Reagan Dead at 93 - SciForums.com

invert_nexus

06-06-04, 12:29 AM

tude dog

06-06-04, 12:31 AM

haha yeah invert_nexus, that WAS a little harsh on Reagan and your great-grandma

just wondering, how do you know if invert_nexus is a boy, or male? :confused: :)

hmm,, great point, I don't know, got me.

StarOfEight

06-06-04, 12:35 AM

Seen any black helicopters lately?
How about some Moon men stalking your local grocery store.

Is anyone suppose to take you seriously?

No more ridiculous than "We have to go to Iraq 'cause they did 9/11 ... wait, no, 'cause they got WMDs ... well, actually, 'cause Saddam is a Hitler ... no, sorry, we went there to make America safe ... change of plans, we went there to liberate the Iraqi people."

And is anyone supposed to take your trolling seriously, tude?

JustARide

06-06-04, 12:36 AM

Ronald Reagan was the greatest President of the United States since Teddy Roosevelt. His accomplishment were many, and we all live in a safer world today because of him.

I'm sure the Contras and Mujahideen (aka modern day Al-Qaeda) would agree. :)

As for conspiracy theories regarding timing, I tend to put nothing beyond the Bush administration -- but in this case, I highly doubt even Karl Rove would pull these strings, considering how those at the top of the Bush team likely consider Reagan a god who walked as man. The fact of the matter is every week the Bushies have some new brand of evil to explain. In short, it would be tough these days to find a time when the administration is not engaged in serious damage control (one could argue this began the moment Bush decided to run for office...) The man is a walking disaster.

But I do believe Reagan's presidency did mark the beginning of a conservative era in American politics which remains with us to this day. (Clinton, after all, co-opted many Republican issues.) The sad truth is the raging Republican elephant Bill thought we finally took down in 1992 is not dead... it was merely playing dead.

Josh.

tude dog

06-06-04, 12:50 AM

I'll say this. I have no reason to be happy for his death at this late day. His power dried up long ago and his death affects me not at all. As I posted, if he'd died 24 years sooner he would have done us all a favor.

His Reaganomics ravaged the middle-class and poor while the wealthy sucked more and more of the wealth (kinda sounds like what's happening in our common era). His war on drugs terrorizes us to this very day. I'm uncertain how to feel about the collapse of the Soviet Union which is laid at his feet. Are we really better off these days without two superpowers facing each other with M.A.D.? The Iran-Contra scandal... I could go on all day with things Reagan caused which we would be better off without. Since you're such a fan, why did you limit your praise of Reagan to such a simplistic ALLHAIL, Tude Dog?

And by the way, I'm old enough to have witnessed the havoc that Reagan unleashed.

And about being harsh, Reagan deserves it, my grandma didn't. But, the truth is death was a mercy for her. I think it was most likely a mercy for Reagan, as well.

And if you don't like people bad-mouthing your hero, just chalk it up to a great man can be measured by how many people hate him. I'm sure you will anyhow.

Seems you and I live in different universes, as I never witnessed havoc or the ravaging of the middle class.

You seem to one confuse puppy to not know "how to feel about the collapse of the Soviet Union".

The so called war on drugs was on before and after President Reagan, so just drop that.

And what is your problem with the highly vaunted Iran/Contra Scandal?

hmmm?

I am always amused that President Reagan opened all his books on the subject and not a single item could be found that he did anything wrong. So get on to another subject please as that is already boring.

Oh, "a great man can be measured by how many people hate him."

Please don't make me go and pull up the records of how he was so overwhelmingly elected and re-elected.

Besides, I don't view great leadership on how many people hate him, but I look at his accomplishments, which are many.

tude dog

06-06-04, 12:53 AM

No more ridiculous than "We have to go to Iraq 'cause they did 9/11 ... wait, no, 'cause they got WMDs ... well, actually, 'cause Saddam is a Hitler ... no, sorry, we went there to make America safe ... change of plans, we went there to liberate the Iraqi people."

And is anyone supposed to take your trolling seriously, tude?

Lets see now, what did Ronald Reagan have to do with Iraq?

This should be interesting.

invert_nexus

06-06-04, 01:07 AM

Seems you and I live in different universes, as I never witnessed havoc or the ravaging of the middle class.

So you at least concede to the ravaging of the poor?

The so called war on drugs was on before and after President Reagan, so just drop that.

Drugs were a criminal offense, but the "War on Drugs" was declared during Reagan's watch. The war mentality towards drug offenders heightens the extremes that the administration will go to while fighting the "war."

And what is your problem with the highly vaunted Iran/Contra Scandal?

I guess you think that public officials lying and making secret deals with terrorist states is OK? Whatever yanks your crank buddy. There's also the possibility that Reagan cut the secret deals even before he was elected in order to force Carter out of the presidency, but of course this is unproven.

You seem to one confuse puppy to not know "how to feel about the collapse of the Soviet Union".
...
Lets see now, what did Ronald Reagan have to do with Iraq?

Do you think we'd be occupying Iraq if the Soviet Union were still around?

And Bush today is merely an extension of Bush of the past who was most likely behind more decisions in the Reagan adminstration than he was ever given credit for. The guy was Cia Director. You don't get that job being an idiot like his popular image as vice-president portrayed him.

Now, I'm not gonna sit here and bicker back and forth all day over this. I've made my feelings clear. And you have made yours clear.

ALLHAIL!!

Repo Man

06-06-04, 01:13 AM

And what is your problem with the highly vaunted Iran/Contra Scandal?
Muslims also responded to U.S. troops by seizing American hostages. Reagan sent military equipment to Iran as a means to entice the Iranians to exert pressure to get hostages released. After the "arms for hostages" deal became public (along with the illegal funneling of the proceeds to the Nicaraguan Contras), Reagan's credibility was devastated. Reagan went into such a tailspin after the crisis broke that his new chief of staff, Howard Baker, briefly examined invoking the Twenty-Fifth Amendment to remove Reagan from office because of medical unfitness. The Tower Commission report on the debacle concluded: "The arms-for-hostages trades rewarded a regime that clearly supported terrorism and hostage-taking."

http://www.counterpunch.org/bovard10082003.html

StarOfEight

06-06-04, 02:20 AM

Lets see now, what did Ronald Reagan have to do with Iraq?

This should be interesting.

Reagan supported Islamic terrorists ... we went to Iraq to launch a pre-emptive strike against Islamic terrorists.

cosmictraveler

06-06-04, 07:35 AM

A truely great man , my deepest sympathies to his family and close friends. Although I didn't always agree with his politics I believe he tried to do what he thought was the right thing for the United States and its allies.

