LPSG

Regan-isms

Originally Posted by 3664shaken I don't mean to sound rude or condescending but maybe that is the type of people you hang out with. I grew up on the wrong side of the tracks, single

is part of a discussion in the Politics forum that includes topics on Political and government related discussions..


Go Back   LPSG > Main > Politics

 
LinkBack Thread Tools
Old 01-16-2010   #91 (permalink)
D_Davy_Downspout is offline
Account Disabled


Quote:
Originally Posted by 3664shaken View Post
I don't mean to sound rude or condescending but maybe that is the type of people you hang out with. I grew up on the wrong side of the tracks, single mom, very low income and sometimes on state assistance. Lived in many areas where I was the minority and was never once taught to think that way.

As far as it's being a common thing, maybe to racist but to 90% of Americans I don't think so.
No, I'm sorry, you're very wrong here. I'm actually pretty flabbergasted that you haven't heard of the concept, since you claim to be so informed.

Here are two mainstream articles on the subject, I'm sure I can find many more.

Quote:
Again, the only time I have ever heard is used in a racial context is when Democrats/Liberals say that it is a code-word.

It may have been 50 years ago to a select group of southerners, but I live in the present not the past.
I gave you a very specific example, connecting all the dots for you, which you chose to edit out of your reply, rather than replying directly.

If you think that racism is in the past, I suggest you talk to a black person.

Quote:
This doesn't even make sense if the majority of social services are handed out to white people what racism is involved? Anti-white racism?
I'm not telling you that it makes sense statistically, but that the racism exists.

Do you deny that racism exists in politics?

Quote:
Nice try

You were the one who brought this up with a blanket statement and didn't specify. It's your argument, give an example where you think you are correct.
No, I asked very specifically for an example. Here, let me quote myself:

Quote:
Originally Posted by [Url=http://www.lpsg.org/165106-regan-isms-4.html#post2542889
Sinwin[/url]]
I can't think of a single case where this is true, so I'm going to need some examples.

While you do that, consider this:
So yeah, go ahead.

Quote:


HUH - I gave you a very detailed book to read that uses copious sources all footnoted and the such. Although it goes through technical information it's not very hard to believe.

Is reading a book just problematic for you and btw, you didn't ask for it on-line you asked me to point you in the direction of some data. This is the best source I know of - enjoy.
I could respond to every post you make with a link to a book on Amazon, but it doesn't make for a very compelling argument.

Rather than have others try to make your argument for you, please do the legwork and try to support your argument. It shouldn't be hard, since you said it was a lot of data, are you just unwilling to spend the time to research yourself?

Quote:
No, don't read much fiction. We have many the unclassified documents available to us and there have been many history BOOKS written about this subject, including many of the high-ranking military members of the soviets stating this very premise. Gorbachev also writes about in his book, sorry no links but I can point you to some really good books.
Again, you fail to source your work other than showing an ability to link to Amazon. You do realize, there's a lot of info available on the net right?

Quote:
Not at all, that's the left's smear, if you read the history you would know why, I've already alluded to it.
I stated several examples of the US being more agressive to Russia than it ever has been to us.

[quote]

The problem with many ideologues is that they know the truth without ever doing any research, like reading history books, and reading first hand accounts. While you think what I paint is a fantastic scenario because it doesn't fit the talking points and your beliefs it is a highly accurate portrayal of known facts and history.

I will always take facts, data and history over some picture painted to conform to dogmas.
[quote]

This is terribly ironic, given some of your other arguments, and your repeated resort to ad homs implying that the other person hasn't read or researched at all.


Quote:
I live in reality not fantasy land, it doesn't matter how you slice it or dice it a Prison cook is still a prison cook, that job does not warrant $ 100,000 a year. You may wish to sit on a mighty perch of judgment but deep down inside you know this is true.
I love how you keep on giving more and more fantastic examples. The job keeps getting less intense, and the pay keeps going up. How about you stick to the actual example given? Air traffic controllers.


Quote:
I teach part-time do you want to go here.

People who work in the public sector still need to be held accountable and yes guess what, when you pick a certain profession you know ahead of time what the average salaries are going to be. YOU have made that choice so when I sacrifice my time for less pay and teach on the side that is my choice and I do it willingly because I feel I have something to offer.

Does that make me a better person????

I don't know I'll let you decide.
Unfortunately, I feel that people those who offer a valuable service to society should be adequately compensated for their work.

Does that make me a better person????

I'll let you decide.

