’t know what is going on, are not exposed to a fair hearing of the full range of views and are indeed manipulated by those in economic, political and media. That said, I do believe in democracy and in the ultimate wisdom of the people when they have access and inclination to discover the truth. In short, as Lincoln, said, “…you can’t fool all the people all the time”. If you believe this is elitist, so be it.
2. Anti-Communism movement.
Communism has committed great crimes and deserves to be opposed, as do all anti-democratic movements. But I don’t agree that America or anyone else has the right to overthrow movements that have achieved power through genuine mass support and that have improved the lives of their people. Certainly, for me, the brutal war against the Nicaraguan Sandinista was immoral, as was the overthrow of the elected Allende government in Chile in the 1970s. American actions there should have applied the standards of American democracy: respect for the will of the people and non-military pressure to maintain free press and other institutions of democracy. I would encourage anyone interested to look beyond the label of “communism” and look at the history, background, motives, goals and character of the people and the movements that came into power in these two examples. Judge for yourself, after examining these facts and tell me whether any honest person can say that these movements and their leaders did not represent a positive change for their people.
I would add that the label “communist” in America has become a synonym for “anti-American”, “anti-freedom” etc… and thoroughly associated with the old Soviet Union. I don’t think this is a justified connection and this association has had a terrible effect in US foreign policy and in silencing dissent at home. I think many of the best artists and minds of America in the 50s and even until now were silenced because of their communist sympathies. In my mind, this is a familiar process of stifling the conscience of the nation.
3. Reagan and Financial Crisis
I defer to your knowledge about the specific financial measures undertaken during the Reagan years and its part of the blame for our present mess. I also agree that Clinton and others may bear some of the blame. May I point out, however, that the general philosophy of de-regulation as the road to economic properity has been identified as one reason for our current problems. People also seem to have forgotten the Savings and Loans fiasco which also followed a policy of de-regulation and appears today as an early warning (unfortunately ignored) of things to come.
4. Reagan and Human Rights
I think Reagan did care about human rights. And I do give him some credit for the collapse of Communism. Unfortunately, though this was a selective caring. Need we recall the anti-democratic forces that have long been supported by the US in the regions I mentioned above, not to mention in the Middle East and elsewhere in the world? A consistent policy would oppose all antidemocratic regimes imposing their power without the consent of the people.
Moreover, the means to overthrow communism you point out, Star Wars and huge military spending with attending debt combined with deregulation may turn out to spell our own demise as well!
Yes, “I throw in a jab” at Bush for the Iraq invasion and I did oppose the invasion. But why not inquire about how Hussein came to power in the first place? And how he was maintained there? Why not examine how the Taliban became the pre-eminent power in Afghanistan? The answer is partly through American and western support. Sadam’s power and that of other antidemocratic forces might have been undermined by conserted effort via sanctions and collaboration with other democratic states. Better yet, by freeing America from its dependence on Sadam’s source of strength: oil. If this is not enough, will you now still defend a President who made such a momentous decision as war based on lies?
Respectfully yours,
pf…
199 Kevin
March 6th, 2009 at 11:42 am
Professor Funky,
I assume you are referring to my response. I don’t remember being particularly insulting in any way, but I apologize if I offended you.
1. I never said Reagan was a good president because he was popular. I’ll assume you were responding to the guy a couple comments before me.
2. I won’t argue that anti-Communism, on some occasions, didn’t go too far at home- but it is a human endeavor so what do you expect? Regardless, I do agree that some anti-Communism crusades went too far abroad. Then again, I always wonder how the people of say South Korea think of our anti-Communism movement.
As for your assertion about Communism being un-American, it is. If I threw in a hat all those countries that were Communist and asked you to pick a country out, chances are that society was ravaged by Communism. If not Stalinism, then how about Maoism? How about Pol Pot? Kim-Jung Ill? Fidel? Nearly every Communist country has been a slaughterhouse and for anyone to try to establish such a dumb and terrible system here is not an American. I find it telling that groups like the Weatherman, when having their Communist wet dreams, contemplated killing tens of millions of Americans that didn’t agree with them during the revolution. Communism is the most anti-democratic system ever devised by man and is thus un-American. I’m sure that an American Fascist club or something to that effect should be considered un-American as well, and Communism was much worse than Fascism when you count the body bags.
3. Some unintelligent de-regulation is likely to lead to problems, but the same goes for regulation. You originally inferred that Reagan was to blame for this mess and left his name alone – now you include Clinton and others. Reagan has been out of office for over twenty years. The financial crisis did not come to peak until 2008. So in twenty years time, one might think we would have seen more problems earlier, but we didn’t. Maybe that’s because Reagan’s share of the blame is negligible? What deregulation did Reagan sign into law that caused this exactly?
Meanwhile, the Federal Reserve was printing money nonstop and handing out loans like crazy during the Clinton administration and early Bush years. The Federal Reserve has no oversight, absolutely none. They control the flow of money and control how likely banks are to give out loans. Every bank in the United States takes their cue from this organization and they may do as they wish with the monetary supply without any questions from the Federal government. And to boot, their strategy of deflating the money supply helped to lead to the Great Depression. Any central authority with that much power is bound to make mistakes, which they made many of. I don’t see how anyone couldn’t put an overwhelming majority of blame on the FR. It was they who deregulated the market by giving out loans like there was no tomorrow.
4. In a perfect world, the United States wouldn’t support non-democratic regimes. In the real world, they have to. Should we not have allied with Soviet Russia during WWII? But Saddam Hussein and the Taliban were not put into office by Americans or American dollars. There were times when our country aided these people when they saw fit, but they found power basically through their own means and popularity, much like Hamas did. The Taliban gained power by consistently opposing warlords in Afghanistan. Saddam found power by helping to overthrow a corrupt government that was very unpopular. And he maintained power throughout the 90s despite being invaded by NATO troops, and being bombed under Clinton. Throughout the 90s, he was our punching bag so I don’t think he stayed in power simply because we wanted him to considering there was a long period when we didn’t want him in power – but there he was anyway.
As for your assertion that our dependence on oil allowed Saddam to stay in power, this is nonsense. Most of our oil comes from Mexico and Canada, approx. 80%. We did buy some of Saddam’s oil surely, but I’m sure Russia or some Western nation would have if we didn’t. It’s easy to say that Western nations are to blame for this then, but oil is needed for our economies. When the choices is between total societal collapse versus supporting countries in the Middle East, it’s fairly obvious what you have to do.
Finally, your comment that Bush was a liar. Bush had the backing of several intelligence agencies at home, as well as those in Britain and Russia. Clinton and company were espousing the same rhetoric about WMDs circa 2001 and long before that. Clinton went so far as to bomb Iraq. Saddam was a consistent threat to the world, the Middle East, and his own people. We were mistaken, but we were not liars. And even despite our past history with Saddam, that still doesn’t change that we just recently freed 20 million Muslims in Iraq and 20 million in Afghanistan. If that’s not a check in the human rights chart, I don’t know what is.
So, yet again, I have to ask you: What about Bush? You support human rights but oppose the freeing of 20 million people? Human rights talk is mostly empty. It never wants to put the chips on the table, just wants to talk about what “we should have done”. We have been not trading with Cuba for how long, yet Fidel is still around. The idea that economic sanctions will always take down someone in power is absurd. The United States was constantly punishing Saddam for his behavior through economic sanctions. Regardless, even if Britain and the U.S. stopped trading with him, I’m sure France and Russia would just pick up our slack anyway. Realistically, if you wanted to free the people of Iraq you had to invade. So either A) You support human rights and support Bush’s actions or B) Human rights are important but they don’t trump more pragmatic. Whatever your choice, just be honest about it and don’t wrap up your rhetoric with “human rights”.
200 Professor Funky
March 7th, 2009 at 10:59 am
Hello Kevin,
2. As far as communism goes, one should distinguish between the theory and the practice and, as mentioned before, be careful not to lump together what should be also be distinguished. In practice, I agree that Soviet, Chinese and other communist regimes were as horrific as you mention. I don’t, however, believe that all “communist” movements or movements labeled that way by its enemies were the same. The examples I gave before of Nicaraguan Sandinistas and Allende’s Chile are two cases in point that were not anti-democratic.
As far as the actual theory or ideas of commmunism go, say in Karl Marx or Engels, these seem to me to be in accord with democracy. Marx did not want to abolish the individual freedoms we enjoy and neither, really, did he see the state control of everything and everyone as the ideal, unlike what many people believe. Indeed, the ultimate goal, was to abolish the state entirely. He did see the private control of the sources of wealth (“means of production” like factories, banks, etc…) as an evil that caused inequality, and limited freedom, etc… Some, like Milton Freedman think that this is incompatible with democracy and freedom. But that is a huge issue on its own. For Marx, however, economic control represented the next step of the people acquiring economic rights, now that capitalism had helped establish some degree of political rights. In short, my reading of what these writers said is that communism is not inherently anti-democratic and I don’t think it is right to judge communism entirely on what its perverters did.
So, as far as ideas go, I don’t agree with the easy equation of fascism and communism that people often make. Even at the level of ideas, fascism never did espouse freedom at all and believed conquering and exploiting others was the way to go. Let’s also recall that the greatest enemeies of Nazism and fascism during the war were communists. This, however, is another huge topic and I’m not sure people in the US are willing or able to give a fair hearing to the ideas mentioned. In Europe and elsewhere, both socialist and communist movements have long existed (in the former case, often come to power) and are not seen as a huge threat to the idea of freedom.
Is communism “un-American”? Well, what is America? If it’s defined as equivalent to the untrammeled rule of the “free enterprise system” (a la Milton Friedman) then yes, it is “un-American”. If America is defined as something more, like the ideals of liberty, equality, etc… there might be some overlap with communist ideals as I’ve intepreted them here. Let’s remember, the US also had a fairly sizeable socialist, communist and labour movement before WWII. That viewpoint, as I mentioned, has been silenced since then and with it, an important challenge to the ruling ideas along with it. My own view is that all democratically based ideas deserve a fair hearing, including democratic forms of communism and socialism. The more so, since they do provide a genuine challenge to ruling orthodoxy. To me, this co-existence of a wider range of views than we now have is the mark of a healthier democracy.
Again, I invite people to look at the history and basic philosophy of the ideas mentioned here and see for themselves. However, I don’t believe people are really ready or willing to undertake such a radical reappraisal, regardless of Newsweek’s recent issue entitled “We Are All Socialists Now”! Let’s remember who’s been in power in America and how thay make it easy to spot the crimes of others – and easier still to look away from our own.