DeeCee

06-06-04, 07:56 AM

Thoughts about his legacy
1. He fucked over Nicaragua.
2. He did a back flip on abortion when he got his diagnosis.
3. Cowboy.

There's three off the top of my head.
Dee cee

top mosker

06-06-04, 09:58 AM

Yea, go smoke your bowl, and leave the adults alone so we can laugh at your praise of Tim Leary.
I did, while watching cnn's never-ending coverage of the event and I sure as hell laughed my ass off. That's about how much respect all of you "adults" and your generation deserve. You seriously fucked things over for us with all your wars and atom bombs and drug hysteria... The acid heads of the 60s looked for a different way than the cycle of the status quo. How can you ridicule that?

So go worship your cowboy god. Praise his foreign policies, weapons spending and complete lack of progress. Maybe you should even join the campaign to put his face on Mt. Rushmore. In the meantime, I'm going to saturate my grey matter with books that step outside the realm of the silent majority.

DeeCee

06-06-04, 10:17 AM

Hey tude (isn't that a beatles song?)

"Take a sad song and make it better"

:D

I am always amused that President Reagan opened all his books on the subject and not a single item could be found that he did anything wrong. So get on to another subject please as that is already boring.

Yo! You old fucker!
Remember when you first heard the whitehouse tapes back from '72?
The sound of a president digging his own grave.
You were thinking the same thing as me and the rest of the world.....

:eek: "He kept the fuckin' tapes??!!!!" :eek:

Reagan either did not know or lied.
What a man!
Dee cee

tude dog

06-06-04, 11:57 AM

So you at least concede to the ravaging of the poor?

Drugs were a criminal offense, but the "War on Drugs" was declared during Reagan's watch. The war mentality towards drug offenders heightens the extremes that the administration will go to while fighting the "war."

I guess you think that public officials lying and making secret deals with terrorist states is OK? Whatever yanks your crank buddy. There's also the possibility that Reagan cut the secret deals even before he was elected in order to force Carter out of the presidency, but of course this is unproven.

Do you think we'd be occupying Iraq if the Soviet Union were still around?

And Bush today is merely an extension of Bush of the past who was most likely behind more decisions in the Reagan adminstration than he was ever given credit for. The guy was Cia Director. You don't get that job being an idiot like his popular image as vice-president portrayed him.

Now, I'm not gonna sit here and bicker back and forth all day over this. I've made my feelings clear. And you have made yours clear.

ALLHAIL!!

Ravaging the poor? What are you talking about??
When President Reagan took office he inherited an awful economy from the failed Carter Administration.

Please tell me how cutting taxes, reducing inflation, lowering the unemployment rate and interest rates ravaged anybody???

Give me a break.

I don't know what I ever posted that would lead you to say that I would condone lying.

You want to talk about the so called war on drugs? Why don't you just take a peek at the Clinton Administration? It was him who started using the military to interdict drug traffickers, which is fine with me.

"There's also the possibility that Reagan cut the secret deals even before he was elected in order to force Carter out of the presidency, but of course this is unproven."

That is total slander, and if you had any honor you would retract that statement and admit it is without foundation or merit.

"Do you think we'd be occupying Iraq if the Soviet Union were still around?"

Well gee, I would answer that but I just broke my crystal ball, and I don't care to speculate.

But I do know that there are a lot of eastern European countries free now, and part of NATO. I know that the Berlin Wall is history and Germany is unified.

Over all I would say that Europe is a better place.

Making secret deals with terrorist states, I suppose you mean selling TOW missiles to Iran?

May or not be good policy, but totally legal and ethical.

President George H. Bush was Director of the CIA for less than a year. In any event, being Director of the CIA is nothing to be ashamed of.

I am amazed at the thought that Vice President Bush was the man behind Reagans policies. That is a new one on me.

You may want to portray Reagan as an idiot, but that is only because you are mired in your own prejudices and ignorance. Nobody who know anything about Reagan would even suggest such a thing.

tude dog

06-06-04, 12:05 PM

1. He fucked over Nicaragua.
2. He did a back flip on abortion when he got his diagnosis.
3. Cowboy.

There's three off the top of my head.
Dee cee

Poor little Nicaragua. Instead of having the Ortega brothers and their Sandanista thugs ruling the land, they have elections now.

I don't know what back flip you are talking about. When he was govenor of California, he signed the law that made abortions legal in this state.

YYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEHHHHAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA
Yup pardner, cowboy, won of da gud'ns 2.

tude dog

06-06-04, 12:11 PM

Hey tude (isn't that a beatles song?)

"Take a sad song and make it better"

:D

Yo! You old fucker!
Remember when you first heard the whitehouse tapes back from '72?
The sound of a president digging his own grave.
You were thinking the same thing as me and the rest of the world.....

:eek: "He kept the fuckin' tapes??!!!!" :eek:

Reagan either did not know or lied.
What a man!
Dee cee

Yup, Nixon should have burned the tapes.

I have no reason to believe that President Reagan knew that money was being diverted to the Contras.

Since it is impossible to prove a negative, it is the responsibility of the accusers to prove that he did know.

fireguy_31

06-06-04, 12:51 PM

Top...
That's about how much respect all of you "adults" and your generation deserve. You seriously fucked things over for us with all your wars and atom bombs and drug hysteria...

Fair enough......

In the meantime, I'm going to saturate my grey matter with books that step outside the realm of the silent majority.

Hmmm, thanks for 'your' contribution.

the preacher

06-06-04, 04:05 PM

he did some good things and some bad things after all he was human
he deserves your respect just because he's dead
ninety three is a bloody good innings, oh to live as long
R.I.P. Ron

Repo Man

06-06-04, 04:14 PM

Different people have different opinions about the life of Ronald Reagan
- but there's one think I think everyone agrees on.

America will be forever in his debt.

Marc Perkel

The fact that Nicaragua has elections is no thanks to the US. Over the decades, we've done everything we could to prevent just that, including invading them more than once. Reagan was just going along with a shameful tradition.

