| |
Omni
|
Hey, yeah, a lot of people who live under Bush think he's the greatest thing since Reagan, and think Reagan is the greatest thing since sliced bread. But Hitler bailed Mussolini out quite a bit towards the end of WW2, I hear, and compared to Hitler, Mussolini does appear to be an ineffective weenie on the global-war scale. Six months to take sticks-and-stones Ethiopia. Hmm.
No offense or anything, just saying in objective, completely detached from past Italy in every way retrospect.
Posted on 2004-08-28 02:44:01
|
loretian
|
Reagan was the greatest thing since sliced bread. He did the following:
1) Grew our economy insane amounts during peacetime (he still holds the record for that)
2) Ended the cold war without any nuclear bombs blowing up, despite going against every tactic the anti-war crowd recomended
3) Saved us from the last true liberal president America has had, Jimmy Carter, who was a disaster (despite being the only democrat I'd ever be willing to vote for)
4) Gave conservatives and republicans hope after the disaster Nixon was
Reagan's wonderfulness is still being felt today. In fact, the only thing I can think of that I don't agree with him on was the war on drugs, but at least his heart was in the right place for that one.
Posted on 2004-08-28 04:54:31
|
mcgrue
|
Mmm.
I'm always impressed by Reagan Hero Worship.
Posted on 2004-08-28 06:26:21
|
Gayo
|
Lore has a Reagan fetish.
Posted on 2004-08-28 17:48:07
|
loretian
|
Quote:Originally posted by Gayo
Lore has a Reagan fetish.
I love him. He is the second best President, maybe third, that America has ever had. He stuck to his guns, it worked, and the liberals hate him. What more can you ask for?
Posted on 2004-08-28 18:19:00
|
Tatzen
|
legalization of marijuana looks like its going up for vote on the november ballot here in nevada.
they got defeated like 61%-29% in 2002, when they asked for legal posession of 3oz or less for people over 21.
now theyre trying 1oz or less. we'll see. i doubt it will pass because people are dumb.
Posted on 2004-08-29 04:18:31
|
mcgrue
|
I'm voting for Dukakis.
(to be on-topic and all)
Posted on 2004-08-29 04:25:27
|
Omni
|
Hey! There's a "Donnie Darko: Director's Cut" coming to theatres soon. I guess it's got a few changes and deleted scenes, but I told some of my friends about it and we're interested. When it comes back we'll all have a road trip to go see it :)
Posted on 2004-08-29 18:38:42
|
loretian
|
It's already opened here (on the 27th). You should see if it's showing anywhere!
Posted on 2004-08-29 19:48:57
|
Zip
|
Deleted scenes! Yeay! Delete lots! A five minute Donnie Darko I could take. Just the rabbit bits.
Zip
Posted on 2004-08-30 01:16:23
|
Troupe
|
All Republicans have a Reagen fetish, for some reason. The thing is, he really didn't do all that much. He ended the cold war, but that was pretty much already wrapping up anyway. I don't know where you got that he increased our economy, but as far as I know he left us with an enormous deficit.
Jimmy Carter was the last liberal president? His failure had nothing to do with his affiliation, either. He just didn't make a great president.
Posted on 2004-08-31 04:14:25
|
Omni
|
From what I understand, Reagan pulled a near miracle with his "reaganomics" and "trickle-down theory" and other neat financial buzzwords that created a surplus that, while not long term, was enough to last until...Bush, sadly.
Also, the huge deficit was, I believe, his attempt to destroy Medicare and Social Security by making it impossible to practically finance them. Plus, the seeming threat of "unlimited American power" even as we were driving the deficit up for defense played a significant role in convincing the Soviets we were unstoppable and they were stupid.
I think the EU's seen through this, though. They're bigger than us. Too big. And scary. Really scary. And Bush can't seem to find any better thing to do in-between Iraq policy than to tick them off.
Edit: Or maybe, the EU tick themselves off at us. Or they're ticked at themselves and want to take it out on us. Either way, if this keeps up, my casual observance of politics doesn't show a happy geopolitical future.
Posted on 2004-08-31 14:57:20 (last edited on 2004-08-31 14:59:34)
|
loretian
|
First all, to say the cold war was just coming to a close is way off. Yeah, it was wrapping up, but it was also at it's most dangerous point ever in history. Reagan's method of "not backing the fuck down" worked, and the U.S.S.R. killed themselves trying to keep up, etc. etc.
As far as the economics go, let me clarify a few points. During the 80's, the rich got richer and so did the poor. It was actually the longest peacetime expansion ever in the history of America. Keep in mind, when Reagan took over, America wasn't looking that great. The whole country was wallowing in despair, and people were poor, and the situation was only getting worse. Now, the immediate, REACTIONARY, liberal solution to this is to implement new government programs to help people, which is essentially what Carter did, and it made the situation worse.