3. Obviously, unintelligent policies of any sort could result in disaster and I agree that many administrations contributed to our present financial crisis. But I harp on Reagan (and include Thatcher in England) as politicians most ideologically committed to and influential in establishing the policy of deregulation. As for specific incidents, I mentioned the Savings & Loans fiasco. Specifically, I refer you to the The Garn-St. Germain Depository Institutions Act of 1982. This was one of the acts that deregulated the thrifts and is seen by most economists as a major contributor to the S & L breakdown in the 80s. Reading the story here is almost like a dress rehearsal for our current problems. Again, though, I accept that other culprits besides Reagan are to blame. But Reagan does deserve special mention because of his influential ideological role.
4. I’m afraid we see things quite differently as far as the US actions in the world go. Of course countries may have to forge alliances with distasteful regimes at times, especially in wartime coallitions. But this is quite different from consistent policies in peacetime which maintain corrupt and authoritarian regimes and overthrow popular ones that promise their people a measure of justice and relief from economic and political oppression. The latter has been the policy of the US since the turn of the 20th century (1900s) in Latin America, Africa and other parts of the world. I repeat again that almost all of the regimes in power today in the Middle East who have caused America and others such grief, have been placed into power by American policies and actions, sometimes in concert with other western nations. This is what the CIA calls “blowback”, I believe. I do not say that they are the sole culprits – I just say they have been influential and instrumental at key times. A quick run down:
1. Saudi Arabia from whence the radical Wahabist strain of Islamic terrorist developed: Supported (to this day) by British and US actions and policies
2. Iran – Ayatollah’s rule: A reaction to the authoritarian policies of the Shah and previous quashing of democratic and constitutianal secular government of Bani Sadr.
3. Iraq: Sadam Hussein supported by US in plot to kill his predecessor in 1959. After his accession to power he is supported by US as anti-communist and then in war against Iran.
Of course, you should check on these facts and the wider history yourself. My own view is that the US has not acted very differently from other empires throughout history, though checked to some degree by its own anti-colonial history, tradition of freedom and opposition groups within the US.
As for Bush and lying. Here I really am puzzled by you. I think it’s quite clear that Bush was not at all looking for accurate assessment of risk of WMD by his intelligence. He repeatedly ignored many voices within the Pentagon and intelligence agencies, not to mention UN weapons inspectors, who said Sadam no longer had a WMD program. When his aides repeatedly came to him telling him there was no connection between the 9/11 terrorists and Iraq, he sent them back until he got the answer he wanted. Need I also remind you of the Valerie Plame (sp.?) affair? A rather shocking case of treason, if ever there was one and I am not at all convinced perpetrated by only minor White House officials.
But I again encourage you to examine the record for yourself since this is already quite long and each topic deserves a much fuller treatment. I don’t think much of what I’ve said will convince you! But I may be mistaken – and perhaps you’ll at least be encouraged to examine the record with fresh eyes.
…pf
201 Kevin
March 11th, 2009 at 8:37 pm
Professor Funky,
Thanks for the response. Very well-written and well-said, although I disagree on a number of points.
1. Distinguishing between the theory and practice is almost pointless. An overwhelming majority of the time, Communist societies turn into hell on earth. Communism has piled up more body bags than any other system ever. Generally though, even in theory, Communism requires some liberties to be restricted.
The best example I can think of that demonstrates this is socialized medicine. If the state is paying for your healthcare, then the state has an interest in you not smoking or drinking or even eating junk food (see NY soda tax). The state may even want to ban these things, and what really stops them? At least with a health plan you can switch over to another one. A state can use physical force, in addition to taxing you, to get what they want. Another example is land ownership. With the rule of law in capitalism, land is used in whatever way the owner wants. In Communism, it is either the state or democratic rule (which equates into majority rule, which will almost always mean a tyranny by the majority – mob rule). This will inevitably turn into the state taking over land when it sees fit, or nationalizing banks when it becomes popular for some reason (for the greater good apparently). Communism is either a rule by the state or a rule by the majority, which inevitably means tyranny will happen no matter how you institute Communism. Individual liberty is crushed. Either majority rule rules or the state does, which means the “rule of man” instead of the “rule of law”. This is the antithesis to America. This country was clearly founded on liberty and capitalist principles, because the two are synonymous.
As for those occasional societies that adopt socialist policies/Communist rhetoric but don’t institute massive Gulag systems, they are bound to go bankrupt anyway along with restricting liberty. Having total economic control over industries from the center typically leads to bureaucrats making bad decisions and never accurately anticipating the needs of consumers. This is why even the Soviet Union fell, despite controlling an unbelievably vast amount of resources. So, in other words, Communism restricts freedoms no matter what because individuals mean nothing in the face of the majority/state and it makes little economic sense. And, to boot, communist intellectuals typically become monsters when they attain unlimited power. There is simply no way to remotely even equate communism with freedom, unless human nature was malleable and everyone stopped caring about themselves and only about others – but that’s not going to happen.
To put it simply, when everyone’s income goes towards helping everyone else, we all have a say in how those people should live, which is the opposite of liberty. If a person’s lifestyle is draining the resources of government-run programs, then that lifestyle should be changed. America has always been about liberty: the freedom to do what you want with your life. Communism’s concentration on everyone ensures that everyone has to follow certain rules or else the system will collapse. Socialized medicine couldn’t work if people drank and smoked to an excess, driving up the cost of health care. Communism cannot work unless behaviors are limited somehow. That’s not America.
2. I still maintain that Reagan had little to nothing to do with the housing crisis as the Federal Reserve under Greenspan had an unbelievably easy money policy that allowed businesses to run wild. The Federal Reserve always had this ability, but Greenspan experimented a bit too much. I don’t think we’re gonna see eye to eye on this too much anyway – the exact causes of the current housing crisis aren’t exactly agreed upon by economists, although I haven’t heard Reagan come up once in the mainstream discussion.
3. America is the leader of the world militarily and economically. It has thus had its hand in nearly everything since WWII because it has had to. That’s not to say that America needs to intervene in everything, but that it must occasionally throw its support behind certain countries when it sees fit. This is because if we’re not doing it, then China would be doing it, or the Russians, or someone else.
I agree that the CIA has made some dumb moves but I highly disagree with the idea that our past policies put us in the mess we’re in today. I won’t say that certain CIA policies helped us, but CIA policies did not create or popularize the current Islamic fundamentalism movements. The entire Middle East is falling under the shadow of a religion that has never been moderate, nor asked it follows to be peaceful. Not ONE major school of Islam in the Middle East condemns jihad. Some Muslims in Britain and France OPENLY support jihadist tactics. I would also note that the most popular books in the Middle East, besides the Koran, Hadith, etc., are “Mein Kampf” and “The Protocols of the Elders of Zion”. There are some countries in the Middle East where some 80% of Muslims believe that 9/11 was committed by Jews in cooperation with the U.S. Gov’t (Egypt, for example). We’re not dealing with logical people here. The only places where moderate Muslims exist are places like America and other mostly Christian societies, because they are surrounded by people and cultures that advocate peace. I won’t say that Islam is always a bad religion, but left to its own devices, the belief system is very harmful. Technically, killing Christians and Jews is required of the faith. Maybe our policies pushed some people to embrace the religion further, but it’s very clear that this movement has had its momentum for centuries. Only now though have militant Muslims gained enough power in the world for the West to hear. Only on 9/11 did Americans start to listen.
4. I find it interesting that Iraq had looked to trade with Niger, who mostly does nothing but export uranium. I also find it interesting that Saddam had tried to build nuclear weapons before. Furthermore, Saddam was a madman that harbored terrorists in his country and massacred his own people with biological weapons. He had no moral barrier to helping terrorists bent on destroying America and surely none to acquiring and selling nuclear weapons. He was a perennial threat to world peace. And imagine if Iraq and Iran were competing for nuclear “energy” right now.
I hate war as much as anyone else and it’s fairly obvious that many unfortunate things have come out of Iraq. But in the age of nuclear weapons, America cannot simply stand around and wait. In the age of Washington, such a policy made sense because the British or Spanish could only do so much damage before the defenses were up. It is generally a conservative principle to not start wars unless you are attacked first. You simply cannot remake the world in your own image and cannot destroy every threat. That is why most of the wars of the 20th century happened under liberal presidents, who tend to try and save the world: Wilson, FDR, Truman, and Johnson. However, this age is a lot different. The people who run places like Iran are Islamic fundamentalists who don’t care if their country is wiped away in a nuclear Holocaust, provided they first can take out Israel or an America city. The Soviets had a reason not to nuke us: they didn’t believe in an afterlife and didn’t see us as necessarily evil, just misinformed. The extremist Muslims see us as evil and it is their job to kill us. And if one nuclear bomb should go off somewhere in this country, the economy would almost surely collapse immediately and go a long way in ending America. To me, either the intelligence was bad on Iraq or the Saddam destroyed the evidence before the invasion. Otherwise, America had no use invading Iraq. It’s cost us billions and will probably cost us many more in the future. We haven’t gotten any oil out of there and all the crap about Bush taking away our civil liberties and turning into Hitler were clearly wrong. The man left office and your guy (I’m assuming) is in. And I’m sure you might generally agree that America had no use in taking Iraq’s oil through force when it not only would have cost them more, but we get most of our oil from outside the Middle East anyway. So if we didn’t get oil out of there, and Bush didn’t have some secret plan for the Middle East, I don’t see why the U.S. Government invaded unless there was some legitimate reason. Although Saddam wasn’t a crazy Islamic fundamentalist, he was still dedicated to hurting his enemies and had no moral qualms with a bomb or two going off somewhere in America. At worst, the war in Iraq has turned into a mission to bring democracy to a previous dictatorship that was a constant threat. I won’t argue that it’s right, but it is what it is.
202 k1w1taxi
March 12th, 2009 at 6:25 pm
Kevin,
I would laugh if it wasn’t so sad that you genuinely believe this.
Firstly what you call Capitalist Liberty is in fact correctly speaking Anarchy. And most of your arguments are quite poor.
You use socialized medicine as an example of how the state can control you. You cited the NY soda tax. Is NY a socialized Medicine (SM) state? California is I am pretty sure not an SM state yet they have the most severe controls on smoking in the US. And as bad as any foreign SM state. And what is the alternative to SM? Every man for himself? Seems to be working real well in the US. NOT.
*With the rule of law in capitalism, land is used in whatever way the owner wants.*
So I take it you have no problems living next to a company that intoxicates? (makes toxic) both the land and air all around it? I can pipe whatever waste liquid I create into the handy little stream running through my property. I’m pretty sure we have been through that scenario before, and we have all decided that it is wrong.
*Individual liberty is crushed. Either majority rule rules or the state does, which means the “rule of man” instead of the “rule of law”. *
Actually sounds exactly like most of US history. Also known as the biggest gun wins.