Immediately after the US destroyed Guatemalan democracy in 1954, the National Security Council produced a Top Secret Memorandum titled "U.S. Policy Toward Latin America" (NSC 5432). It opened by explaining that the major threat to US interests is "the trend in Latin America toward nationalistic regimes" that respond to "popular demand for immediate improvement in the low living standards of the masses" and for production geared to domestic needs. This is intolerable, because the US is committed to "encouraging a climate conducive to private investment," and must "encourage" the Latin American countries "to base their economies on a system of private enterprise, and, as essential thereto, to create a political and economic climate conducive to private investment of both domestic and foreign capital," including guarantees for the "opportunity to earn and in the case of foreign capital to repatriate a reasonable return." These principles are reiterated elsewhere, often verbatim (e.g., NSC 5613/1, Sept. 25, 1956). The Latin American countries must concentrate on export-oriented production in accord with the needs of US investors. To facilitate these goals, so this and later documents explain forthrightly, it is necessary for the US to control the Latin American military, which has the responsibility to overthrow civilian governments that do not conform to US requirements (called "the welfare of the nation"); the methods are examined in detail. It is also necessary to overcome the excessive liberalism of Latin American governments, to block "subversion" (that is, the wrong ideas), and in general to bar any challenge to US domination. The US has no objection to democratic forms -- indeed, these are useful for the purposes of population control at home -- but only if conditions are established, by violence if necessary, to ensure that the threat of independent development, social reform and broad democratic participation has been overcome.

More... http://www.zmag.org/chomsky/articles/z8803-CA-next-phase.html

Repo Man

06-06-04, 04:27 PM

A sample of Reagan's letters from the archive.
http://www.whitehouse.org/history/reagan-letters/images/north.gif

http://www.whitehouse.org/history/reagan-letters/index.asp

JustARide

06-06-04, 05:22 PM

You know... I was poor to middle class in the late seventies and into the eighties. I remember being ravaged but it was by Carter, not Reagan. Reagan came in and saved us from double-digit inflation and World-Wide political decline. It was Carter who was giving away all our world-wide assets and killing of American CIA asset which put intelegence efforts back for years. No one could afford a house under Carter because housing prices were inflating so much faster than salaries. The economy was miserable and the general feeling in the country was that America was finished as a world power. America was tetering on the brink under Carter, and Reagan pulled us back (at a cost no doubt but the alternative was worse). The USSR was becoming the world's dominate power and Carter was content to let it happen.

IMO, America, and the world, owes Ronald Reagan a debt it cannot pay. Ravaged by Reagan? No, ravaged by Carter. I was there. I was struggling in the poor to middle-class and Reagan lifted US out of dispair. Reagan was the voice of optimism. Reagan defeated the Communist block. I grew up expecting to go, any moment, into a nuclear war, and my children know nothing of this. Reagan was our saviour sent by God, not our foe. I know because I was there. May God bless Ronald Reagan and give him a triumphant entrance into the pearly gates!

Ummm... errr... I'm afraid I don't... recall this...

I seem to remember massive deficits, a giant middle finger to Nicaragua, Star Wars, funding and arming the Mujahideen, convenient hearing loss, hostages, renewed hatred of the poor, yuppies, and a crapload of defense spending. And oh yeah, the Soviet Union finally bankrupted itself.

But seriously, he wasn't all bad. Not crazy about his politics, but anybody who can crack jokes after being shot has my respect. Also, Bedtime for Bonzo was fucking brilliant. :bugeye:

Josh

invert_nexus

06-06-04, 05:36 PM

The acid heads of the 60s looked for a different way than the cycle of the status quo. How can you ridicule that?

The acid heads of the 60's either ran away to a fantasy land or turned into the corporate sharks of the 80's. The hippie culture was a failure and we still live with it's legacy of self-destruction to this day.

Tude Dog,

I already said that I wasn't going to bicker with you over this. All your rebuttals are laughable anyway. I still say that for such a great fan your memorial is poor. Why don't you follow the topic of this thread and say what you think his legacy is rather than just criticizing others? ALLHAIL!

laughing weasel

06-06-04, 08:19 PM

I do not support the outlawing of drugs and do not believe that the anti-drug laws are anything but another way of attacking our civil liberties. I do feel that when the government makes a law it has the right to try to enforce that law. That is why I support the use of military forces in the interdiction process. Because of the demand for drugs there are cartels that have larger incomes than the nations that they are located in there is no effective way to fight this crime spree unless you treat it like a war that is what makes prohibition so bad is the changes and compromises that it forces you to accept.

laughing weasel

06-06-04, 08:29 PM

Reagan was never one to do anything halfway. His trickle down theory kind of sucked but he did manage to preside over the collapse of the Soviet Union.

15ofthe19

06-06-04, 09:19 PM

Most of the dipshits on this forum are too young to remember double digit inflation and double digit interest rates but I am not one of those dipshits. Reagan inherited a slow-speed-train-wreck economy from Carter and managed to turn it into almost seven straight years of economic growth. Interest rates were so high when he took office, thanks to Jimmy, that most people couldn't even think about buying a home. Reagan changed that in short order. He fired the cockswallows at the ATC union and proved that he was not to be trifled with. He stared down the Soviets and they pissed themselves. Despite what Sting and other limpdicks would have you believe, Gorby was scared shitless of Reagan, and even Kissinger was scared of his brashness, but he was the one with the brass set and he won. That is not up for debate my friends.

God Bless that man.

StarOfEight

06-07-04, 08:23 AM

Gorbachev was scared of Reagan? Right, a guy who grew up in a political culture where challenging the boss could get you sent to fuckin' Siberia was terrified by a B-movie actor. Gorbachev was scared of the Soviet Union's shitty economy, and he was worried that the hard-liners in the Soviet bureaucracy would block his attempted reforms.

GuessWho

06-07-04, 02:44 PM

Did anyone know that Ronald Reagan was the only U.S president who has ever waited on tables and washed dishes to earn money for college? This totally earned my respect.

He had done so many great things not only for the U.S. but also for the world.

God bless his soul!

Undecided

06-07-04, 04:54 PM

This Reagan USSR collapse thing is overrated imho, sure he did help in its ultimate destruction, but he is no way the reason. The Reagan legacy far extents into our present and future, he was the first neo-con to gain office. He was a simple man there really is very little doubt about that, with his “evil empire” nonsense. But I must admit the man was a good communicator, his presidency was most likely of a great orator surrounded by brains. Reagan’s administration is a more successful Bush administration (which is based on that of the Reagonista’s) and with heavy influence from Reaganites. He did fundamentally change the face of the American economy admittedly for the better, but for the govt he claimed to be small govt but the budget and debt seem to indicate otherwise. His influence on American politics seems to have been the reigning in of conservative elements that were largely patronized, and shunned upon in the “American enlightenment” of the 60’s and 70’s. The republican party arguably owes its life to Ronnie, because if the legacy of Nixon lasted it would most likely have died.

crazy151drinker

06-07-04, 05:09 PM

[Drugs were a criminal offense, but the "War on Drugs" was declared during Reagan's watch. The war mentality towards drug offenders heightens the extremes that the administration will go to while fighting the "war." ]

Actually it was Nixon who started the whole "war" (ie waste of taxpayer money just like prohibition) on drugs.