Quote:
Many of those jobs were moved offshore before Reagan (gasp it's true) and the groups that suffered the most have usually been strong union jobs. The strength of the union is never at issue if a company is going to pack up and leave.
Really? You're going to make me explain this one to you? That's embarrassing.

Congress, it makes laws. Unions represent workers. Unions can fight laws that make it easy for companies to exploit cheap labor in undeveloped countries.

Germany, of example, has strong unions and a strong export business. I assure you, this is not just a coincidence.

Quote:
I view this slightly differently it was PATCO that was playing hardball, they declared a strike that was illegal, wanted much higher pay, and a 32 hour work week. They felt they were essential and could not be replaced and as many of the members later stated their demands were outrageous.

Reagan ordered them back to work and to negotiate while working, THEY refused (that was hardball) so Reagan gave them 48 hours and they still refused (some did come back to work) Regan simply followed the law and fired them. Remember they WERE the ones breaking the law.
Nobody believed that the government would actually fire them, otherwise why would they strike? He knew they wouldn't accept his offer to negotiate while back at work. The whole reason a strike happens is negotiations during normal business have broken down. I do not think that their demands were outrageous at all, given the stress of that job. No to mention, a 32 hour work week isn't crazy, it exists in many developed countries...and a 40 hour work weak was considered "crazy" at one time as well, but it exists now because of unions.

Do not doubt, the fact that Reagan would fire even the most essential workers sent a strong message to labor.
D_Davy_Downspout is offline  
Old 01-16-2010   #92 (permalink)
D_Davy_Downspout is offline
Account Disabled


Quote:
Originally Posted by 3664shaken View Post
So if you know the details explain to me why Israel is not allowed to act as a sovereign nation, they sold arms to Iran - RIGHT!?
LOL, yes, they were just acting on their own.

Quote:
True, but that is hindsight. In the early 1980's, according to our best intelligence, we did not think they were any where near the dire circumstances that they were.

What is true is that when Reagan started building up our military and proposed SDI the soviets respond in kind. This hastened their impending collapse.

Liberals refuse to acknowledge this point while conservatives refuse to acknowledge that the USSR, unless it changed how it was doing business was heading for a collapse. That is one of the reasons the military was pushing for a winnable (in their eyes) nuclear exchange.
Again, you're not supported by history here. Russian spending as a % of GDP peaked before Reagan even came into office. Star Wars had little to no effect on this, but Gorbachev's reforms had a huge affect of throwing into the spotlight how bankrupt and disorganized the whole system was.

Quote:
I work with a gentleman who is from Chile and lived there under Allende's rule when inflation hit 300% a year and lands were taken away from the farmers. Many people were killed under him but you never hear of them. When Pinochet assumed power in 1973 most of Chile supported him.

This is one of those cases I asked you about earlier you choice here is to support Pinochet or the FPMR, a much more brutal organization that was trying to seize control

You have the choice of BAD and really fucking BAD, what do you choose?

It's very easy to say I wouldn't have supported Pinochet but by doing that you are giving de facto support to the FPMR.
Of all the regimes I thought you'd try to defend, I couldn't believe you went with fucking Pinochet.

Allende was a well-loved, democratically elected developmentalist that gave Chile some of the best times it had since it became a nation. Under him, there was widespread employment, with only 3% unemployment. He was hated by former colonial governments and big business because of his socialist/developmentalist policies. He did have inflation issues, but they paled in comparison to Pinochet, and on the whole, people did OK.

Pinochet, with the backing of big business interests, including those in the US, and the CIA, took over the government with the full military behind him. There was no armed resistance, other than less than 50 people in the presidential palace, whom had chosen to stick with Allende after he asked all other to leave for their own safety. Despite that slight resistance, Pinochet bombed the shit out of the palace with jets, and rolled tanks through Santiago. This is known as the the first 9/11 in Chile, as it occurred on September 11, 1973.

A senate report in June 1973 found that several American multinationals, headed by ITT, had worked with members of the government to sabotage Chile's economy, weakening it prior to the coup.

In the days after the coup, the CIA estimates that about 13,500 people were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured, and many killed. Chile Stadium and National Stadium were turned into prison camps, with the locker rooms and skyboxes turned into torture chambers. He also sent one of his generals, Sergio Stark, to roam the countryside in helicopter, executing subversives at at will. It was known as the Caravan of Death.

The final result of Pinochet's coup was 3200 people dead or "disappeared", at least 80,000 in prison, and 200,000 people fleeing the country.