*As for those occasional societies that adopt socialist policies/Communist rhetoric but don’t institute massive Gulag systems, they are bound to go bankrupt anyway along with restricting liberty.*
Unlike the wonderfully healthy state of the US economy under the lax unregulated state created by Greenspan and co.
*the Federal Reserve under Greenspan had an unbelievably easy money policy that allowed businesses to run wild. The Federal Reserve always had this ability, but Greenspan experimented a bit too much*
Maybe so but it wasn’t Greenspan than decided that chasing short term wealth at the expense of the companies long term survival was good business practice. That was entirely the fault of your much vaunted Capitalists.
*He was a perennial threat to world peace.*
Sheer Bollocks. Saddam was nothing more than Piss and Wind on the International scale. He was only a threat to his own people and his near neighbours. He certainly presented less of a menace to World Peace than North Korea, Iran and even Israel. None of whom GWB felt the need to invade, despite the fact all three have or are further advanced towards a nuclear capability. As for the spurious justification that 20 million Iraqis now have more freedom and democracy. I am sure the people of North Korea, Darfur, or Somalia would love someone to come in and give it to them. Oops But The the US tried that in Somalia didn’t they?
*But in the age of nuclear weapons, America cannot simply stand around and wait.*
It is just that with regard to Iran and North Korea, and Pakistan certainly doesn’t seem the most stable of Nuclear Capable societies at the moment yet the US sees no need to invade there.
Cheers
Lee
203 Kevin
March 12th, 2009 at 8:42 pm
I used the example of socialized medicine because it illustrates why socialism and communism are synonymous with government control. No, the states of NY and California don’t fully have socialized medicine (yet), but I was just illustrating a point. It is not unreasonable to think that the Federal government wouldn’t go so far as to ban cigarettes if a gov’t run health care system is taxed too much by smokers. From there on, the government has a right to socially engineer people’s lifestyles.
“So I take it you have no problems living next to a company that intoxicates? (makes toxic) both the land and air all around it? I can pipe whatever waste liquid I create into the handy little stream running through my property. I’m pretty sure we have been through that scenario before, and we have all decided that it is wrong.”
Huh? I was illustrating a point about the rule of law. Of course there needs to be government regulation, but the system of private property ensures the “rule of law” and that was my only point. If the government owns everything, they can bulldoze your house if they wish. I am not against government regulation nor am I against the government owning certain utilities and lands (the reservoir system for example), just excessive government regulation. The idea of liberty is that a person can do what he wishes provided it does not hurt someone else. So your example of waste running into a stream is ridiculous: that clearly would infringe on other people’s rights to clean drinking water. Ultimately I was making the point that Communism automatically restricts liberty excessively (I was making this argument to the person before me, Professor Funky). There will always be some restrictions on liberty in a society, but the point of America is limited government. By the way, you’ve been through that scenario before? Where do you live exactly?
“Actually sounds exactly like most of US history. Also known as the biggest gun wins.”
And where exactly are you from? Do you come from a country that has no violence in its history? Every country has violence in their history, but America has generally avoided the imperialist urge that so many European countries have fallen spell under. American foreign policy and domestic policy hasn’t been perfect, but then again I was comparing America to the Soviet Union and China, where I think America clearly wins and more closely follows the rule of law.
“Unlike the wonderfully healthy state of the US economy under the lax unregulated state created by Greenspan and co…Maybe so but it wasn’t Greenspan than decided that chasing short term wealth at the expense of the companies long term survival was good business practice. That was entirely the fault of your much vaunted Capitalists.”
The Federal Reserve is a central control that undermines the free market. Under a real free market system, the current crises would have never happened. That’s my point. Just because you’re a capitalist (that is a business owner) doesn’t mean that you’ll act like one. For example, a company like GM would love if the U.S. Government gave them a monopoly on making cars. But alas, the Federal Reserve had the most control of all and no one paid any attention to what they were doing. That’s why socialism and communism don’t work: eventually the people at the center of power make mistakes and don’t see what’s coming over the horizon. Greenspan was basically giving out free money. What do you expect businesses to do? If there was a gold standard or a steady supply of money, then businesses would have taken less risks. Because they knew the government had their back (at least for the time being), they went crazy. Power corrupts, but competition and the free market prevents any given player from acquiring too much power. Greenspan giving free money to businesses is not an example of capitalism or the free market… it is more like socialism or fascism.
“He [Saddam] certainly presented less of a menace to World Peace than North Korea, Iran and even Israel.”
Haha, Israel? Gee, I wonder what side of the political spectrum you fall on? Israel has shown extensive restraint against people that fire rockets into their neighborhoods and schools. Israel has consistently played the role of the merciful Goliath. Furthermore, Israel is the only country in the Middle East where women have rights and there is a functioning democracy… yeah they’re a real threat to world peace.
Regardless, Saddam nearly acquired nuclear weapons once (thank the warmongering Israelies for stopping them; thank the French for providing the materials) and clearly had the capabilities to produce chemical weapons. And why wouldn’t Saddam want nuclear weapons? He had been the U.N.s punching bag all throughout the 90s. He’d be an idiot not to try and acquire them. Regardless, it is fairly obvious that the Middle East generally has some issues and Saddam was part of them. He was an economically poor tyrant that would benefit from allowing a few terrorist groups to play in his country.
North Korea is a threat and Bush identified them as such, but North Korea’s ambitions to destroy capitalism are far less than the Islamic extremists ambitions to destroy Judaism and Christianity. As for Iran, well I agree with you. Then again, don’t be too surprised if those “warmongers” in Israel launch an air strike or two or if American troops make their presence felt in the region. Regardless, I’m sure everyone in Europe and at the U.N. will be foaming at the mouth.
“It is just that with regard to Iran and North Korea, and Pakistan certainly doesn’t seem the most stable of Nuclear Capable societies at the moment yet the US sees no need to invade there.”
Pakistan is our ally and acquired nuclear weapons long before 9/11. How are we supposed to invade now? Isn’t that sort of the point – to invade before they acquire them? North Korea may be a threat, but not nearly as big of a threat as Islamic extremists. We’ve dealt with a similar situation in the Cold War, keep in mind. The Soviets didn’t seem to interested in blowing us up if they get blown up to. The Islamic extremists, well, they’ve already shown they love sacrificing themselves to blow up a few Westerners.
I appreciate your reply and I look forward to the next one.
204 professor funky
March 29th, 2009 at 8:06 am
Hello again Kevin,
Some of what we’re talking about boils down to interpretation of history and basic philosophical (irreconcilable?) differences.
Perhaps it is true that communism or socialism inevitably must mean curtailment of individual freedom. But here’s my answer:
1. As opposed to the USSR and Soviet block, countries in which socialist parties came to power saw no diminishment of individual freedom.
2. Socialist parties (social-democratic parties) have a genuine commitment to democracy and individual rights.
3. What do you mean by individual freedom?
4. Perhaps some restrictions on some “freedoms” are desirable and good.
Points 3 & 4, I believe, is where we have our biggest differences.
Many Americans I think, fail to distinguish clearly enough between
(a) political freedoms like freedom of expression, conscience, assembly, equality before the law, etc… and
(b) the freedom to make money in the marketplace.
Like Jefferson and other democrats, socialism sees (b) as leading to gross inequalities in wealth and power that, eventually threaten (a). This, I believe, has come to pass in America.
Moreover, (b) can imply a very destructive from of individualism that allows, as Lee says, the wealthy to attain and enjoy their wealth at great cost to other people’s freedom, health, environmental peril and so on.
I think we live in a hyper-individualistic society in which praises of acquiring wealth and spending have become the new religion. In this quest, notions of the public good have almost disappeared as have practically the reality and even the idea of community itself in many places in the USA.
In this context, the very idea that the state, can, with the public’s vigilance, education and involvement, become the representative of the common good – the community’s interest as above and beyond the interests of individuals – has been so diminished, it’s no wonder I (and others who agree) sound so old fashioned just saying it!
America is the most hyper-individualistic society in the world where making money and eliminating any rules to control it have unleashed the most excessive forms of greed and wreaked havoc on all of us.
For me individual economic rights to property and wealth come third, after individual political freedoms and after the common good. The reform as well as broadening of government, under the circumstances mentioned (increased education, involvement of the citizens) provides a counter balance to the hyper-individualism destroying American society at the moment.
Unfortunately, we are faced with a chicken and egg scenario right now in that while a more educated and involved citizenry can back the reform of government as representative of the public good but that very increased education and involvement requires government to already be committed to these policies – which it is not, since it is dominated by corporate interests and by a fearful and well-indoctrinated populace, following the hyper-individualism mentioned above.
professor funky
205 Loose Cannon
March 29th, 2009 at 8:23 am
professor funky – - the community’s interest as above and beyond the interests of individuals -
Funny you should mention Jefferson:
The majority, oppressing an individual, is guilty of a crime, abuses its strength, and by acting on the law of the strongest breaks up the foundations of society. – Thomas Jefferson
There will never be a really free and enlightened State until the State comes to recognize the individual as a higher and independent power. – Henry David Thoreau
There’s no doubt these men would disagree with your notion that the common interests are above the individual’s rights.
206 Kevin
March 29th, 2009 at 3:10 pm
Professor Funky,
Interesting interpretation and theory. Loose Cannon does an excellent job though at showing that Jefferson would never agree with you. However, that doesn’t necessarily make your argument any less valid.
Economic freedom is part of freedom in general. Economic freedom allows individuals and industries to act in whichever manner they choose and to access a better quality of life. There is no evidence from the real world which shows that socialist economies provide a better quality of life then capitalist economies. More food on the table is part of freedom, wouldn’t you agree? Socialism is a nice idea but the problem is that it brings everyone down – it doesn’t bring everyone up and closer together. And, of course, large governments tend to be a bit “pushy”. Furthermore, it doesn’t create a more communal society, it creates a more individualistic society, as I will show below.
To some extent, I agree that American culture is unraveling a bit. I think this has more to do with Christianity being kicked out of the public sphere and the decline of religion in general. I think it’s worth noting that, generally speaking, Christian nations lose their Christianity as the gov’t grows bigger. Furthermore, the breakdown of the American family broke down in America once the “Great Society” began. In 1960, unmarried couples produced 5% of the children in America. Today, it is 33%. The black illegitimacy rate is around 70% today! This is despite the availability of condoms and birth control for basically the first times in America history. This growth is paralleled by the benefits paid out to single mothers by the federal gov’t. Leftists of all varieties combined to ensure that the American family, and thus communities, broke down. The de-stigmatization of divorce, the movement to bring middle-class/upper-class women into the work force which only brought more workers into the labor pool and drove down wages (lower-class women have always been in the workforce), and the demystification of sex as a mere biological act (another consequence of mocking Christian values) ensured that the community you’re after will not exist.