Reagan's approach, one based primarily on freedom for all, no matter how rich, and true-blue, heart-felt optimism worked in every way that Carter's approach failed.
Now, listen carefully. Consider pressing ctrl-print and choosing paste in MS Paint, then saving the image and setting it as your back ground, with the following five words circled in red: THE DEFICIT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER. Let me repeat this: THE DEFICIT DOESN'T REALLY MATTER. Your liberal economic professors will go on and on about it, but the real reason they do it is because it's the only thing they can find fault in Reagan's (or now Bush's) economic policy. Theoritically, if the deficit were to reach some astronomical point, which is apparently much greater than 5 trillion dollars, it might begin to matter, but as far as the current economy and the economy in the foreseeable future, it's totally irrelevant.
The US has no intentions in ever paying off the deficit. Occasionally we work on the interest a little bit to slow it's growth, but that's it. Why? Because it's more of a political and tactical issue than an economic one. It's a way to wield power.
The greatness of Reagan's economic stance continues to effect us in 2004. The unfortunate economic mishaps of the early, early 90's were due to Bush Sr. being dishonest, perhaps even manipulated, and going back on his word to raise taxes. Why did he do this? To compromise with the democratically controlled congress. The specific bill that did the most damage was actually a primarily democratic authored one, but Bush still gets the blame for it because he signed off (which is fair, but come on, the democrats made up the mess) on it. Again, your liberal professors will try to lump the Reagan and Bush economic issues together, but in fact Bush was far more liberal economically, at least in actual policy, and it was that policy which caused us problems. Again, the greatness of Reagan's policies is still being felt today - the Internet would not have become what it was if certain industries were still over-regulated and over politicized (I don't care if that's a real word or not). The Internet is responsible for the wonderful economic cock-boon of the 90's, and Clinton's moderate economic policies did nothing to hurt it.
The economy thrives on freedom and not regulations. Yes, big business helps the economy a lot more than my cousin's little music shop in Michigan.
As far as Carter goes, yeah he was liberal, and I'd agree he could have been a better leader, but his policies were also distinctly liberal, REAL-LIBERAL, and for the most part, they were all disasters.
Anyway, no sane US policitian would ever try to promote real liberal policies again. They'll either push real conservative ones, or they'll push less conservative ones.
Because we, the conservatives, the Republicans of America won that battle many years ago.
Really, if you don't have economic freedom, then what freedom do you have?
Posted on 2004-08-31 16:27:05 (last edited on 2004-08-31 16:38:01)
|
Omni
|
Well, I kinda like the freedom to protest. EDIT: (This is another can of beans, I'd rather discuss the below instead).
Actually, it's kind of a stretch to turn a Donnie Darko thread into a direction like this, but taking the national deficit a bit further. I've read that the origin of national debt is from Alexander Hamilton, who used it at the nation's birth to ensure financial influence to keep the states together and from sucession (ie, "If the government owes South Carolina five million dollars, why would SC want to suceed for no reason and lose five million dollars?") Now, granted, a Civil War broke out later, but it was over something vastly different.
Since we don't worry about succession in the South nowadays, ...(except for the occasionally weird article in the papers down here)... what political purpose does national debt actually serve? I mean, it's not like we're going to pay it off, so if no one cares about it, it can't be doing us any good.
That seems like a self-contradiction (example: well, if we conclue that, then obviously no one needs to pay attention to the deficit). But this would theoretically cause it to increase and continue to lose any real usefulness. Perhaps the national debt would be more useful politically if people actually did care about it, and thus we should actually pay attention to it?
A self-fulfilling prophecy, maybe? I've got no real clue what the debt's target purpose for existing is right now. But it's got to have one, or else we wouldn't have it, and it can't be accomplishing it well, or else we'd care.
Posted on 2004-08-31 18:48:10 (last edited on 2004-08-31 18:48:44)
|
loretian
|
The debt doesn't have a purpose, anymore.
It's an international issue though. We owe countries money, they owe us money, politics schmolitics.
I would much rather have no debt at all, but my point is that the deficit is always pointed out in relation to Republican presidents (specifically Reagan and Bush) because it's the only legitimate "not good" thing they can point out - when, in regards to the real word, ie JOBS, FINANCIAL STANDINGS of REAL PEOPLE, etc. it doesn't matter.
Posted on 2004-08-31 19:23:57 (last edited on 2004-08-31 19:24:27)
|
Alex
|
Quote:Originally posted by Omni
Plus, the seeming threat of "unlimited American power" even as we were driving the deficit up for defense played a significant role in convincing the Soviets we were unstoppable and they were stupid.
I think the EU's seen through this, though. They're bigger than us. Too big. And scary. Really scary. And Bush can't seem to find any better thing to do in-between Iraq policy than to tick them off.