The only way you could possibly think Pinochet was better than Allende, was if you knew absolutely nothing about him.
D_Davy_Downspout is offline  
Old 01-16-2010   #93 (permalink)
D_Davy_Downspout is offline
Account Disabled


Quote:
Originally Posted by 3664shaken View Post
So using your logic you must agree that this current high unemployment in America is all Obama's fault because he is the president right now.

Seriously

A modicum of intellectual honesty is all I ask for, why is it so difficult to give?
It's pretty funny that you keep using the "confused" emote, but quite appropriate.

You could make the argument that Obama isn't at fault for the current high unemployment in the US, because he hasn't really broken with any of the previous administrations policies. For all intents and purposes, he is the third term of the Bush administration. I'd say that it should at least be turning around, and it hasn't for that exact reason, so I do hold him partially responsible.

Unfortunately, you can't make this argument about Pinochet's regime in Chile, since the main thrust of his coup was to recreate the nation as an extremely privatized free-market paradise. How laissez faire was he? Milton Friedman visited him personally, though the old codger didn't feel he had gone quite far enough.

Pinochet's regime had a handbook of new economic policies prepared for them when they took power, by the CIA and University of Chicago graduates. It was called "The Brick" due to it's size. Immediately upon seizing power, he removed price controls, government aid to schools and poor people, and privatized much of the government, often selling assets for a fraction of their worth. Quickly, inflation shot up to 375%, twice as high as it ever got under Allende, and unemployment went from 3% under the previous regime, to 20% under Pinochet, all within 18mos. By the 80's, half of the nation was under the poverty line, and the only thing keeping the government afloat was the copper mine that Allende had nationalized, which generated something like 3/4 of it's total revenue.
D_Davy_Downspout is offline  
Old 01-19-2010   #94 (permalink)
D_Davy_Downspout is offline
Account Disabled


I just want to reiterate, Reagan was one of the worst presidents this country ever had.
D_Davy_Downspout is offline  
Old 01-20-2010   #95 (permalink)
B_starinvestor is offline
Banned


Quote:
Originally Posted by sinwin View Post
I just want to reiterate, Reagan was one of the worst presidents this country ever had.
hehe.

put the bottle down, sinwin.

Terrorists have no rights under the U.S. Constitution. See Sections 8 and 9. The 5th Amendment gets trumped.
B_starinvestor is offline  
Old 01-20-2010   #96 (permalink)
socaldude28 is offline


hmmm well Reagan remains one of our most popular presidents - apparently a lot of people think he did something right. . . i'm hearing a lot of sour grapes on here but it's cool - I'll just try my best to mimic Reagan by shrugging the bitching off with a smile! It always drove his critics nuts and brought on the irrational rants!! :)

"Don't worry about the deficit. . . it's big enough to take care of itself!"
"How was my meeting with Tutu?. . . . so-so"

hope this link works for anyone interested in Reagan and Cold War history (it's from CNN/BBC - not exactly the RNC - actually every episode is pretty awesome). . .

Ep. 22 of Cold War: Star Wars (1981-1988)

his foreign policy was a lot more nuanced then his critics care to acknowledge. he helped get the Soviet Union in deep financial trouble by doubling our defense budget, SDI, making deals with Saudi Arabia to get the price of oil down (USSR's main source of money) . . . applying every possible type of pressure on Soviet interests everywhere, all at the same time. Gorby blinked
socaldude28 is offline  
Old 01-20-2010   #97 (permalink)
D_Davy_Downspout is offline
Account Disabled


Quote:
Originally Posted by socaldude28 View Post
hmmm well Reagan remains one of our most popular presidents - apparently a lot of people think he did something right. . . i'm hearing a lot of sour grapes on here but it's cool - I'll just try my best to mimic Reagan by shrugging the bitching off with a smile! It always drove his critics nuts and brought on the irrational rants!! :)

"Don't worry about the deficit. . . it's big enough to take care of itself!"
"How was my meeting with Tutu?. . . . so-so"
He was an actor, of course he was congenial. Glad to see you're more concerned about style than substance.

Quote:
hope this link works for anyone interested in Reagan and Cold War history (it's from CNN/BBC - not exactly the RNC - actually every episode is pretty awesome). . .

Ep. 22 of Cold War: Star Wars (1981-1988)

his foreign policy was a lot more nuanced then his critics care to acknowledge. he helped get the Soviet Union in deep financial trouble by doubling our defense budget, SDI, making deals with Saudi Arabia to get the price of oil down (USSR's main source of money) . . . applying every possible type of pressure on Soviet interests everywhere, all at the same time. Gorby blinked
Gorby blinked? That's what you got?

I assume you're going to thank Reagan for Perestroika and Glasnost?