Socialism wishes to provide a strong safety net for all people in a given nation by excessively taxing productive parts of an economy. The impulse to help people though has turned many Americans into children incapable of helping themselves. I will note that black Americans have consumed a disproportionate amount of state and federal funds through welfare programs. Nonetheless, the number of black Americans that have children out of wedlock and black fathers abandoning their children has only gone up since the days of Jim Crow. How is one to explain this? It can’t be racism. The racism of the 1950s was much worse than today. You believe that socialism would help build a community. But people build communities because they have no where else to turn. Now they have the gov’t to turn. Instead of asking your neighbor for financial help, or asking your parents for money, people simply ask Big Brother. How will that help build a more communal society? Instead of a mother turning to her husband for financial and moral support, she can just divorce him, receive alimony, child support, welfare AND keep the child. How does this kind of incentive help families stay together? Instead of a poor man going to his local church for financial help, he simply receives his check in the mail. I will also note that the most charitable people in this country are those vaunted red-state capitalists:
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html
My point is this: when the gov’t steps in to help people, people are less likely to help each other. American citizens, the most “greedy” people in the world, give more to charity (even in terms of a percentage of their personal income) than any COUNTRY in the world:
http://www.pressmediawire.com/article.cfm?articleID=5613
The worst country in the world to give to charity is (drum roll): France! France’s government may give a decent amount of money to charity, but the individual impulse to help people is sapped by the nanny state. Your assertion then that the American community is falling apart and that socialism is needed to keep it together is absurd. They tried that over in Europe and it doesn’t work. Maybe it’s time to go in the opposite direction.
207 Daratora
April 5th, 2009 at 12:01 am
i consider reagan to be one of the best presidents.
208 professor funky
April 8th, 2009 at 10:29 pm
I don’t think Jefferson and me would be at odds – I said individual freedoms come first, then the common good and then economic enrichment. The quotes you provide are all about preserving individual political freedoms, not the right to make money. Your link between political freedom and economic “freedom” is tenuous – Nazi Germany was based on a capitalist economy as are and were many Third World dictatorships,as is China now, more or less.
You blame 60s liberalization for the break down of family and community and the erosion of Christianity but you neglect the biggest factor – the replacement of these traditional ties for what the conservative thinker Carlyle (sp?) called the “cash nexus” – i.e., the transformation of all human ties to ones based on supply, demand, market and money; in short what you call “economic freedom”.
You mention a “movement” encouraging women to work whereas the reality is because of declining real income, esp since Reagan years, most have no choice but to have two incomes where once one could do.
My support of democratic socialist policies is not because I love huge governments and I know and accept full well the human costs of bureaucracy, dependence, etc… you mention. The socialist view I support aims, ultimately, at empowering local communities and individual independence. Unfortunately, however, because of the huge concentration of political and economic power caused by “economic freedom”, the federal government is practically speaking, the only counterweight to this and thus key to improving the lives, education of a huge chunk of US population. The goal remains local control, smaller government and more individual liberty.
What you term “economic freedom” is for most, 40 hours a week of dictatorship. Your boss is, after all, your boss. After work, we watch TV on corporate controlled media and are dominated in everything we eat, wear, sleep and do, by the beneficiaries of “economic freedom”, the corporate elite who rule our daily lives. The only small piece of influence we have is via government.
gt…
209 Loose Cannon
April 9th, 2009 at 5:56 am
professor funky – Your link between political freedom and economic “freedom” is tenuous – Nazi Germany was based on a capitalist economy as are and were many Third World dictatorships,as is China now, more or less.
Nazi Germany and CHINA practice(d) capitalist economies?
How far left do you have to be to believe CHINA,…CHINA, is based on a capitalist economy? This is the place that’s on their 11th 5-year-plan.
Political freedom is meaningless without economic freedom. Every time we spend a dollar, we are exercising political freedom. Communist dictatorships have claimed this meaningless proverb about the split between political and economic freedom since their inception, but what best represents our freedom then to enjoy the fruits of our work as we see fit, to freely invest where we see fit, to be free of want or need, and the freedom to engage in collective bargaining?
You assume that the collective can take care of the individual, but nothing has been proven wronger over the course of last 100 years that this meaningless concept. More blood has been shed in the last century to care for the “common good” then any other economic system in history.
And yet, some fools continue to believe this myth of ‘common good’ and ‘political freedom’ vs. ‘economic freedom’. I guess there really is a ‘sucker born every minute’.
210 nemo
April 9th, 2009 at 2:18 pm
The only way that anyone could consider Reagan a good president would be to very carefully ignore vast swaths of his legacy. Just look at how many of his cabinet were convicted of felonies. He sold weapons to Iran (who was a very belligerent enemy of the U.S. at that point) so that he could bypass the law and arm the contras – doubly breaking the law. If you recall, the reason Nixon had his people break into Watergate was to steal the debate tapes of his opponent. Reagan stole Carter’s debate tapes from Carter and practiced with them, with George Will coaching him. (Will is a true scumbag – he helped Reagan cheat, and then was a debate commentator who declared Reagan the winner). Reagan’s deregulation of the S&Ls were what caused the S&L crisis that cost the taxpayers billions.
If you look at his record, Reagan numbers among the worst presidents in U.S. history. The only way to regard him as even a half-decent president is if you ignore his record and just listen to the Republican propaganda.
211 Tellit
April 9th, 2009 at 5:22 pm
Nemo: You should jump back in the sea, it seems that air is doing funny things to your thinking. Read Peggy Noonan’s book, “When Character Was King” to help right your left leaning and unbalanced perception.
212 nemo
April 9th, 2009 at 7:11 pm
Tellit, I offered a series of facts accounting for why Reagan was a poor president. You didn’t refute any of them, but rather engaged in a personal attack. That is intellectually shameful behavior on your part.
Reagan sold weapons to our enemies, broke the law in sending arms to the Contras, cheated in the debates with Carter, caused the S&L crisis, and engaged in a vast swath other unethical acts (remember HUD?). Those are irrefutable facts, not opinion.
I’ve read other Peggy Noonan books, and won’t be torturing myself that way again, thanks. She’s a propagandist perpetuating the Republican cult of personality. I prefer facts to rhetoric when trying to understand politics. And in the realm of opinion, it’s easy to make the case that Reagan was highly immoral, and had a poor character.
By the way, did you know that Reagan had very poor approval ratings later in his presidency? The American people saw his criminality, and he was unpopular because of it.
213 professor funky
April 9th, 2009 at 8:04 pm
Dear Loose Canon,
Yes indeed, China & Nazi Germany and other dictatorships were/are capitalist economies. The definition is private control over means of production and market systems which these countries all had/have. The whole take off of the Chinese economy in the last few years is because they adopted capitalist market system. I thought that was obvious. Yes, they still have a powerful state sector and don’t have an independent judiciary but that doesn’t negate the market system they’ve adopted. Let’s please words that have some degree of objectivity.
Most striking for me is your apparent belief that any talk of the common good is like some code for communist or something. Even conservatives recognized there is such a thing.
Nemo is right on with his analysis of Reagan. Just because he was a genial guy doesn’t mean he was great leader. He has serious crimes to answer for, including the brutal support of terrorists in Nicaragua who provided their people with land reform, a huge jump in literacy, education and health services. Cult of personality is right – presidents in a republican, democratic society are not supposed to be like kings and taboo – they are citizens under the law.
214 Tellit
April 10th, 2009 at 4:33 am
Nemo: Sorry if my reply seemed to be a personal attack, I didn’t think you would be so sensitive, especially in light of your PERSONAL ATTACK of George F. Will. My comments were not meant to be taken personally, please feel free to share them with your professor (Jimmy Carter) and any other friends whose minds have become soggy by swimming too long in the sea of leftist thought.
Noonan’s book was only a suggestion to help provide insight to the man and answer some of your “facts” (perhaps “distortions” would be a better word?).
I will grant you this however: Reagan although a great leader was perhaps not the greatest administrator. The greatest of leaders are not necessarily the greatest of administrators (see Churchill, Mandela, Gandhi). Great leaders paint with the grand visionary brush strokes that change the world and make it a better place. Often these great leaders are not as effective at the day to day administrative challenges of governing. There were some administrative oversights and inconsistencies during Reagan’s administration, but at the end of the day… the United States and the world were much better places at the end of his administration than they were at the beginning.
Professor Funky: “Cult of Personality” seems to me to more accurately describe the current president.
215 Tellit
April 10th, 2009 at 5:09 am
addendum to Nemo: Reagan’s Presidential Approval Rating at end of Office = 64% (2nd highest in history). Check your “facts” and let America speak for itself!
216 Loose Cannon
April 10th, 2009 at 6:09 am
professor funky – The whole take off of the Chinese economy in the last few years is because they adopted capitalist market system.
No, what you said was:
Nazi Germany was based on a capitalist economy as are and were many Third World dictatorships,as is China now, more or less.
You implied that China was based on a capitalist society, and inferred they were moving away from it. This was clearly your error, not mine.
Furthermore your admittance that the ‘take off of the Chinese economy in the last few years’ has been due to the adoption of capitalist markets proves that capitalism works.
BTW, the irony of you using your economic freedom to own and use a PC to exercise your political freedom of speech isn’t lost on me. I wonder if you realize the irony, as well?
And Nemo is wrong about Reagan, of course. He hand selects some of the facts of the Iran-Contra scandal to conclude that Reagan was a criminal. For example, it’s now proven that that there were rogue elements of Reagan’s administration that carried out this out without Reagan’s knowledge or approval. You can’t blame Reagan for Iran-Contra anymore then you blame JFK for the Bay of Pigs fiasco.
Secondly, Nemo fails to mention WHY they sold arms to Iran. Was Iran the only possible buyer of American armaments? Could these rogue administrators not locate anyone else in the world who could appeal more acceptably to their collective palettes?
I sincerely doubt neither you nor Nemo have enough hairs on your testicles to have lived during those times to understand what was happening in the world. Neither of you could possibly comprehend the transition of full acceptance of the Soviet Union empire as equals to a tumorous evil cancer on the world and mankind. Neither of you could possibly have lived during the Carter follies of economic ruin to the prosperity of the Reagan era and the falling of the Berlin Wall, and come back to say Reagan was a terrible and inept leader.
The conclusion to this is that the belief, shared by most Americans, that Reagan was a great leader is well founded and documented. Your beliefs are fringe, out-dated, and frankly, ignorant.
217 nemo
April 10th, 2009 at 8:20 am
Tellit, you are correct, I was in error. I was working off memory, and got the number off there.