I liked Reagan because he didnt put up with anybodys shit. Maybe he was a litte crazy, but he sure scared the Soviets.

Repo Man

06-07-04, 08:25 PM

I seem to be somewhat immune to the cult of personality that grips so many people. I didn't like Reagan, but I didn't hate him either. Pretty close to the way I felt about Clinton.

I did vote against him in 1984, which was the first election I was eligible to vote in.

I thought many of his policies were misguided, and some were downright insane. Remember, this is the man who called the murdering Contras "the moral equivalent of our Founding Fathers."

I watched the first Reagan-Carter debate, and it seemed to me that Reagan was more at ease, and as the debate went on, Carter seemed to look angry. Only years later did I come to find out that he probably was angry.
In his book Gambling With History: Reagan in the White House, Laurence Barrett provided an in-depth account of the Reagan administration's first two years. He also mentioned that during the 1980 presidential campaign, briefing papers to be used by Jimmy Carter in preparation for the October 28 debate with his Republican challenger had somehow been acquired by Reagan's team. The papers gave Reagan advance warning about the issues his opponent would raise. It was a dirty trick, said Barrett, Time's senior White House correspondent, and he surmised that a Reagan "mole" had "filched" the papers. The story broke wide open in the summer of 1983, after Gambling With History hit the bookstands. Though some politicians and journalists dismissed it as a tempest in a teapot, Debategate, as it came to be known, caused Reagan big problems. While some Americans disagreed with his policies, most believed him to be a man of integrity; Debategate raised questions whether that was true.
http://eightiesclub.tripod.com/id293.htm

Not only did his years as an actor give him an edge, but he knew, (or had a very good idea) what Carter was going to say. Put yourself in Carters place, wouldn't you have been angry when it became apparent that your opponent had inside information?

Jimmy Carters biggest fault as a politician was his sincere belief in telling the truth.

As for the economy, he hardly inherited a healthy one. Don't forget, in 1978 OPEC raised the price of crude 50%! Then the Iranian revolution happened, further destabilizing crude prices. I don't even know if Reagan could have been popular if he had been president during those times.

invert_nexus

06-07-04, 08:44 PM

I did vote against him in 1984, which was the first election I was eligible to vote in.

I voted for him in 80. But I was only in 4th grade or something and it was just a booklet we were working in for the day. :p

The comments others have made about Carter's presidencies definitely have some credence. I was far too young to understand any of it at the time. So cannot comment on it greatly. But, I've heard that the economy that Reagan inherited was actually benefitting from the last of Carter's presidency. It took a while to kick in and Reagan took the credit. I'm not sure how true this is. I've never gone into any research into it.

I'll say this about Reagan, he did his job well. The most important job of a president is to be a pretty puppet to entertain the American people at the right time. The witty turn of phrase, the dextrous sleight of hand to divert attention there. Reagan was an actor and did the job well. Perhaps the only other president who was so successful at diverting attention from important matters was Clinton with his whole blow job scandal. I still don't like the effect he had on this country, though.

On the War on Drugs and Nixon. Nixon did indeed start the process, but it wasn't until Reagan that the terminology was perfected. The statement "The War on Drugs" changed the character of everything to do with it. It made it even more vicious than it had been before. The success of the catch phrase instilled in the people the belief that perhaps we could do without a few civil liberties to win this mythical war. The catch phrase did so well that it has now been co-opted by "The War on Terror." Let's hope the catch phrase doesn't hold the same power it did before. The War on Drugs will never end, and the War on Terror will likewise never end.

Oxygen

06-07-04, 08:58 PM

"War On Drugs", "War On..." anything wasn't a catch phrase invented in the 80's. Have you forgotten the hopeless "War On Inflation" of the 70s? Boy, did we lose THAT one!

My eternal gratitude to Mr. Ronald Reagan for what he did for my family. I'd follow you through Hell, sir.

invert_nexus

06-07-04, 09:10 PM

Have you forgotten the hopeless "War On Inflation" of the 70s? Boy, did we lose THAT one!

I did wonder if the phrase had roots in earlier phrases. Too young to remember the War on Inflation. I doubt if it was quite the same though. It was more metaphorical than physical. I doubt if many people had their doors kicked in for inflation reasons.

tude dog

06-07-04, 09:24 PM

The acid heads of the 60's either ran away to a fantasy land or turned into the corporate sharks of the 80's. The hippie culture was a failure and we still live with it's legacy of self-destruction to this day.

Tude Dog,

I already said that I wasn't going to bicker with you over this. All your rebuttals are laughable anyway. I still say that for such a great fan your memorial is poor. Why don't you follow the topic of this thread and say what you think his legacy is rather than just criticizing others? ALLHAIL!

hmmm,,,laughable, but you won't "bicker". I gotta remember that line. I am sure to try it on someone and get away with it.

Ronald Reagan, the eternal optimist whose core values of respect for human dignity led him to accomplish much.

I read on this site that the demise of the Soviet (evil) Empire, crumbling of the Berlin Wall, the freeing of east Europe from that totalitarian mess was a bad thing. That is how desperate some are to discredit the man.

I deem it disingenuous to argue that democracy in Nicaragua, thanks to Ronald Reagan is a bad thing.

In 1963 President Kennedy was assignation, Pres. Johnson was run out of office. Nixon resign in disgrace. Ford was a caretaker and Carter was a total failure.

Then, after 17 years of disappointment comes the man with a big smile, confidence and ability.

We prospered, defeated the Soviet menace, and We the People of the United States loved that man.

In modern history President Reagan left office with the highest approval rating of the populace than any other president. The respect and admiration for what he has done, not only for my country, but the world has only grown since then.

OK, ?
Good enough for you?

tude dog

06-07-04, 09:30 PM

With all this talk about the "War on Drugs", actually 99,9% of all arrests, convictions, fines, probation jail/prison time is due to local, meaning state laws, and not by the federal government.

tude dog

06-07-04, 09:33 PM

I did wonder if the phrase had roots in earlier phrases. Too young to remember the War on Inflation. I doubt if it was quite the same though. It was more metaphorical than physical. I doubt if many people had their doors kicked in for inflation reasons.