Yes, the soviet union was not at all financially unstable before the gipper got in there....
D_Davy_Downspout is offline  
Old 01-20-2010   #98 (permalink)
D_Davy_Downspout is offline
Account Disabled


Quote:
Originally Posted by starinvestor View Post
hehe.

put the bottle down, sinwin.
I had a dream.....

That you contributed something of substance to a thread, and didn't run away when people started posting facts....
D_Davy_Downspout is offline  
Old 01-20-2010   #99 (permalink)
socaldude28 is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by sinwin View Post
He was an actor, of course he was congenial. Glad to see you're more concerned about style than substance.



Gorby blinked? That's what you got?

I assume you're going to thank Reagan for Perestroika and Glasnost?

Yes, the soviet union was not at all financially unstable before the gipper got in there....
Style matters sinwin. . . . it's what got all the substance through a democratic-controlled house while we watch Obama's agenda implode as we speak despite huge majorities.

Reagan responded to being shot by saying "Honey, I forgot to duck" and telling the doctors trying to save his life "I hope you're republicans". . . those two lines probably got him the extra public support he needed to pressure enough democrats to pass his huge tax cut plan in '81.

Actually I'll do you one better simwin. . . Gorby wouldn't have been selected by the Politburu in the first place in 1985 if not for the soviets desperately needing to respond to vigorous new american leadership (aka Reagan). . . Gorby was a hail mary pass, a desperate attempt to show dynamism and youth and regain the initiative on the world stage that Reagan took back. Perestroika and Glasnost were a clear response to a renewed dynamism and leadership in America that was apparent to the 49 states that reelected him in 1984. It was also apparent to the leaders in Eastern Europe (Poland, Czechoslavakia. . . etc) who give Reagan enormous credit for the crumbling of the Soviet Unions eastern empire in 1989, two years before the USSR itself disintegrated onto the "ash heap of history". Reagan's role in helping bring down the Soviet Union was also apparent to Soviet generals and Gorby himself (if u watch that documentary I linked to)

speaking of "renewed dynamism" brought on by Reagan. . . . where o where have i heard that before. . . oh that's right. . . President Obama!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HFLuOBsNMZA

You're refusal to concede any ground on substance makes your arguments less than persuasive. Face it, the guy is popular, and if your bottom line is that his popularity is a result of mass delusion rather than successful policies (foreign and domestic) then more power to ya. He did have the benefit of a good setup-man tho. . . it wasn't hard to show improvement over Jimmy Carter.
socaldude28 is offline  
Old 01-20-2010   #100 (permalink)
midlifebear is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by starinvestor View Post
hehe.

put the bottle down, sinwin.
Star, you poor thing. Once again you're misquoting and getting it wrong.

Reagan frequently reamarked: "He, he, he . . . there you go again."

Notice there are three "he's"? And this was his main defense when confronted with facts he could not remember or cared not to debate. Sort of like you. Maybe more naps would help?

  • If you think that you're so smart, you just may be a work of art! -- Burma Shave
  • Some people are like a Slinky; they aren't good for anything, but they make you smile when you push them down the stairs.
  • Isn't life beautiful? Isn't life gay? Isn't life the perfect way to spend the time of day? (hurl!)
midlifebear is offline  
Old 01-20-2010   #101 (permalink)
B_VinylBoy is offline
Banned


Quote:
Originally Posted by socaldude28 View Post
You're refusal to concede any ground on substance makes your arguments less than persuasive. Face it, the guy is popular, and if your bottom line is that his popularity is a result of mass delusion rather than successful policies (foreign and domestic) then more power to ya. He did have the benefit of a good setup-man tho. . . it wasn't hard to show improvement over Jimmy Carter.
All it does is further prove that you're both viewing the same thing on two entirely different points. It is possible for a popular person to have a bad track record in his actual politics. Whether or not you want to acknowledge or disregard it to hold onto your opinion is a different thing altogether.

You've essentially proved sinwin's point without even trying.

Seriously... fuck it all.
B_VinylBoy is offline  
Old 01-20-2010   #102 (permalink)
sargon20 is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by sinwin View Post
I had a dream.....

That you contributed something of substance to a thread, and didn't run away when people started posting facts....
It's well known facts have a liberal bias.
in Republican Land all facts are nothing but fabricated lies spread by elitist professors, statisticians, experts, and intellectuals who have a secret liberal hidden agenda against the common man.

And only Bill O'Reily and Faux News can save them.

"The meaning of life is to find your gift. The purpose of live is to give it away."