>Sorry if my reply seemed to be a personal attack, I didn’t think you would be so sensitive
>PERSONAL ATTACK of George F. Will
While I did offer a negative judgment of Will, I also offered a justification by giving an account of something that actually he did. The episode is well documented. To willingly participate in helping Reagan cheat in the debate, and then have the audacity stand in as commentator claiming Reagan the winner of the debate shows a very serious moral lapse.
My point was that you were criticizing me rather than dealing with my argument. Since you still haven’t responded in any substantial way to most of what I have said, I see no reason to carry on, and take your responses as a tacit admission that you have no rational justification of your views. Feel free to get in the last word, I won’t read it.
Loose Cannon:
>For example, it’s now proven that that there were rogue elements of Reagan’s administration that carried out this out without Reagan’s knowledge or approval.
That is a common excuse offered, but it is far from proven. The fact that the evidence was carefully destroyed suggests otherwise.
I did explain why they illegally sold arms to Iran – it was so that they could illegally fund the Contras.
I was around while Reagan was president, and remember well the continual stream of scandals, as well as the mind-blowingly ignorant things Reagan used to embarrass his country with. The only way that you can claim Reagan was a great president is by ignoring his record. The Soviet Union would have collapsed regardless of who was president, BTW, their economic troubles were crippling. Reagan brought us to the brink of war with his “we begin bombing in five minutes” stunt, another dark mark on his record.
You didn’t offer any substantial argument. Stating something emphatically is not an argument.
As with Tellit, feel free to get in the last word, I won’t read it, since there’s little point in reading more of your empty partisan rhetoric.
One last note, you might want to look up how many members of the administration left office due to scandals. Then look up the number of felony convictions there were in the administration. It’s really amazing just how corrupt that administration was, they make Nixon’s scandals look minor in comparison.
218 Tellit
April 10th, 2009 at 9:04 am
Nemo: You are right, your memory is skewed when it comes to all things Reagan. Even Carter apologized to Will retracting “any incorrect statement that I have ever made about his role in the use of my briefing book … I have never thought Mr. Will took my book”. I think you owe George F. Will an apology as well.
219 M401
April 12th, 2009 at 8:05 pm
Great qoutes. Thanks for the read.
220 Kevin
April 13th, 2009 at 1:49 pm
Professor Funky:
Here is another quote from Jefferson that shows he’d agree with me:
“I think we have more machinery of government than is necessary, too many parasites living on the labor of the industrious.” Jefferson, under his administration, advocated lasseize-faire economic policies. He was a strong advocate of capitalism. Bottom line, end of story. There is simply no debate about this. There were rich people in Jefferson’s time. He wasn’t going around and cutting them down to size during his administration. Any attempt to put Jefferson in your camp and order his priorities is not based in reality.
Nazi Germany had economic freedom? The “National Socialists” platform featured such jewels as this:
“The first obligation of every citizen must be to work both spiritually and physically. The activity of individuals is not to counteract the interests of the universality, but must have its result within the framework of the whole for the benefit of all. Consequently we demand:
11.Abolition of unearned (work and labour) incomes. Breaking of rent-slavery…
13.We demand the nationalization of all (previous) associated industries (trusts).
14. We demand a division of profits [profit sharing] of heavy industries.
15. We demand an expansion on a large scale of old age welfare…
20. The state is to be responsible for a fundamental reconstruction of our whole national education program, to enable every capable and industrious German to obtain higher education and subsequently introduction into leading positions…We demand the education at the expense of the State of outstanding intellectually gifted children of poor parents without consideration of position or profession.
25. For the execution of all this we demand the formation of a strong central power in the Reich. Unlimited authority of the central parliament over the whole Reich and its organizations in general…
Fascism and Communism are merely forms of collectivism that limited freedom for the “common good”. Fascism’s platform in Italy was pretty much the same as the Nazi’s, minus the racial stuff. It is telling that Mussolini was a former socialist/communist. The difference between Fascism and Communism is merely this: one proposes that national greatness comes only through socialist policies enacted to help people of a particular ethnic origin, while another proposes that greatness comes through the freeing of the proletariat. One sees the proletariat as the world’s savior and chosen ones, another the people of a given nation. This is why Nazism was called “National Socialism”: it is simply socialism enacted as the national level. It is socialism without the belief that the whole world’s proletariat must be freed to win the struggle against capitalists. Hitler was a man of the left, plain and simple. His hatred of Bolshevism and Russian Communism was related to his belief that it was a Jewish conspiracy. Lenin and Stalin believed that Fascism was the dying breath of capitalism, but those men’s mere belief turned into “fact” for some reason. If a given factory in Nazi Germany decided that making tanks for the Reich was no longer profitable, do you think they’d be able to stop? Hitler was okay with businesses as long as they kept doing what he wanted. He kept businesses around, but on a short leash. Leftist policies, no matter how well-intentioned, ALWAYS lead to a restriction of freedoms and have caused the most disastrous regimes in the entire world’s history. Furthermore, your mentioning of China perfectly illustrates my point: a totalitarian Communist regime turns to capitalism and is becoming freer every single day. Would you rather be living in the China of 30 years ago, or today? Take your pick. When the government controls the production of things, which it can do through taxation, it controls everything. As for third-world dictatorships, I’d love to know which actually practice lasseiz-faire economic policies. Meanwhile, we live in the most free and prosperous nation in the world, and you mock the very things that made this nation what it is.
As for 60s liberalization, you still haven’t showed me any evidence of this cash nexus stuff. It is fairly obvious that the government has only grown bigger and bigger since the 1940s, and the family has broken down more and more and more. You’re knee jerk reaction is to say: “the government hasn’t grown fast enough.” When welfare reform was passed under Clinton, the number of illegitimate children came to a grinding halt and started to reverse itself modestly. Furthermore, the people of Europe see the same familial trends that we do, especially in Britain where it is often worse, despite having extremely leftist governments. And as I showed in the previous post, Americans are much more likely to donate their time and money than anyone else in the world! Shouldn’t the people of Europe, under your logic, be more charitable than us? Shouldn’t their families stay together at fantastically higher rates (which they don’t) than ours? They have huge federal and local governments to step in and save the families every time economic hardship comes around. But the families still break up. It’s because families that can break up without any financial consequences are more likely to do so. If the government can play the role of breadwinner, then get rid of the annoying daddy.
I’m curious to know if you’ve worked around the poor, or lived around them. I have, and I know darn well what makes them poor: their behavior. William Galston, a former Clinton advisor, said that to avoid poverty, a person has to do three things:
Finish High School; Marry before having children; Marry after the age of 20
“Only 8% of people who do this, he says, wind up poor, while 79% who fail to do it end up in poverty.”
I work in a convenience store where people can use food stamps to buy things. Generally, I’ve noticed this: they don’t buy actual food with food stamps! They buy energy drinks and candy. Then they buy cigarettes with cash. Then they go next door to the liquor store! This is not an exaggeration, it’s what I see every single day. They generally have kids at a very young age as well. And finally, there isn’t a father. How can this come about because of a “cash nexus”? This is simply a matter of choice in the bedroom: Do I have sex before marriage or not? You don’t need to be a genius, nor do you need tons of schooling to be successful in America. Just avoid having children young, make sure the person you marry is the right person, and finish high school. This isn’t some Herculean task that the government needs to step in and finish for people.
Women are much more likely to work for the government which raises taxes and reduces most families income. Furthermore, women drive down wages because they provide more competition to men in the workplace. It is simply economic gravity that wages will come down when there are more workers for a given position. That is undeniable.
NOW here is something we can agree on: “The goal remains local control, smaller government and more individual liberty.” So, as I understand it, the goal is to have a smaller and a more local government, but to do this we need socialism? We need more individual liberty, but we need to restrict how much money someone can make? How does this make any sense? When the government creates a program or agency, it’s simply impossible to get rid of it. There are very few government programs that have been created and then destroyed. Every time the feds touch something, they hold onto it and give it a nice bear hug.
“What you term “economic freedom” is for most, 40 hours a week of dictatorship.”
And what would you propose instead? What kind of system should we have without bosses and mangers? Where is this system currently being implemented? Leftists always want to tear down the walls, but then having nothing to replace those walls. If you’re proposing that an extensive welfare system exist so that people can quit their jobs when they see fit, I’m curious to know why you think anyone would hold onto their jobs then? People abuse unemployment as it is. If people can stay home and not go to work, they would. And watch as your taxes go up, your salary goes down, and unemployment of 9 or 10% (as it often is in Germany and France) becomes the norm. If you’re suggesting some kind of future where people whistle while they work, keep dreaming. It’ll never happen. Work sucks and is hard no matter what you do because life is hard.
“After work, we watch TV on corporate controlled media and are dominated in everything we eat, wear, sleep and do, by the beneficiaries of “economic freedom”, the corporate elite who rule our daily lives. The only small piece of influence we have is via government.”
Yes, it sure seems that you’re a lackey of the corporate controlled media. You’re the perfect example of how such talk is nonsense: you don’t seem to be in awe of these corporations, nor do you seem to be a huge fan of the status quo. There are numerous paths to information available, through the Internet especially, that are not controlled by anyone but the writer. Of course, government controlled media would be much better… like some kind of Pravda, right? Again, I am curious what your alternative is. Tear down the walls, and replace it with what? Publicly controlled television? They have that already: it’s called PBS.
Our system is not perfect, but the alternatives are much worse. It’s easy to criticize the current system we have, but replacing it is a much harder task.
221 Forget the Ideology for a second
April 15th, 2009 at 9:03 am
Forget your personal ideology and whether it disagrees with Regan’s for a moment.
People have forgotten how bad of shape the United States was in when he went into office. We were in a ten year recession, with double digit inflation and double digit unemployment. The United States was still in a hangover from Vietnam, and we had just had four years of Carter showing us that the country was so poor that even the white house couldn’t afford to heat itself properly and that he had to wear sweaters.
Reagan did three things very, very well:
1) He induced enough strain into the Soviet Union through his military buildup so as to begin the breakup of the soviet union (thanks to Gorbachev, as well).
2) He reminded the country that it was still strong and vibrant, not disgraced and broken like we had been thinking since Vietnam and Nixon.
3) He got the economy moving again. Inflation finally was reigned in, interest rates came down to levels which allowed investment, and the US finally got out of the doldrums.
I’ll let other decide where those three accomplishments rank him, but I know that I have been glad over the past 25 years that accomplished those things.
222 professor funky
April 17th, 2009 at 12:52 pm
1. Jefferson was “against” me
Obviously, I did not claim Jefferson was any kind of socialist or that he advocated big government spending! I said that he, too, believed in such a thing as “the common good”. A concept, as I said, seems to be equivalent to “communism” for you.