NAW, they just lost their jobs, and when the mortgage was due lost the whole house, door included.

yea, pretty metaphorical,,,

Repo Man

06-07-04, 09:39 PM

Sorry, End-of-presidency job approval ratings:
Clinton 65%
Reagan 64%

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll_clintonlegacy010117.html

invert_nexus

06-07-04, 09:47 PM

OK, ?
Good enough for you?

I'd like to think I could do better for my hero; but if you're satisfied, then fine.

With all this talk about the "War on Drugs", actually 99,9% of all arrests, convictions, fines, probation jail/prison time is due to local, meaning state laws, and not by the federal government.

I don't have the exact stats handy, and don't feel like digging them up, but how do you explain the situation in states that have decriminalized marijuana but the federal government refuses to allow it. Marijuana is classified as a schedule (forget the number 2 or 3) drug under federal law and no state law can change that. How do you explain the controversy in states that have legalized medical marijuana, yet the federal government refuses to allow this? State indeed.

NAW, they just lost their jobs, and when the mortgage was due lost the whole house, door included.

And this was caused by the War on Inflation? Or was the War on Inflation fighting to help these people?

Sorry, End-of-presidency job approval ratings:
Clinton 65%
Reagan 64%

Guess blow jobs are better for public approval than causing (or taking credit for) the fall of the Soviet Union.

tude dog

06-07-04, 09:53 PM

Sorry, End-of-presidency job approval ratings:
Clinton 65%
Reagan 64%

Source: http://abcnews.go.com/sections/politics/DailyNews/poll_clintonlegacy010117.html

I stand corrected, thank you.
The follwoing url is interesting though.

[ur]http://gallup.com/[url]

tude dog

06-07-04, 10:09 PM

I'd like to think I could do better for my hero; but if you're satisfied, then fine.

I don't have the exact stats handy, and don't feel like digging them up, but how do you explain the situation in states that have decriminalized marijuana but the federal government refuses to allow it. Marijuana is classified as a schedule (forget the number 2 or 3) drug under federal law and no state law can change that. How do you explain the controversy in states that have legalized medical marijuana, yet the federal government refuses to allow this? State indeed.

And this was caused by the War on Inflation? Or was the War on Inflation fighting to help these people?

Guess blow jobs are better for public approval than causing (or taking credit for) the fall of the Soviet Union.

Oh my gosh, prosperity at home and the defeat of the Soviet Union, I would think that good enough.

Oh well,,blind prejudice can't be bridged with civil discourse.

Now tell me brain trust what does "How do you explain the controversy in states that have legalized medical marijuana, yet the federal government refuses to allow this? State indeed." have to do with Ronald Reagan?

huh? How are you going to get out of that Houdini?

uh, stop being lazy, what am I suppose to make of the following?

"And this was caused by the War on Inflation? Or was the War on Inflation fighting to help these people?"

What are you talking about?

"Guess blow jobs are better for public approval than causing (or taking credit for) the fall of the Soviet Union."

:confused:

invert_nexus

06-07-04, 10:17 PM

Now tell me brain trust what does "How do you explain the controversy in states that have legalized medical marijuana, yet the federal government refuses to allow this? State indeed." have to do with Ronald Reagan?

Now tell me, Brain Trust, why you can't recall a statement you made minutes before?

With all this talk about the "War on Drugs", actually 99,9% of all arrests, convictions, fines, probation jail/prison time is due to local, meaning state laws, and not by the federal government.

Ring any bells? Think hard now.

"And this was caused by the War on Inflation? Or was the War on Inflation fighting to help these people?"

What are you talking about?

Again, another case of memory loss?

NAW, they just lost their jobs, and when the mortgage was due lost the whole house, door included.

I'm not up on the details of the War on Inflation as I previously stated. My question was an honest one. Was the War on Inflation carried out by these methods? Or were they a symptom of inflation which the War on Inflation was supposed to be fighting.

Now, will there be honest answers or more diversions? Wha... who... :confused: Who shot who in the what now?? :confused:

moementum7

06-08-04, 01:51 AM

I am saddened to hear of his death.
He just seemed like a good guy to me.
Thats all.

Undecided

06-08-04, 02:55 PM

If Reagan had won the Republican nomination in ’76, chances are that he would have ended up in the dust heap of history like Carter. Carter’s admin. had its faults, but the failure of the Carter admin. had more to do about circumstance rather then substance of the times. The US was obviously in a rough patch the whole western world was. Inflation was a disease, and what Reagan did helped significantly at stopping it. But the Reagan admin. came in at the right time, and at the right place.

buffys

06-08-04, 03:21 PM

It's amazing how world leaders turn into heroes after death. In canada a VERY conroversial leader died a few years back and the same thing happened then, the nonsense only stopped when they tried to rename our largest mountain after him.

Regan was a half decent president but suddenly he's ghandi... they're talking about putting him on the 10 dollar bill for christ's sake. Was I the only person present in the 80's? He was charming and even oversaw some significant world events but domestically he was a nightmare. Talk about short memories.

Oh well I guess we need heroes, real or imagined.

Mr. Chips

06-09-04, 03:24 AM

No references to the claims in the following but if you do a bit of research you can see that its right on http://www.buzzflash.com/anderson/04/06/and04025.html

hypewaders

06-10-04, 12:07 PM

With the deluge of praise for Reagan still gushing, another thing to keep in mind is that the Gipper didn't end the Cold War, but in his zeal helped it draw to a close. While he deserves credit as Best Supporting Actor (http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ArticleNews/TPStory/LAC/20040610/COMARTIN10/TPComment/TopStories), he was hardly Savior of the Free World.

Mr. Chips

06-10-04, 05:24 PM

http://www.fair.org/press-releases/reagan-myth-reality.html

I think maybe the most valuable lesson to be learned from Reagen is from the widespread dissemination of misinformation in the major news networks right now. If the networks are so biased with their presentation, perhaps some will begin to question the validity of what they've heard on these mainstream channels. That would be a positive thing as far as I can tell.

The propaganda is thick and heavy and it ultimately fails as the corruption of information leads to power being wielded without accountability. In the mean time though, a major portion of the population believes the lies. Such has not lasted long as humans eventually see the growing violence and create alternatives. Too many times though, the cost of repatriation to the commons has been steep. We may see more destruction of human potential before we oscillate back, if we get that chance. Though such systems of coercion and abuse fail, the capacity now exists for it to destroy the biosphere in its passing. Sooner or later, we all face the music, hopefully, not too late.

