OT: Discussion of Reagan's legacy

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:35 pm

sf_z wrote:http://www.sportsreviewers.com

Sigh I just had to click that link.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:54 pm

3 Words: Dissociative Identity Disorder

I wonder when we will all put Sportsreviewers behind us. I hadn't checked the website in a few months so I may be cured.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 5:55 pm

Another 3 Words: Desperate For Attention

Out,
PK

reeche · Post by **reeche** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 6:04 pm

What's more fun is to go to the old ianstorm forums and click and see who's visited that sight recently by clicking on their username. There is a LAST ON category that tracks when you last visited the sight (not when you last posted). It's pretty interesting to see who still kind of haunts around that place and who doesn't and when they stopped. (Not a knock against people who do. I only really noticed it because I do and was curious who else does)

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 6:17 pm

reeche wrote:What's more fun is to go to the old ianstorm forums and click and see who's visited that sight recently by clicking on their username. There is a LAST ON category that tracks when you last visited the sight (not when you last posted). It's pretty interesting to see who still kind of haunts around that place and who doesn't and when they stopped. (Not a knock against people who do. I only really noticed it because I do and was curious who else does)

Whew! I hadn't been on since 3/26.

Jackdog 5/27/04

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 6:19 pm

sf_z wrote:http://www.sportsreviewers.com

Outspoken, egomaniacal, going against the conventional wisdom, slaying the holy cows which need to be slain.

The spirit of SR lives on.

Post by **ScoopBrady** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 6:34 pm

Leebo,
Mind checking the last time I was there. I don't even have it bookmarked anymore so I have no idea how to access it.

bdoughty · Post by **bdoughty** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 6:35 pm

wco81 wrote:
sf_z wrote:http://www.sportsreviewers.com
Outspoken, egomaniacal, going against the conventional wisdom, slaying the holy cows which need to be slain.

The spirit of SR lives on.

Yea it's right up there with Matt calling the Xbox an overpriced DVD player. Sometimes it is best for "spirits" to be put to rest. This would be a good candidate.

Brando70 · Post by **Brando70** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 7:16 pm

ScoopBrady wrote:Leebo,
Mind checking the last time I was there. I don't even have it bookmarked anymore so I have no idea how to access it.

Scoop, it's:

http://www.ianstorm.com/forums/periscop ... p?Do=frm74

Haven't really checked it out in the last couple months. I would have looked you up but you can't search, so I have no idea when your last visit would have been.

blueduke · Post by **blueduke** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 7:39 pm

I graduated in 1980 as well as got married that year. I happened to have been active in the 1976 election year since that was the year I turned 18 and Anderson, Reagan, Carter all came to Hickory to campaign.

In 1980:
- inflation was 12%/year (unthinkable now)
- mortage rates were 18% (in fact the only way I got a house was an owner finance at 12%)
- the economy was in the crapper
- we had hostages in Iran
- the result of attempting to set those hostages free was a crashed helicopter and a couple of dozen dead military men
- the DOW (I kid you not!) was at 750!
- only about 50% of our combat aircraft were battle worthy
- our nuc arsenal was < USSR
- unemployement was 8+%
- the world wondered if the age of American superority was over

That was the Carter legacy.
This is the Regan legacy

In 1988:
- inflation was 3%
- unemployement was 4%
- the DOW was 2800
- we had a 600 ship Navy
- we had more nucs than USSR (basically the cold-war genius of Regan was to use our economic resources to bankrupt the USSR and it worked!)
- several new tactical aircraft
- the economy was in the 7th year of a peacetime expansion, the longest in history at that point.
- the average American had the swagger back in his step
- tax rates were the lowest since WWII

Those are hard facts from some one who lived them.

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 7:40 pm

Brando70 wrote:
ScoopBrady wrote:Leebo,
Mind checking the last time I was there. I don't even have it bookmarked anymore so I have no idea how to access it.
Scoop, it's:

http://www.ianstorm.com/forums/periscop ... p?Do=frm74

Haven't really checked it out in the last couple months. I would have looked you up but you can't search, so I have no idea when your last visit would have been.

Scoop: 4/14/04

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 7:41 pm

wco81 wrote:
sf_z wrote:http://www.sportsreviewers.com
slaying the holy cows which need to be slain.

It sure does take a lot of bullsh*t to slay a holy cow

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 7:59 pm

You mean like the fact that Reagan had Nicaragua's harbors mined, a nation which we were not officially at war with, was bullshit? Yeah it was a bullshit move alright.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 8:01 pm

wco81 wrote:You mean like the fact that Reagan had Nicaragua's harbors mined, a nation which we were not officially at war with, was bulls***? Yeah it was a bulls*** move alright.