Allow me make your argument for you: Jefferson believed the common good could best be achieved by people pursuing their interests without interference from the state. Thus he opposed government debt and redistributive taxation of any sort.
My point is that many Americans have come to believe, like you seem to, that any idea of a common good is suspect. I was not here making any economic arguments but a more general argument about how failure to envision a common good, _whatever your economic theory_, is disastrous for any society. Granted, you and Jefferson oppose the means I suggest for attaining a common good; that, again is obvious. But by failing to see there is or can ever be such a thing as a common good, you are in opposition to Jefferson, most traditional conservatives and exemplify my main point about how the present American system has corroded the very idea of a common good.
With the exception of the most obvious points, purposefully pointed our for you (end goal of local control and more individual freedom) your opposition to “socialism” tends to be so extreme and emotional that even potential points of commonality are thrown out. Your doctrine thus often ends up being largely negative: we are what these guys are not, whatever the value of their ideas! You reject wholesale, instead of sifting, what might be useful or valid even for your own ideology on the basis of a word that has come to have such vile associations and symbolism that I might as well call it “Satanism” instead of “socialism”.
Let me once again propose a slogan you might find appealing. Perhaps you are sympathetic with the infamous motto coined by Reagan’s good friend Margaret Thatcher: “There no such thing as society”.
2. Nazi and Chinese economy and freedom
Of course Nazi Germany was driven largely by Nazi ideology and this deeply influenced the German economy. Wartime conditions further intensified the political and ideological influence of the state on the economy. But Germany did not abandon the market system, as I defined it previously, but relied on it to provide the economic and technological means to accomplish its destructive goals. German industries were still privately owned, functioned according to the profit motive and were subject to the vagaries of supply and demand within the constraints of the dictatorship and wartime conditions. Indeed, the Nazi regime received enthusiastic support from the largest corporations both before and during their rise to power.
The points you mention from your unreferenced list, even if they were all adopted, do not at all contradict the crucial point that Germany remained throughout the Nazi era a capitalist economy. No one I’ve ever read doubted that Nazi Germany had a capitalist economy, though subject to wartime and dictatorial control. Let’s remember that America too, in wartime imposed economic controls – will you now say America was not a capitalist country then? Perhaps it would help if you examined a definition of capitalism or “free market”.
My main point, therefore, that capitalism can co-exist with dictatorship still stands. The example of China and “Third World” dictatorships is hardly needed to support this.
Again, you do continuously blur distinctions that even die hard “laissez-faire” economic conservatives take for granted: the economic “freedoms” of the market and political freedoms like freedom of conscience and so on…
Again, allow me to make your argument for you: For political freedom to exist it must be based on a solid foundation of economic freedom, meaning private control of production and property (capital), the free play of individual pursuit of profit regulated only via free market instruments of competition and supply and demand.
3. Political freedom and “Economic Freedom” in America
As mentioned, the idea that “economic freedom” (Capitalism) necessarily leads to political freedom has proved untrue throughout the world. But I return to what I think a more important point here: the apparent inability of many people to distinguish the various components of the American system (political, economic, social, etc…) is more than a minor failing in civics education. It means that people don’t see that an economic system is a human constructed means to an end: the end being the common good, however difficult it is to envision. Part of this common good, however, must include individual liberties, equality, etc… and indeed may be said to define the vision of the American republic.
The Declaration of Independence (Jefferson again!) provides some of this vision of a common good:
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Note how property rights (“pursuit of happiness”) – those possibly most closely connected to Kevin’s “economic freedom” – are not expressly mentioned. Instead, they are worded ambiguously and come last after the political freedoms I am referring to. To me this document expresses the highest goals that form part of the common good and distinguishes clearly these clearly from what Kevin calls “economic freedom” which are placed second or third at best.
Most of the fathers probably did see that the means to attain these goals of freedom were partly via a “free market” but they don’t confuse the economy and the goals – the means and the ends. Many also understood that means could at times subvert the ends; thus those who successfully “pursued their ‘happiness’” and enriched themselves could, through this, attain disproportionate control and influence over the political system, threatening the freedoms of all.
Unfortunately and despite the “separation of powers” intended to prevent the political accumulation of power, America was blindsided by the accumulation of _economic power_ which has proven equally dangerous to freedom and indeed has subverted and threatens its highest goals.
This important and rather basic insight seems to have been entirely lost to many Americans. The fact that I need to mention it, is another example of how thoroughly some folks have imbibed the view that some rich people’s “freedom” to make more money is as important as my right not to be arrested, detained and until now – even tortured – without charge.
Much more to say but I’m afraid this is way too long already.
I don’t think we’ll resolve our differences through this. I just hope you’ll be encouraged both not to over-generalize with the anti-communist, anti-socialist beliefs you hold and be able to focus on the important values some of which I think we both share and how to attain them, regardless of ideological labels.
223 Kevin
April 19th, 2009 at 3:41 pm
Professor Funky:
“I said that he [Jefferson], too, believed in such a thing as “the common good”. A concept, as I said, seems to be equivalent to “communism” for you. “
At what point did I ever claim that no public spending is a good thing or communist? Public spending existed in America long before the communist and socialist movements. Our argument started partially because you claimed that Communist ideals (in the theoretical sense) are not necessarily un-American. I argued that free enterprise and capitalism are part of the American way because economic freedom is part of a spectrum of freedoms. Consequently, I went to the Founders and their words to show that their belief that economic freedom is key to freedom in general.
Whatever the case, perhaps I’ve been arguing in the wrong way with you. So I’ll argue a different way and simply say that capitalism is much better for the soul than socialism, in general. Imagine for a moment, a technology that made all human labor obsolete. That is, some kind of technology that insured no man would ever have to work for his food, work for his shelter, work for his health care, etc. Honestly ask yourself: Would this actually be a good thing for humanity?
It’s not so much that I am against socialism and communism simply because I believe it inevitably leads to totalitarianism, although it generally does. Rather, I am against it because socialism wishes to create a society where hard-work, responsibility, and consequences for your actions become obsolete. In Britain, a pregnant teenage mother is allowed access to free housing, free health care, and free food stamps. These things aren’t actually free, but free to the person that acted irresponsibly. From her point of view, these things my as well have fallen out of the sky. Whatever the case, what incentive is there for a young girl NOT to act irresponsibly and stick the bill on everyone else? If the state is to take care of every major responsibility (which is the purpose of socialist states excessively taxing businesses): child rearing (state funded daycare), health care, charity, education of your children, etc., then what exactly makes an adult an adult? If socialist governments produce an average unemployment rate of 10% in places like Germany, France, and Britain, then how is that even remotely good for the unemployed? I suppose my problem with socialism is that it gives a man a fish instead of letting the circumstances of life force him to learn how to fish. Although there is undoubtedly a portion of any given population that will want to work even if they don’t have to, but there is an equally significant portion – perhaps even greater – that will not work and try to avoid adulthood. It is simply human nature. For example, I will sadly note that even with condoms and abortion, the rate of illegitimate children has skyrocketed in America. When you convince children their entire lives that sex has no consequences because of condoms and abortion and then demystify the act, people will have more sex outside of marriage and create even more of the problem that you tried to solve. You cannot create a world where being unemployed has no financial consequences and then expect people to go to work – and that is precisely what socialism boils down to and what it is around the world. Otherwise, what is it to you?
I will note that humanity in the Western world has had excessively easier lives than their historical counterparts in at least the last twelve thousand years. There was a time when at least 90% of the population sole source of income was through back-breaking farming. People had to, easily, work 12 hours a day for six days a week just to survive. Since the industrial revolution, the amount of work people have to do to survive has dropped enormously to a point where France mandated that people work only 35 hours (with six weeks off) and the average American worker is expected to work a mere forty hours of comparatively easy labor. Not to say that everyone can work just forty hours, but a clear majority doesn’t have to work much more than that to get by. Yet, somehow, this isn’t enough and people are not still happy. Every basic responsibility of human existence is being forced onto the state by certain leftist groups. Obama, for example, wants to find a way to give every child a college education. This is utter madness, of course, because most people who go to college fail out anyway. Even more importantly, I don’t think liberals understand that hard work, sacrifice, and delayed gratification are actually GOOD things. But socialism wishes to create a society where such things are basically unnecessary and perhaps even deterrents to pleasure. In my state of NJ, if you are unemployed, you can go to community college for free. Do you think that such a law is a good thing for taxpayers and for the prospective student? What incentive is there for him to get a job? Idle hands are undoubtedly the devil’s playground, even if you don’t believe in a devil. Every socialist state in the world today rewards bad behavior by arguing such bad behavior is the result of being poor or disadvantaged in some way. It has thus created a Britain with the highest crime rate in the Western world. It has created similar states in France, Germany, and the former Soviet Union. If you wish to argue that laissez-faire economics is harmful because it allows too much freedom, then I could just as easily argue that socialism allows too much freedom for the undisciplined in society to get ahead and take advantage of everyone else. Furthermore, socialism requires a constantly growing population of citizens because it is the youth that must be working if the old are to live with all the benefits (and the populations are getting smaller in those socialist states). To put it simply, socialism is the vehicle by which a society’s morals are drained and malaise replaces vitality. To have liberty and freedom, you MUST be self-sufficient. The opposite of independence is dependence, and socialism is dependence on the government. I will note that basically every socialist state in Europe relies on America for protection. Their societies’ self sufficiency is so drained (financially and morally) by socialism that the basic human instinct to defend oneself has been outsourced to America. Socialism wishes to prop up a society’s morals by financially supporting those groups they see as disadvantaged. All this does is create a people that are never allowed to fail and thus never reform their erroneous ways.
Again, I have to ask you if you’ve ever been exposed to the working-class poor your system is supposed to help. Yesterday, I had a middle-aged woman with several children who was on food stamps for 10 years. 10 years. Am I to believe that she was unable to get a job in those ten years somehow? Without a system of consequences to let those who deserve to fail actually fail, you are creating a society that elevates mediocrity and never forces people to change their ways.
Finally, I understand your point that there is corruption in American society because of the power businesses hold. Then again, there is corruption everywhere you go, including socialist societies. Money may equal power to some extent in our society, but if wealth were to disappear tomorrow, there’d still be plenty of corruption. If it’s not wealth, it’d be political positions or comfy jobs or whatever. The walls may be somewhat dirty in America, but there is no need to tear them down. We have systems in place already where the poor can get food, where the homeless can find shelter, and where the uninsured can get insurance. We also have the most prosperous society in all of human history, but this isn’t enough? What more do you want? If you believe that a huge government with the ability to destroy businesses on a whim is preferable to what we have now, you’re not paying attention to history.