Poor Reagen. He didn't survive to see the day when longevity outpaces death and he wasn't fortunate enough to grasp the idea that life is of paramount significance which will end with a poor rating of the man.

Poor Earth.

spidergoat

06-10-04, 05:38 PM

So this means Nancy is single, huh? hmmmm...I was wondering what to do with my last two hits of X. MAybe I'll give her a call.

So, doesn't anyone care that Reagan created Osama Bin Laden and Al Quida by funding the mujahadin, and teaching them how through the CIA to overthrow a superpower?

DOS

06-10-04, 10:48 PM

1. Grew up poor
2. star athlete
3. Movie Star
3. Prez of screen actors union
4. Sports play-by-play announcer
5. Gov of California
6. President of USA
7. Saved world from totalitarianism so that we have the freedom to argue politics. - (This is why the intolerant left hates him)

Oh ,I forgot

8. Likelihood of nuclear holocaust, resulting in the end of humanity, - reduced

Hathor

06-10-04, 11:01 PM

damn gung ho moderators! wannabe reagans!

alright! here is my list!

1-washed out b movie actor
2-shill for chesterfield
3-crummy host for tv western
4-snitch for fbi
5-macho hero that was bullied by thatcher and henpecked by nancy
6-dysfunctional family in belair
7-called nancy...mommy!
8-starwars
9-ketchup designated a veggie
10-contra crack
11-govt cheese

and the f**cking kicker..."tear down that wall........."

edit: the zillion dollar deficit

invert_nexus

06-10-04, 11:03 PM

Those last two don't seem quite on the same list. The first 6 are things of the past, and the last two are predictions of the future.

I kinda think we're more likely to have a nuclear disaster than when it was a balanced system. I grew up with the cold war being old hat. Nuclear devastation never really bothered me for some reason. It was a threat that hung over our heads, but it wasn't likely to occur. Now, the political climate is haywire. Alliances shifting and new coalitions being formed. Nuclear threat is greater than ever. Of course, we'd be facing smaller enemies but a nuke is a nuke. There's something to be said about the devil you know.

The first list that is. :D

buffys

06-10-04, 11:05 PM

7. Saved world from totalitarianism so that we have the freedom to argue politics.

lol, yes, he could also leap tall buildings in a single bound and kill commies with his mind!

DOS

06-10-04, 11:17 PM

and the f**cking kicker..."tear down that wall........."

:confused:

DOS

06-10-04, 11:35 PM

lol, yes, he could also leap tall buildings in a single bound and kill commies with his mind!

No, he killed commies with his eyes. He had Ray-Gun eyes! :D :p

HOWARDSTERN

06-11-04, 12:04 AM

President Ronald Reagan was a good, decent, honest man. He did the best he could for the times. I lived those times. I know.

Repo Man

06-11-04, 12:32 AM

The lionizers are correct about one thing: Reagan was one of our most influential presidents since FDR, whose New Deal safety net he carefully disassembled. He pioneered policies now being implemented by George W. Bush: trickle down economics, corporate deregulation, radicalizing the courts, slithering around inconvenient laws and international treaties. On the domestic front, he unraveled America's century-old social contract. What the poor needed was a kick in the ass, not a handout, said a president whose wealthy patrons bought him a house and put clothes on his wife Nancy. National parks were to be exploited for timber and oil, not protected. The federal tax code, originally conceived to redistribute wealth from top to bottom, was "reformed" to eradicate social justice.
More...
http://www.uexpress.com/tedrall/

buffys

06-11-04, 12:52 AM

President Ronald Reagan was a good, decent, honest man. He did the best he could for the times. I lived those times. I know.

good motives only get you part of the way, being a decent person isn't the same as being a good leader. I agree with most of your post but the best thing I can say was he was an adequate president, he didn't nuke anyone and he kept the big chair warm. But I mean, it's getting ridiculous, most of the stuff I'm reading make him out to be a cross between albert einstein, george washington, martin luther king, clint eastwood and the pope.

I understand that it's fairly traditional to gloss over the short comings of the recently deceased but this is a whole new level of selective memory and revisionist history. Ronald reagan was a good man with deep conviction but he wasn't a great president.

HOWARDSTERN

06-11-04, 05:58 AM

Buffys wrote:good motives only get you part of the way, being a decent person isn't the same as being a good leader. I agree with most of your post but the best thing I can say was he was an adequate president, he didn't nuke anyone and he kept the big chair warm. But I mean, it's getting ridiculous, most of the stuff I'm reading make him out to be a cross between albert einstein, george washington, martin luther king, clint eastwood and the pope.

I understand that it's fairly traditional to gloss over the short comings of the recently deceased but this is a whole new level of selective memory and revisionist history. Ronald reagan was a good man with deep conviction but he wasn't a great president.

Let's take this one at a time:

Buffys wrote: good motives only get you part of the way, being a decent person isn't the same as being a good leader.

HOWARDSTERN: So what does it take to get you ALL the way?

President Reagan's "Good motives" were to:

1) make the United States of America's military into a force to be reckoned with again. He promised to restore the military after Jimmy Carter had cut defense so much:

a) that during, and up to the time that he (Carter) left office, one half (1/2) of all U.S. military hardware was inoperable;
b) that 50% of the military aircraft was in an unflyable condition;
c) that recruitment was at an all time low;
d) that the USSR was able to invade Afghanistan and the Soviet Premier did tell Carter that the United States would "make a grave mistake," if they (we) interfered, and
e) that the United States Military truly was considered to be a, "Paper Tiger," during these Carter years.

2) make the United States of America's economy grow again. He did accomplish this and managed to get the US economy to grow to the largest level (in peace time) in history:

a) by cutting out much of the over-regulation on small business that had been implemented under Jimmy Carter's draconian rule;
b) by implementing the largest tax cut in American history (on small business, as well as on the private individual). With more money in their pockets, Americans were spending that money and circulating it throughout the American economy.

3) make the people of United States proud be called Americans again. At a time when nearly everyone was saying that the United States was a failing power, whose glory days were over, Ronald Reagan told the people that America hadn't even reached it peak yet! His speeches gave Americans encouragement when we needed it and hope when we didn't have it.

Since he accomplished these "motives," I believe that he was also a "good leader," as well.

Buffys wrote: But I mean, it's getting ridiculous, most of the stuff I'm reading make him out to be a cross between albert einstein, george washington, martin luther king, clint eastwood and the pope.