But Clinton lying under oath to a grand jury was cool? I just want to administer a bit of a partisanship litmus test here.

Take care,
PK

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 8:11 pm

Where did I say that anything Clinton did with respect to the Zippergate scandal was "cool"?

I didn't think it was a hanging or impeachable offense nor did most Americans at the time.

Clinton will have to confront the shame he brought on himself, his family and the office of the presidency in the judgement of later generations. The scandal justly will overshadow some of the positive things which occurred during his presidency. That is probably why he was so desperate to broker a Mideast peace agreement as his presidency wound down.

But Clinton's sordid behavior didn't lead to deaths or misery for other people.

blueduke · Post by **blueduke** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 8:21 pm

You mean like the fact that Reagan had Nicaragua's harbors mined, a nation which we were not officially at war with, was bulls***? Yeah it was a bulls*** move alright.

Clinton blew up an aspiran factory, dude. We were not "at war" then either. We also wasn't at war when Sudan offered him Bin Laden on a silver platter and he turned the offer down.

Clinton legacy:

A phoney economy. - corporate scandles that pumped up stock prices to false levels (BTW, I never got back any of those 'capital gains' I paid on those false stock prices!)
- inlfated expectations based on inlfated economic results put out by the Clinton administration
-China ending up with our nuclear secrets as well as technology
-Clinton winding up with campaign contributions from Chinese "businessmen"
-400 FBI files of Republicans and known conservatives finds its way to the White House and nobody goes to jail (A nixon aide went to prison for 6 years for reading ONE file on a Dem in 1973).
And that's just for starters. But let's all spit on Reagan's grave b/c he made sure money got to the Contras so they could help a Soviet puppet lose his power. Good God Almighty

Leebo33 · Post by **Leebo33** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 8:23 pm

wco81 wrote:But Clinton's sordid behavior didn't lead to deaths or misery for other people.

The thing is that there are many many web sites out there that outline the foreign policy failures of Clinton that did cause death and misery for other people. I'm not going to bother outlining it here because it seems pointless and I don't even know if the facts are straight. I'm just saying there are many pages with negative propoganda on Clinton that read just like Sybil's page on Reagan. I guess it just matters what you want to believe.

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 8:26 pm

wco81 wrote:Where did I say that anything Clinton did with respect to the Zippergate scandal was "cool"?

I didn't think it was a hanging or impeachable offense nor did most Americans at the time.

Clinton will have to confront the shame he brought on himself, his family and the office of the presidency in the judgement of later generations. The scandal justly will overshadow some of the positive things which occurred during his presidency. That is probably why he was so desperate to broker a Mideast peace agreement as his presidency wound down.

But Clinton's sordid behavior didn't lead to deaths or misery for other people.

Well, Clinton's lack of foreign policy in Africa led to deaths of American troops in Somalia, but that's for another day. And it's daft to blame only Bush for the intel breakdowns that led to 9/11, as some of those blunders took place under Clinton's watch, too. They continued during the Bush Jr. administration, too.

Regarding Clinton, though, I'm not talking about Zippergate. I'm talking about lying under oath to a grand jury due to Zippergate. I issued the litmus test as a challenge to you to see if your partisanship really allows you to be objective.

I think impeaching Clinton over a blowjob in the White House was wrong. That was an ethical offense, not a criminal offense. But impeaching him over committing perjury would have been more than just, as that was a criminal offense by a sitting president.

Take care,
PK

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 8:27 pm

I know Clinton's foreign policy failure did lead to preventable deaths (esp. in the Balkans).

But I was responding to PK's charge about Clinton's scandal.

wco81 · Post by **wco81** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 8:34 pm

Yes perjury is a serious offense. But he was lying about a pecadillo, which did bring shame to the office and the nation as a whole.

But Matt is absolutely right that what Reagan did, which was to go around the Constitution to in effect wage war against a nation which Congress never declared war again, was a much more serious offense.

Presidents are suppose to defend the Constitution, not ignore it or seize what are de facto extra-Constitutional powers.

And speaking of perjury, do you really believe Reagan didn't recall any of those things he was asked in regard to the Iran/Contra affair?

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 8:48 pm

>>>And speaking of perjury, do you really believe Reagan didn't recall any of those things he was asked in regard to the Iran/Contra affair?<<<

Of course not. But I don't deify Reagan the way some around here do to Clinton.