Well if you are done arguing then so be it. I enjoy argument. It allows your ideas to be tested in something like a free market. Whatever the case, I enjoyed your input and wish you the best of luck.
P.S. here is a link to the Nazi Party platform:
http://users.stlcc.edu/rkalfus/PDFs/026.pdf
224 choadius
April 21st, 2009 at 5:16 pm
Great list. Sad that some ideologues are so unhinged that they can’t take a few minutes to appreciate this submission. Good job, rushfan.
225 professor funky
April 22nd, 2009 at 10:35 am
Hello Kevin,
Well, I guess I can’t resist one last response. I will try to focus on basic assumptions here. You can have the last word if you want it.
You value “independence” but your entire assumption is that people are lazy sods who’d sooner do nothing but sit in front of the TV sipping six packs unless prodded by dire circumstances to get off their asses and work. But if people are really like this then there is no hope of genuine independence, whether you believe in big, little or no government!
You want people to be “free” from government influence while other at least as massive, powerful, unaccountable, undemocratic forces are busy deciding almost everything for us. You have the typical blinkers that only government can be oppressive and thus must be limited so we can be shafted even more by the “free market”.
But let’s focus on this: what’s you view of human nature? I don’t know if you agree but What I’ve learned thus far is that most people are more or less like me and, I dare say, you, as far as the basics are concerned. So I’ll talk about me and assume the essentials are true for others:
I’d like to have the basics of life: food, shelter, clothing, clean air and a pleasant environment and enough to sustain me and my family and freedom to think and act as I want without interfering on others freedom to do the same. I like to have some fun, and believe learning, beauty and spirituality as important for the soul. Finally, community and solidarity between people, including compassion and sympathy are also important and without which we risk turning everything else into a living hell.
Sometimes I’m lazy and sometimes can work like a fiend, especially if passionate about something. I don’t think I need prodding by the threat of starvation or by a “nanny state” to work even at unsatisfying jobs. I don’t think I’d be happy sitting on my ass doing nothing while receiving a government check, especially if that means I’d probably be living in the most dangerous and run down parts of town.
You dangle the well known image and well worn stereotype of the ogre of the welfare case, perhaps the single most important icon of the political right in this and other countries. My view is that it is based on a serious misunderstanding of human nature. If you wouldn’t like sitting on your ass while collecting pogey, why do you think others would? Certainly some do this and abuse the system and certainly I believe in personal responsibility but you, like many others, have allowed this belief to seriously corrode your sense of empathy and compassion, based on the idea and feeling that people share a common
humanity and have at least some common aspirations, as indicated above.
I think that’s why you focus on certain minority groups (as in previous posts). Their minority badges are sufficient to label them as people unlike us, who
do not share our basic aspirations and thus would be happy to sit on their asses and rip off the system if they had a chance.
My own research on the issue of welfare cheats and fraud in Canada, incomplete as it is, demonstrates it is about at the same level as fraud and cheating in any large institution. Some people steal and cheat their employers but this is a remarkably small minority. I apologize for having lost an accurate definition or numbers for this but obviously facts here are important as the myth has such a powerful hold on people on this issue. I would recommend serious, dispassionate research and re-examination of your key assumptions here.
If you have any real facts here, it would help (i.e., what percentage of welfare recipeitns are lazy sods – and please be scientific about it!). Otherwise we are all engaged in fixating on well worn but still effective ogres symbolizing what we hate about each others viewpoints.
My own experience both academic and personal grants that some people are lazy sods but also that laziness gets to be extremely boring and alienating, at the very least.
But let me make a deal with you: I’ll grant that perhaps some folks are lazy sods if you’ll accept that some other folks are single mothers abandoned by their spouses and left to raise their kids on their own, or yet others who simply have never been exposed to books or beauty or spirituality or community and are too busy just struggling to survive, or perhaps there are others who are homeless because they suffer from mental diseases or perhaps yet others who are just crushed and demoralized by the inhuman world we have built, or yet others who’ve just been the victims of plain bad luck.
If so, the solution would be not to abolish food stamps or whatever other supports may actually help people but to examine the lives of the poor with sympathy, eliminate fraud and over-dependence on “hand outs” and implement social measures that can really improve the conditions and lives of the poor so they can become truly independent.
Your criticism of increased accessibility to education strikes me as especially short-sighted given it’s the only avenue of upward mobility and the independence you proclaim for many people who, despite difficult circumstances, qualify academically but not financially.
More generally, social programs like universal health care and basic income security should also be implemented for the general population. Maybe this will reduce what you call “incentives” to work and perhaps that’s true to some extent. But at the same time it will reduce the ever-present fear which has become so dominant in American society in so many ways. With reduction in fear, improved social and economic conditions, and increased accessibility to education perhaps the people will better be able to govern wisely and become even more implicated in the decisions that affect their lives. Certainly, a society ruled by fear risks destroying itself and its highest ideals. That’s what’s been going on in America for a long time now, and President Reagan represents a
significant milestone in this ideology. In the long run, this might create healthier local communities who then would be able to take over the job of caring for its members away from the impersonal bureaucracy of government. Because, believe it or not, I agree with you in your basic mistrust of the state!
As it is, the alleged fact that some abuse our system and are jerks does not morally justify abolishing the entire system of government help to those in genuine need.
I am not naive and don’t deny your welfare cheats exist or that there is a nasty side to human nature if you’ll admit that maybe, sometimes, somewhere, some people may have gotten a raw deal through no fault of their own. To me, this is the message not just of “socialism” but of most of the world’s religions, including Christianity. In short, to Cain’s question to God: “Am I my brother’s keeper?” The answer is clearly a resounding “yes”!
It was a good experience sparring with you! All the best
pf…
226 wildcardlx
May 9th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Your wrote a lot and I can’t respond to all of it, but I’ll pick the key parts:
“You want people to be “free” from government influence while other at least as massive, powerful, unaccountable, undemocratic forces are busy deciding almost everything for us.”
I agree that corporations can be extremely powerful in a given period of time, but what businesses have monopolized their power for more than 50 years? The beautiful thing with capitalism is that businesses go under and fail and are replaced constantly. Technology changes, needs change, and huge businesses rarely have the foresight to adjust in time. Governments on the other hand can have a monopoly on power for a very long time, particularly if they control the media. The Soviet Union would have never fallen if the West wasn’t watching and critiquing and putting pressure on them. Furthermore, businesses also don’t have the ability to use force as governments do. I’ll take my chances with businesses. Businesses can be undemocratic, but you really have to pick your poison in this case. As long as the government isn’t propping them up, businesses are subject to market forces, inevitably make mistakes, and fail. Finally, people have many avenues to control businesses practices through where they put their money. The government can save the day sometimes and deserves power as well as the power to regulate certain industries, but the current amount of power it yields is incredibly substantial and has only grown since the 20th century.
“What I’ve learned thus far is that most people are more or less like me…”
Surely yes, a substantial majority of people are good, hard-working people. But there is a sizable minority that is not. I’ll reference the state of California as evidence that such a minority can bankrupt a state. California has substantial natural resources, Silicon Valley, and a huge middle class, but is now bankrupt. Partially this is because the Democratic party has a monopoly on power (Arnold is a RINO), there is a substantial underclass of legal citizens, and a substantial underclass of illegals. Nothing is for free in this world, but a substantial minority in the state thinks otherwise. It doesn’t take much to put a business or a state or a country into the red.
“I think that’s why you focus on certain minority groups (as in previous posts). Their minority badges are sufficient to label them as people unlike us…”
I focus on minority groups in my posts occasionally because they are prime examples of what welfare can do to a people, as minorities have received a disproportional amount welfare benefits. When the black illegitimacy rates goes up to a WHOPPING 70%, up substantially from even the days of Jim Crow, it is obvious that black culture lacks discipline. Condoms and birth control and abortion were supposed to make illegitimacy nonexistent. It didn’t. It made it worse. I mention this in particular because it shows that when people are given an inch, they often take a mile. Surely this isn’t true in all affairs, nor of everyone, but it’s true a lot of the time. It’s not because I see them as other and it seems to me that you my as well have come out and just called me a racist. Again, I use minorities because the statistics are so damning and show that the Democratic Party’s belief in coddling these groups and rewarding bad behavior with more public funds is an insane idea.
“If you wouldn’t like sitting on your ass while collecting pogey, why do you think others would?”
I wouldn’t like strapping a bomb on my chest and blowing up some Jewish school, but tens of millions of people would. I wouldn’t like to put Jews in incinerators, but a lot of Europe did a mere 60 years ago. Some people like doing bad things. It’s just part of human nature. The liberal view of human nature is that it’s malleable: all we need to do is educate people and support them financially and they’ll be fine. To some extent this is true. Then again, I’m sure you’ve met many people that do evil and wrong just for evil’s sake.
“With reduction in fear, improved social and economic conditions, and increased accessibility to education perhaps the people will better be able to govern wisely and become even more implicated in the decisions that affect their lives.”
There is a fine line between being comfortable with something and being complacent. Much of Europe is in financial decline, and was in military decline immediately after WWII. Europe doesn’t have enough children anymore to even replace their own population. The French only have to work 35 hour work weeks and get six weeks of vacation, and riot if the government tries to loosen these restrictions on employers. Germany and France have annual unemployment rates of 10%. And here’s the best part: it’s all made possible because they don’t have a military; they don’t even want one. “Don’t worry though”, they think, “the hyper power has our back.” I’m sure that you can also agree that some stress is a good thing. Otherwise, a people become like children. And that’s what Europe is: a country so addicted to hedonism that they’re childlike. Giving more free time to more people will not yield a more responsible government: it will only yield a government whose job it is to reward various interest groups with public funds at the threat of protest and potentially losing power.
“If so, the solution would be not to abolish food stamps or whatever other supports may actually help people but to examine the lives of the poor with sympathy…”
When did I ever advocate for getting rid of food stamps? I never said to get rid of these supports. They need to be more tightly regulated and the Feds need to stop getting involved. In the state of NJ, a person can buy practically anything with food stamps: energy drinks, candy, soda, whatever. It’s all good! The technology is there to restrict these items from being purchased, but they don’t utilize it because it’s seen as “mean.” And rich people use these supports too because the rules to get them are so lax. I’m not against welfare if it’s sent to the right people and they use that money correctly. Otherwise, those who actually need it, will get less of it in the end.
“As it is, the alleged fact that some abuse our system and are jerks does not morally justify abolishing the entire system of government help to those in genuine need.”
When did I argue for the abolishment of the government? I advocated for getting rid of the many silly and wasteful programs. Hmm… let’s see the National Endowment for the Arts maybe? And I’ll even advocate for a smaller military too.