HOWARDSTERN: Yep, I agree that the media has overdone it. At the same time though, you should understand that many people are still pretty damned put off & pissed, at the way that Reagan was constantly scandalized during his two terms. The liberal media bias, at the time, was unbelieveable.

Buffys wrote: I understand that it's fairly traditional to gloss over the short comings of the recently deceased but this is a whole new level of selective memory and revisionist history.

HOWARDSTERN: I grew up in those times. I went through school in those times. Yep, there was selective memory & history revision alright...on the part of nearly every one of my teachers. On a daily basis, I had to listen to one or more of them espouse their hate toward Reagan and the Republican Party. Any accusation made against him was automatically taken as the absolute truth, by my teachers. The sad part is that this has never ended and kids are growing up today reading this liberal version of history. No doubt why you believe the way you do.

Buffys wrote: Ronald reagan was a good man with deep conviction but he wasn't a great president.

HOWARDSTERN: Yes, Ronald Reagan actually was a great president.

That's all I have to say. Believe whatever you want to believe. I really don't give a damn anymore.

Tiassa

06-11-04, 07:11 AM

Okay, I tried.

I've been holding my tongue on our departed Actor-In-Chief, but it's just getting ridiculous out there.

Amid all the tough talk about how Reagan "beat Communism" (e.g. the Economist cover, or the current Horsey cartoon), I do have some questions:

• Reagan won a fight that the US started. Does that make it somehow special? Did we really have to have the fight in the first place?
• How would Communism have done had it not met open opposition from the West? Would it have transcended its desperate phase and served its people better?
• I ask in consideration of the future; "Communism," as in the force that Reagan apparently single-handedly beat, was only one possible version of diverse possibility and unfinished process. "Communism" as a political force attempts to guide and even rush what is allegedly a natural process. We see it happening here, in the United States--we cannot hold out as capitalists, and are gradually shifting more and more toward the Marxist evolution. We may attempt to maintain one bureaucratic differentiation between property and state, but at some point we'll find that inefficient. When Communism rears its "handsome head" in the form of a natural societal evolution, what will we say of the Gipper, who "beat Communism"? Will we say, "Yeah, he did, but it maybe wasn't the best thing to do"? Or, "Well ... he didn't really beat Communism inasmuch as what he really did was finish an eighty-year fight on behalf of those who are scared witless of change and even progress."

I disagree with Horsey, who depicts the Left as failing to recognize Reagan's role in the fall of Communism. It's not so much that, though I've no doubt there are some and even many who have resorted to such simplicity. Rather, "failing to recognize Reagan's role in the fall of Communism" is modern punditspeak--e.g. overdressed pabulum, a severe compression of data that removes the presentation from the larger result--for simply not being all that impressed by either the fall of Communism or Reagan's role in it. The ideology of that time died when Clinton hit office. Even those who lived through it have a hard time describing it accurately. Being impressed by Reagan's role in the fall of Communism is a disservice to the millions of people who suffered as a result of American fear of what the present day is beginning to hint as being the future. Or, to put it simply, being impressed by Reagan's role in winning a fight that cost untold needless suffering around the world is actually ignoring the issue of what role we're supposed to be impressed by.

buffys

06-11-04, 01:34 PM

So what does it take to get you ALL the way?

good results, obviously.

d) that the USSR was able to invade Afghanistan and the Soviet Premier did tell Carter that the United States would "make a grave mistake," if they (we) interfered,

yeah and reagans solution? lets go find the craziest sons of bitches on the planet and fund and train them (if it isn't obvious I mean the moujahedeen in Afghanistan). If you haven't noticed they've become a bit of a problem recently.

e) that the United States Military truly was considered to be a, "Paper Tiger," during these Carter years.

The only "true" paper tiger at that time was the USSR, Truman started the containment of USSR and every president after continued it, reagan happened to be there when they finally fell, reagan didn't do it anymore than al gore invented the internet.

2) make the United States of America's economy grow again. He did accomplish this and managed to get the US economy to grow to the largest level (in peace time) in history:

are you high? he doubled... DOUBLED! the deficit, another pit that america is still trying to climb out from.

Under reagan the US achieved the honor of being the first country to ever be denounced and condemned by the world court for international terrorism because of his actions and policies in nicaragua, he secretly sold arms to Iran, supported dictatorial regimes in Latin America, the HUD scandal, the S&L crisis, Grenada invasion, bombing libya, he ignored AIDS, made dramatic cuts in education,... I could go on like this for quite a while.

He didn't nuke anyone, that's about the nicest thing I can say about his presidency.

BTW - you've pointed out that you were alive then twice so far, congratulations. So was I.

spidergoat

06-11-04, 03:06 PM

What Reagan Taught Bush: (http://www.redefeatbush.com/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=161)

10. Even if tax cuts build a weaker America they build a stronger Republican party:
9. A President must take full responsibility for everything except the mistakes and illegal activities:
8. While overt racism is unseemly, a Republican leader should signal to white power proponents that he agrees with them:
7. Nations that assist the U.S. in its foreign policy goals can murder, torture and imprison anyone necessary to maintain stability:
6. Bust unions whenever you can because those people are a danger to the continued concentration of wealth and power in the hands of trust fund Republicans:
5. The most effective way to please corporate contributors is to name someone to head regulatory agencies who will undermine the agency from within:
4. If defense policies serve only to tie corporate interests more closely to the Republican party without making the nation more secure that is good enough:
3. No global problem is too big to be ignored unless its solution can promote the interests of the Republican party:
2. If you are affable the commercial news media will judge you on your intentions rather than your actual results:
1. Boldly claim credit for major historic events and make it seem that you caused them:

invert_nexus

06-11-04, 05:02 PM

Well, Howard, I disagree with some of what you say. But at least you did better than he's got a great smile and the other presidents sucked.

DOS

06-11-04, 09:08 PM

tude dog

06-11-04, 11:03 PM

tude dog

06-11-04, 11:09 PM

invert_nexus

06-11-04, 11:28 PM

Tude Dog,

Seriously, every post you make makes it more obvious that you're nothing but a troll. Why are you judging spidergoat on his avatar? Because he has Mr. Spock as an avatar, everything he posts is based on a "silly Star Trek Philosphy?" Tiassa, while prone to long posts, makes perfect sense. If you can't see it, maybe that shows who's deficient around here. It's called reading. Try it every now and again.

You've got a lot to learn about debate, brother. Try reading the posts instead of merely quoting and saying "What are you talking about? You know nothing and I can't even understand a word you say. It's all a big Star Trek conspiracy."