Reagan was a solid president who benefited from good timing. The country and world scene was ripe for a leader of his style.

Clinton benefitted from good fortune way more than Reagan. Just so happened that a small economic revolution called the Internet Age happened to coincide with Clinton's administration, mainly his second term, boosting the economy toward the stratosphere and setting it up for a mighty fall.

Of course you remember the days when companies with no profits were debuting as IPO's at $100 or more. That helped to create Clinton's economic "boom" more than anything his administration did, and it also created the trap door to which our nation's economy starting falling into in 2000. That's not Clinton's fault; it's just the dynamics of a new economy that investors and the market didn't know how to handle.

Say what you will about Reagan's flaws, and there were many, but the man has a much greater legacy of positive foreign policy dossier than Clinton. The Cold War ended with an assist by Reagan, and that's all he needed to do to have a MUCH greater foreign policy than Clinton.

I'll give Clinton credit for employing smart people in his Cabinet -- Rubin and Reich, especially -- and for helping to keep an economy turbo-charged by the tech boom on the rails, even if Alan Greenspan played as much of a role in that as any member of the Clinton Administration. But I can't pinpoint one positive thing Clinton did in foreign policy short of not starting a ill-advised war, something the current administration will wear as a wart for decades to come.

Take care,
PK

JRod · Post by **JRod** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 10:40 pm

PK,

I'm not defending Clinton but what are you expecting out a pretty lackluster time period. Kosovo was no Third Reich but it was the most pressing issue at the time.

Reagan like all President's before and after him are all products of the times. If 9.11 happened to Clinton, who knows where that would have put clinton. If Carter didn't have the hostage situation he might have been elected to a 2nd term. If Nixon shaved in his debate against JFK that might have given him a few more votes to put him into position to make a decision on the Bay of Pigs.

To say that Clinton didn't do anything on the foriegn policy front is pretty damn short-sighted. Foreign policy up until Bush was pretty much a reactionary policy. Where as domestic policy was created, developed and implemented by the President. Or at the least he's the fall guy when it goes bad and the first to take credit if it does well.

Clinton wasn't dealt 9.11 or the Cold War and that reflects his foriegn policy stance. He couldn't go around "cowboying" the world trying to install democracy in the world and for many that's enough to say he was weak on foriegn policy. He was as weak as the Congress wanted him to be. Even if after the Cole and the Trade Tower bombings, there was to Congressional Support for regime change or invasion into terrorist countries. And those congressional leaders should take part of the blame for wanting clinton to be weak.

Either way I'm not saying clinton was a great forign policy leader but his hand that was dealt for his 8 years didn't warrant much action. I don't think that next 8 years will be that dead. Whether it be Kerry or Bush they will be responsible for getting America's reputation back in the world and creating a new economy where the middle class has faith in it's employer's, country and leaders.

blueduke · Post by **blueduke** » Mon Jun 07, 2004 11:08 pm

Clinton wasn't dealt 9.11 or the Cold War and that reflects his foriegn policy stance.

World Trade Center was first bombed in 1993. Clinton was offered Bin Laden via Sudan and he declined.

China wound up with our nuclear secrets along with technology it would have taken them decades to obtain on their own. Clinton wound up with campaign contributions from Chinese "businessmen"

.http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/stories/ ... ton.money/

http://www.cnn.com/ALLPOLITICS/1998/05/ ... ich.china/

http://www.wsws.org/news/1998/may1998/clin-m19.shtml

http://www.dailyrepublican.com/clinton_communists.html

http://www.wealth4freedom.com/truth/13/TREASON.htm

Defend that

If Carter didn't have the hostage situation he might have been elected to a 2nd term.

18% interest rates, double digit inflation, 8% unemployment. A monkey would have beaten Carter

pk500 · Post by **pk500** » Tue Jun 08, 2004 12:09 am

>>>Foreign policy up until Bush was pretty much a reactionary policy.<<<

John:

I completely disagree. Reagan wasn't reactionary in dealing with the USSR. He realized Gorbachev might be progressive and negotiated with him while also outspending the USSR on arms and bankrupting it.
p
And Carter? Everyone says his foreign policy was a failure due to the hostage situation and the failed rescue mission. But what about the Camp David accords with Begin and Sadat? That was watershed stuff.

And what about Nixon and SALT? And Nixon and visiting Peking to open relations with Mao and China?

The fact is, America's foreign policy under those three men was anything but reactionary. You can be pro-active in foreign policy without starting wars and dispatching combat troops.

Take care,
PK