Edit: Or maybe, the EU tick themselves off at us. Or they're ticked at themselves and want to take it out on us. Either way, if this keeps up, my casual observance of politics doesn't show a happy geopolitical future.
I don't think you're giving the Soviet Union much credit there (and Mikhail Gorbachev in particular). Without his foreign policy and domestic reforms, the Cold War would probably still be going on today. Do you really think that the Soviets saw America as unstoppable, and so just gave up? The Cold War itself showed with its lack of actual confilct that both sides were terrified of each other. I mean, if the Soviets had been insane enough to do it, they could have nuked the US to hell a thousand times over... And the US could have done the same thing to them. In fact, the US, Russia, Britain, France, India, and I think someone else (possibly Pakistan or Israel), all individually possess enough nuclear firepower right now to wipe out life on Earth (apart from those jammy cockroaches, obviously). As for the conventional side (not that that was as important) the resources available to both NATO and the Warsaw Pact were pretty much so huge as to be, to all intents and purposes, equal.
So anyway... I just think your assertion that the USSR ran away with its tail between its legs is a little left of centre. Gorbachev was a great statesman, and a very brave one at that, to go the way he did, and it's at his feet that I and many other people lay the credit for the end of the Cold War.
I think you're spot on about the EU by the way (though for different reasons). I despise the very idea of it. The only people it benefits (apart from Spain) are the politicians who run it, who are not so much on the gravy train as the gravy Orient Express. It's a bloated, corrupt, and despicable organisation, whose existence I'd really rather not be supporting with my tax money. If there was no EU, Britain would be £30billion+ better off per year, our taxes would be lower, it wouldn't be illegal for shops/traders to sell things in pounds and ounces, and we'd be able to (gasp) make our own laws and fish in our own seas! We fucking pay for that shit! Fuck, I hate the EU! Seriously, there's no excuse for it, there really isn't. The idea of the EEC or the Common Market was a good and fair one, but if anyone can come up with a reason for the EU to exist, I'd love to hear it. But no one will, because there isn't one.
Damn, that's two political rants in one post. Beat that. :P
Posted on 2004-08-31 19:24:47
|
Omni
|
Ah, I did forget. I do give credit to Gorbachev.
...that's all I can say actually. I was going to comment on "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" etc., maybe a bit about his policy, but then I realized I really can't remember much besides he truly wanted some cooperation, and I think his policy was a Russian term I can't remember either.
I agree he deserves a bit of respect, though.
Britain pays taxes to the EU? I thought you guys were...clean of that mess. Search me, I'm sheltered.
Posted on 2004-08-31 19:38:09
|
Alex
|
No, we're only clean of the single currency, because Blair eventually relented with his totalitarian intention of taking us in without putting it to a referendum despite the fact that the vast majority of voters are against it. So instead he's going to waste millions more on a pointless campaign to get people to vote for it instead. Like the EU, the Euro's huge drawbacks can only far outweigh any possible benefits, which is why Sweden voted not to have it, and why (I trust) we will have sufficient sense to do the same. Those countries whose people weren't given the chance to vote on it have my sympathies...
Posted on 2004-08-31 20:54:36
|
Omni
|
Can you hold a referendum on the decision to join the EU or in any way create action from the lower political branches to get you out of...that mess?
Posted on 2004-08-31 21:04:28
|
Alex
|
We voted to join it... Rather we voted to join the EEC, which was pretty much a glorified trade alliance (we pretty much fucked over the Commonwealth by joining, as they were the ones we had the close trade links with. They were pissed off, and rightly so). Anyway, once we were in the EEC it evolved gradually into the EU, eventually resulting in the Maastricht Treaty, which was a load of gubbins on closer political and economic ties, which John Major (Prime Minister at the time) signed without putting it to a popular vote. Some have said that this was actually illegal, as our constitution apparently forbids any government from surrendering any amount sovereignty to a "foreign power", which the EU obviously is.
Obviously no one noticed at the time, and no one seems to be interested now.
As far as actually getting out... not really. The UK Independence Party recently won a very large number of votes in the European Elections (where we vote for our representatives in the European Parliament), and that's being seen by the major British political parties as an indication of how people feel about the EU. The UK Independence Party are obviously against the EU and would withdraw the UK from it if they got into power... but as a single-issue party they're never going to get into power. But hopefully their influence will be, er, influential.
So I think it's a mess we're pretty much stuck with, and it's only going to get worse. On the news today was an item about proposed changes for the next Olympic games... they want the blue EU flag to be flown as well as the Union Jack at the medal ceremonies when British athletes win medals (and presumably when other European nations win medals)... How long until they want rid of the other flags altogether I wonder...
Posted on 2004-08-31 21:38:27
|
|
|