-Pablo Picasso
sargon20 is offline  
Old 01-21-2010   #103 (permalink)
socaldude28 is offline


Quote:
Originally Posted by sinwin View Post
He was an actor, of course he was congenial. Glad to see you're more concerned about style than substance.



Gorby blinked? That's what you got?

I assume you're going to thank Reagan for Perestroika and Glasnost?

Yes, the soviet union was not at all financially unstable before the gipper got in there....
Quote:
Originally Posted by VinylBoy View Post
All it does is further prove that you're both viewing the same thing on two entirely different points. It is possible for a popular person to have a bad track record in his actual politics. Whether or not you want to acknowledge or disregard it to hold onto your opinion is a different thing altogether.

You've essentially proved sinwin's point without even trying.
ummm not really but thx for trying to be clever :)

my main point was that Gorbachev himself, Soviet generals, eastern european leaders (havel, walesa. . .), even john kerry give Reagan substantial credit for winning (or if u prefer a less loaded term. . . successfully unwinding) the Cold War. This is not to deny Gorby his crucial role, only to place it in its proper context.

Economically we can talk back and forth at each other till the sun don't shine about inflation, interest rates, economic growth, poverty rates, wealth creation. . . etc. Obviously a fruitless exercise as ideologically no one is going to back down. . . The bottom line is Americans vote their pocketbooks and if Reagan won 49 states after 4 years and his VP won after 8 years perhaps it indicates something. . . if u disagree that's cool - just saying you're in the minority on this one :)

another favorite Reaganism for those seeking a little levity. . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRUbwnkEPqc
socaldude28 is offline  
Old 01-21-2010   #104 (permalink)
D_Davy_Downspout is offline
Account Disabled


Quote:
Originally Posted by socaldude28 View Post
Style matters sinwin. . . . it's what got all the substance through a democratic-controlled house while we watch Obama's agenda implode as we speak despite huge majorities.
LOL, you think Obama isn't getting exactly what he wants right now? Obama hasn't done shit, but it IS for lack of trying.
D_Davy_Downspout is offline  
Old 01-21-2010   #105 (permalink)
B_VinylBoy is offline
Banned


Quote:
Originally Posted by socaldude28 View Post
ummm not really but thx for trying to be clever :)
I don't have to try.

Quote:
my main point was that Gorbachev himself, Soviet generals, eastern european leaders (havel, walesa. . .), even john kerry give Reagan substantial credit for winning (or if u prefer a less loaded term. . . successfully unwinding) the Cold War. This is not to deny Gorby his crucial role, only to place it in its proper context.
But what did Reagan do exactly to end the Cold War? Beyond the lip service and the posturing...

Quote:
Economically we can talk back and forth at each other till the sun don't shine about inflation, interest rates, economic growth, poverty rates, wealth creation. . . etc. Obviously a fruitless exercise as ideologically no one is going to back down. . .
Why dismiss this aspect of his term of office? As if Economics is not a concern to most people.

Quote:
The bottom line is Americans vote their pocketbooks and if Reagan won 49 states after 4 years and his VP won after 8 years perhaps it indicates something. . . if u disagree that's cool - just saying you're in the minority on this one :)
Any politician would win if their opponent openly said, on a large political stage, that they would raise taxes. Just ask Walter Mondale how that worked out for him in 1984. Sometimes, the American public, regardless of political affiliation, don't want to hear the truth. At least not that candidly.

Bush I said, "Read my lips... no new taxes". And he won, even though he raised all the "old ones". We all know the person with the best lip service tends to have an edge over the opposition. Find me a politician who won office that didn't have some kind of a catchphrase or gimmick?

Quote:
another favorite Reaganism for those seeking a little levity. . .

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RRUbwnkEPqc
The fact is, this whole thing about Reagan, his popularity and whether or not he did a good job in office is all an open ended question that has no definitive answer. You have your reasons for liking the guy. sinwin and I definitely have our reasons for not. That doesn't make you anymore right than it makes us anymore wrong.

And as much as you want to think you're not proving sinwin's point of looking at a president's celebrity more than his credentials, you're doing just that. Now for a second post in a row.

Seriously... fuck it all.
B_VinylBoy is offline  

Tags
reganisms

Thread Tools



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:00 AM.

Latest Threads

Latest Posts
UK Lads
20 Minutes Ago by openmy
GF nude pix
27 Minutes Ago by wimpdi

Latest Blogs

On Cam Now
gentalman, LargeYoung, loxid, notthemessiah

Please read the rules.

Online: 1279 | Chatting: 25

Sponsors

Copyright 1999 - 2014 lpsg.com. All rights reserved