Mr. Chips

06-12-04, 12:49 AM

It is valuable for us to be aware of tude dog's perspective. This is a biased view of the world that we share here. Many don't use internet access for their "news" and depend on mainstream propaganda sources. The majority on sciforums have opinions that are fairly intelligent. It is good for fascist dogma to raise its ugly head here and remind us of what is an all too common depravity. I dare say it is a phenomenon we will need to learn to handle.

invert_nexus

06-12-04, 12:58 AM

I don't mind his beliefs, it's just his inability to discuss what he doesn't agree with. I don't think he's even reading them. If so, I can't fathom where he got star trek philosophy from spidergoat's post. Was there a live long and prosper that I missed or something?

Mr. Chips

06-12-04, 08:46 AM

No, I don't think you missed anything. My take is that most who buy the garbage incorporate dysfunction because some part of their intellect understands the error of their beliefs and inherently, humans usually don't want their violent misunderstandings to get very far, take Bush's speech impediment, especially when addressing anything that takes hubris, for example. Still there are those who embrace the insanity and seem to retain some lucidity such as Rumsfeld and Cheney. There are those here on this forum who are not so transparent who pursue the stupidity though they too break down usually when engaged.

Hathor

06-12-04, 09:05 AM

have mercy on the tude

what t is telling ya is......soon, you too, WILL BE RED!

Mr. Chips

06-12-04, 09:14 AM

Whoops, there goes my whole theory. :D

Tiassa

06-12-04, 08:05 PM

could you repeat that in a way that makes any sense?

Why should we hail Reagan's accomplishment of defeating Communism when all he did was win an unnecessary fight that cost millions--even billions--of people massive suffering just to delay the inevitable?

In that sense, Reagan is the zenith of conservatism in the free world, and nothing more.

You know, what's really quite funny--and perhaps the only funny thing--about the Cold War is that while Reagan's faith and convicitions moved him to name names and take part in the persecution of Marxism, Socialism, and other leftist ideologies, and while the country proclaimed itself a nation under God amid that whole fight, and while even I, growing up in the 1980s was told to fear the "godless" Communists--

From each according to their abilities; to each according to their needs.

--at the heart of Communism is an idea derived from the Bible itself.

The whole Cold War is a sickening irony illustrating the stupidity of Americans. And Reagan, in his triumph, is King of the Fools. Perhaps it wouldn't be so bad if, as our fear of giving ourselves over to a government subsides, we look forward to the opportunity to give ourselves over to private corporations whose social contract does not reflect the obligations of government to our wellbeing, but only seek to concentrate the wealth in order to guide its distribution according to profit margins and investor satisfaction.

Out of the frying pan and into the fire would be bad enough, but where the hell did we get the gasoline to spread around and what is the point of this economic, social, and spiritual arson consuming these great United States of America?

Undecided

06-12-04, 08:40 PM

The reason why so many Americans say that “Reagan beat the USSR” is simply put, a massive ignorance of Soviet history, and extremely lopsided view on their own. It’s the same complex when we are dealing with WWII in Europe, of course only the US could have won that war. Well we all that’s a bunch of BS, but the vast majority of Americans (who can’t even point to Canada, never mind Moscow) will believe in their hearts of hearts that they won the Cold War unilaterally. The current Iraq complex comes from this neurosis of willed ignorance, and the perpetrators the neo-cons are not ignorant at all. The greatest irony of it all is that Reagan could have, most likely have started the decline of the US herself.

StarOfEight

06-12-04, 09:41 PM

Tiassa - the basis for Communism is a rejection of everything non-material. While your quote is related to Christianity, in the Manifesto, Marx specifically rejects what he calsl "Christian socialism," and what today is known as "liberation theology."

Tiassa

06-13-04, 12:18 AM

Re: Christian socialism

As the parson has ever gone hand in hand with the landlord, so has clerical socialism with feudal socialism.

(Communist Manifesto (http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1848-CM/cm.html))

The Manifesto makes a similar mistake to those that would be made about Communism in the Reagan context. The Soviets weren't very good Communists; the parsons to which the Manifesto refers weren't very good Christians.

The practical observation is acute, but the ideological assignation is tinged with reactionism.

Tiassa

06-13-04, 04:10 AM

Interesting points, DavidF.

Communism assumes that man is basically good and thus man will work for the good of the community. Capitalism makes the opposite assumption that man is basically selfish and thus will work for his own good above the good of the community.

Communism actually recognizes that human beings are social creatures--we are stronger together than we are individually. As a community (hence "communism") we are greater than the sum of our parts.

Capitalism cannot sell itself honestly. I agree that capitalism presumes that humans will work for their own good, but there's no guarantee that what the individual thinks is good is actually good.

The example you present bears a glaring flaw:

Able-bodied men just sat around and expected to be fed

Well then ... it doesn't look like the "from each" end of the bargain was held up now, was it?

But that's just the thing. Both capitalism and communism gamble wrongly on human nature. Communism does presume too much inherent goodness; that goodness must be drawn out. A place for everything and everything in its place only works if everything understands its place. Capitalism relies on ignorance. As the adage goes, If you pass a law to hang all the capitalists tomorrow, they'll still sell you the rope. Appeal to the pocketbook, it's the most effective appeal to emotion. People do not make any more rational decisions in pursuit of money than they do in pursuit of other forms of security.

Plymouth proved the fallacy? Just like "trickle-down" proved the fallacy of capitalism. You can't take something so inherently individualistic and expect it to work harmoniously in a social setting. For capitalism to be proper, it would seem that society exists to simply provide more customers. Neither capitalism nor communism have been given clean tests.

See ... I can teach my children to lie, advocate injustice, and wage wars against my neighbors. And if, in a capitalist country while I do this, I at least drag myself miserably to work every day, then I am a good person. It's just that I have this whacked-out belief that life and society don't exist for the sole purpose of cutting each others' throats. Dog-eat-dog is fine for the dogs, but we're human beings and are invested with the ability to transcend our crude, primal state. It may not be as easy as wallowing in the mud, but either way it's our own choice.

I agree, though, that the Russians weren't communists. But then ... how did Reagan bust Communism if all he did was topple the Soviets with a vicious spending spree? That issue is just a tangled mess of jingoistic horsepucky bent by an era of arguing whether love could be shown from the business end of a rifle.

The larger point, though, was that I find it rather quite funny that something found in the Bible is so offensive to the Christian-capitalist segment among the US.