“Your criticism of increased accessibility to education strikes me as especially short-sighted given it’s the only avenue of upward mobility and the independence you proclaim for many people who, despite difficult circumstances, qualify academically but not financially.”
I’m not really sure what you’re referencing that I said, but I am an educator and I know exactly what’s wrong with education: the Unions. Using their collective power, they pressure local, state, and national governments to prevent voucher programs from going into effect and allowing children in cities like Philadelphia to move out of the public system and into a better suited place like a Catholic school. They force parents to give up their tax dollars to the public education system when it evidently isn’t working – and public education is perhaps the most pure socialist institution in America today.
Of course, everyone can go to college through student loans, both Federal and private so I’m not sure what you want instead of our current system. And there are community colleges. Do you want everyone to go to college for “free”? Of course, this would be monstrously expensive and unsustainable so I don’t know what to tell you.
“To me, this is the message not just of “socialism” but of most of the world’s religions, including Christianity.”
Helping others is a central tenant of Christianity, but socialism is not a natural extension of the faith. First and foremost, I’m curious to know your charitable contributions (I’m not trying to be condescending). I give approximately 15% of my paycheck (of a measly 500 a week) to charity. I donate a portion of it to help a child in Guatemala and his family. I believe in helping others, BUT I want to do the helping. I do not want the government forcibly taking my money and misusing it wherever they please. Furthermore, every bit of evidence shows that private charities are much more effective than publicly run welfare programs. Again, I’ll link this article showing that conservatives, even when accounting for their higher average income, give more to charity than liberals: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html . Every bit of of evidence shows that conservatives give more to charity than their liberal counterparts. And the most conservative country in the Western world, America, has its citizens give more to charity, again even accounting for differences in income, than any country in the ENTIRE world. Socialism saps a people’s energy to actually help others because the average citizen simply thinks to themselves: someone else will take care of it for me. If America wishes to continue doing so much charitable good, it should adapt even more conservative policies. We live in a hard world and we need people who have earned a living for themselves and have a fighting spirit to do whatever needs to be done. You cannot create a great and successful society by coddling everyone with nanny-state programs. It simply creates dependency and like in Europe, adults that act like children – rioting every time the government, God forbid, tries to lift some draconian restriction off a business. The Judeo-Christian tradition makes it very clear that the world is tough and people are naturally inclined to do evil and thus need tremendous discipline. Conservative ideology acknowledges this fact and acts accordingly. I’m curious to know by the way: what conservative rolled back welfare programs? Was it Bush I? Bush II? Reagan? Nixon? Who? Oh right, none of them did. They may have called for more restrictions on them, to ensure that the money was going to where it was SUPPOSED to go, but that is all and I’m sure you can agree with that. And all of them, excluding Reagan, advanced welfare programs substantially – especially Bush II. Being on welfare for 10 years for no good reason is not excusable and not even the most compassionate Christian would continue to give money to them. However, it is possible to do so under the current welfare programs in NJ.
Well sir, if you respond again to me, I won’t mind. It’s been an interesting debate. I’ll admit that not everyone on welfare is lazy, but the restrictions are extremely loose and the spread of welfare will only cost more jobs (how do you expect to pay for it?) in the long run, which is the exact opposite of what both liberals and conservatives want. My main thesis was that socialism creates dependency and laziness and saps the energy of a given country. I think you’ll agree that America’s growth into the superpower it is today is because its citizens are some of the most hard-working in the world. Americans work harder than Europeans do. We literally put more hours in and accordingly have a more prosperous and powerful society. I don’t understand what the problem is then? If you think there is injustice and poverty out there, then go start your own charity or get others to give their money or do something. That’s my whole point here: liberals want to help the poor by getting the government to do it for them. This is not only anti-Christian as it puts the burden to help on someone else, but it’s extremely ineffective as the government has been trying desperately to eliminate poverty since the 1940s but hasn’t even put a dent in it. Our country will end when the will, strength, and discipline of its people to be free and to create a better world is destroyed. Socialism would produce that effect.
227 wildcardlx
May 9th, 2009 at 9:26 am
PROFESSOR FUNKY:
The last message was for you under the name “wildcardlx”. I had to change my username.
228 Jim
June 1st, 2009 at 9:49 am
Worst President of the 20th century.
229 anthony
June 8th, 2009 at 10:33 pm
Thank you Mr. President. May you live in heaven.
We are all proud of you.
i am a naturalized citizen whose father was tourtured by mullahs and his family was executed because they were friends of America.
230 Jax
July 12th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
Better than any president we’ve had in the 21st.
231 Richard
August 14th, 2009 at 8:24 am
You neglected “Ketchup is TOO a vegetable.”
232 Slap
November 4th, 2009 at 7:56 pm
The worst president until W came along and reset the bar almost impossibly low.
The policies of the Reagan administration – especially in regards to deregulation – are largely responsible for all of the major problems facing the United States today.
I use Reagan as a litmus test of stupidity. Anytime someone voices admiration for him, I automatically deduct at least 20 points from that person’s presumed IQ.
233 Peter G
November 22nd, 2009 at 7:20 am
REAGAN SMASH!!!!!!!!
REAGAN SLEEPY zzzzzz
234 Postalranger
November 23rd, 2009 at 3:22 pm
Ronald Reagan would call the health care “public option” what it really is, a “government option” and would say that it is government control over what has been the best system in the world. Fortune and Forbes editorials now list him as in the top 5 U.S. presidents in history. He did all his presidential tasks with a minority in the House and the Senate.
235 Egg
November 29th, 2009 at 10:11 am
People on both sides exaggerate his presidency.
To Liberals:
Reagan did not spend twice as much money as two world wars and a new deal combined. The reason his spending was so high was because the massive inflation caused by Vietnam in the 60′s made the value of the dollar go down – and prices skyrocketing. Reagan spent less than the other presidents – he simply chose to borrow rather than to inflate. If you look at it as a percentage of GDP, rather than measuring something without a unit of measurement, you will see that I am correct.
To Conservatives:
Reagan was not a demigod. H should not be fully credited to ending the Cold War. The Soviet Union happened to
236 Celticrai
December 7th, 2009 at 2:00 pm
My favorite Reagan quote is after hereing Jonny Carson critcize one of his policies “What the hell does an actor know about politics”
237 pige0329
February 25th, 2010 at 9:11 pm
Well you guys criticize Ronald Regan for being stupid and causing more tensions, but you really have to think about what he was trying to accomplish and how hard it was to work on this. True he should not be fully credited for ending the civil war, but he is credited of bringing and end to it. These quotes are amazing and these are great words coming from a great president. Live on Regan, Live on. God bless.
238 pige0329
February 25th, 2010 at 9:21 pm
I Meant cold war
239 pithlitt
March 18th, 2010 at 5:08 am
@Wally (72): what fucking planet are you living on? If not for the wealthy we’d have nothing??? Give your fucking head a shake. And since when have the top 1% paid 40% of the taxes? Not in my lifetime in any country under any form of government has that ever happened. Who’s asking you to give away your money? I think if you did just a little research, you would find that most of the people these days with money (real WEALTH not just a lot of money)didn’t do anything at all to earn it. Their grandparents and possibly their parents did, but they (like G.W. Bush for example) have done NOTHING to EARN a single penny, and Reagans economic policies were, in his own words, designed to make the rich even richer, so that his “trickle down effect” could take hold of the U.S. economy. Since the inception of that excedingly flawed policy, the U.S. middle class has shrunk by 50%, losing nearly 2 trillion(yes, with a T)dollars in spending power while the wealthy have of course gotten far wealthier than even Ronnie probably dreamed. Get your head out of your ass and THINK!@DiscHuker (142): It is one of the marks of a great man (of any political stripe or occupation)to be able to admit when a plan is not working or a mistake has been made. Most of my anger towards George W. for instance, is his inability to accept responsibility for his mistakes and refusal to do what was needed to correct them. Any person in a position of political power needs humility, and more of it than any average citizen, and must remain humble towards those he has sworn to work for. Reagan did not apologize for his errors, instead letting others take the fall for his failures. Remember Oliver North? That alone negates any greatness he or his followers might have been able to claim. On a more general note, many of the U.S. citizens on this page have been blathering about Ronnie beating the soviets and being responsible for the downfall of the soviet union. You are woefully missinformed. The Pope at the time had more to do with it than any U.S. citizen could ever have. The downfall started in Poland with the rise of a Vatican backed labour union. By the time that Polish born Pope went to visit Poland, the first visit from a Pope to any soviet country, it was too late for the soviet government in Moscow to do anything except watch. By that time East Germany was also in the throes of revolution, emboldened by the Solidarity Union of Poland, the East German people were flodding into Wast Germany by the 10s of thousands every day. Coupled with the rise of a new Soviet leader, Mikhal Gorbechev(sp?)whose entire political career was made on a platform of economic reform, the end was in sight. There were simply not enough troops, or the will, to crush these rebellions. Reagan had little to do with it, but certainly took advantage of the situation, and there’s nothing wrong with that in itself, but to take credit for it is certainly wrong.
240 Davo
May 9th, 2010 at 1:20 am
Only losers discuss politics
241 Will Trame
July 22nd, 2010 at 4:58 pm
Ronald Reagan’s biggest asset was that he was an actor. My mother used to say that watching his press conferences during his presidency was like watching “GE Theater”. I sometimes wonder if he had Alzheimer’s while he was in office. I recall some photos of him looking pretty feeble around the 1983 time frame. Still, I will say that Reagan was a far better president than GWB.
242 Disciple
July 28th, 2010 at 5:07 pm
Agreed. Integrity, principles, and faith. Not perfect, but right-minded. It was nice to have a president that recognized moral law and gave credit to God without apology.
243 SlackerKeith
August 9th, 2010 at 8:51 am
You are about as sharp as a bag full of hammers. My suggestion to you is this: Immediately consult with a neurosurgeon. With the advances in medical technology, he just might be able to transplant a fully-functional human brain in lieu of the tiny, liquid-filled nubbin that currently rests atop your spinal cord.
Either that, or keep silent. I'll paraphrase an old adage for you: "It is better to remain silent and be presumed an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt".
244 SlackerKeith
August 9th, 2010 at 8:59 am
Insightful??? Have you been sniffing your user name?
245 SlackerKeith
August 9th, 2010 at 9:01 am
And how does this apply to Ronald Reagan?
246 charlotte gleen
August 13th, 2010 at 11:18 am
Many tried to get him to tone down the "tear down this wall" comment at Brandenburg gate. Thank God he didn't. Millions of people owe their freedom to his courage in Germany and across the former Soviet Union. He saw things with 20/20 vision.