NationStates Jolt Archive

http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/06_02/reaganDM_468x376.jpg

Let us Anglo brethren bond together and celebrate the glorious works these people did in bringing the light of liberty to the far reaches of our planet. Pip pip, huzzah!

Very funny. Move along.

Too bad when Reagan died he didnt take Thatcher with him.

http://scbdfc.com/history/reagan/celeb%20reagan%20Thatcher%20lucky%202-20-85%20color.JPG

A dog run I can support!

I'd give this (http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=3281665019508672875&ei=NYPjSeKID8Sd-AaHubDUBw&q=mayfair+set) a watch.

We must remember, lest this happen again.

Very funny. Move along.
How is that funny? I happen to be quite fond of both Reagan and Thatcher and I approve of their message of liberty.

Too bad when Reagan died he didnt take Thatcher with him.
Reagan may have died, but the ideas that he contained, which spread from Goldwater to him, still exist and are just waiting to be embodied by the next hero who is up to the task.

Thatcher wasn't the complete demon she's painted as nowadays, but she wasn't exactly a warm hug ball of love and fluffles. I can't comment on Reagan, seeing as I know pretty much nothing about him, other than he wanted to build space lasers or some shit.

Fuck Thatcher and everything she stands for.

That is all.

Reagan may have died, but the ideas that he contained, which spread from Goldwater to him, still exist and are just waiting to be embodied by the next hero who is up to the task.

You are 100% correct. Im sure there are millions out there prepared to take up the mantel of widening the rich-poor gap, ensuring minorities are kept down, mandate religion, and overthrow democratically elected leaders in support of military dictators who torture and execute their own people.

Thats what Im worried about.

I can't comment on Reagan, seeing as I know pretty much nothing about him, other than he wanted to build space lasers or some shit.

He is the epitomey of American evil.

Kampfers, you're excellent at what you do!

Fuck Thatcher and everything she stands for.

That is all.

A free market, not allowing Unions to control everything and that the Falklands should be British?

He is the epitomey of American evil.

Don't you hipster types say that about Bush?

He is the epitomey of American evil.

How so?

How is that funny? I happen to be quite fond of both Reagan and Thatcher and I approve of their message of liberty.

Supporting brutal dictatorships and introducing economic policies that dramatically increase corporate control of government and inequality (both of outcome and opportunity, since the two are closely related) clashes somewhat with my understanding of liberty. The only thing made freer under Reagan and Thatcher were markets, not people.

is the iron bitch dead yet?
i hope so

Don't you hipster types say that about Bush?
No, Bush was nothing more then a failed attempt at being Reagan.
How so?
You are 100% correct. Im sure there are millions out there prepared to take up the mantel of widening the rich-poor gap, ensuring minorities are kept down, mandate religion, and overthrow democratically elected leaders in support of military dictators who torture and execute their own people.

Thats what Im worried about.

He is the epitomey of American evil.

But what about the space lasers man? Think about it! SPACE LASERS!!!

http://recollectionbooks.com/bleed/images/humor/ppol0006m.jpg

In celebration of Thatcher-Reagan Day (pip pip huzzah!), I present a film for liberty-lovers everywhere!

Thatcher wasn't the complete demon she's painted as nowadays, but she wasn't exactly a warm hug ball of love and fluffles. I can't comment on Reagan, seeing as I know pretty much nothing about him, other than he wanted to build space lasers or some shit.
I quite like Thatcher and she was vital in weakning the vice-grip like hold the Unions had over the British economy. Plus I really like how the special relationship between America and the UK was during those years.

A free market, not allowing Unions to control everything and that the Falklands should be British?
This.
He is the epitomey of American evil.
Yes, how evil. Reducing government, putting economic pressure on the Soviets (that they couldn't take), bombing Libya, taking people off welfare and allowing more economic freedom (making it easier to start business/less taxes) . . . plus restoring American's pride in their nation.

A free market, not allowing Unions to control everything and that the Falklands should be British?

A free market at the expense of any region that didn't vote for her, stripping the unions of all power until the working man has no power in his own workplace and a war that any leader would have fought and won and would have been a lot easier to fight if the tories hadn't been systematically stripping the armed forces of men and material until just before it was fought, not to mention presiding over a foreign office that completely missed the fact that the Argentinians were about to invade?

Not exactly reasons to support that bitch.

http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00141/IN8502213Mandatory-_141742s.jpg

Glorious patriotism and an Anglo-American spirit of unity! This is what is missing from today's generation! Pip pip!

... The only thing made freer under Reagan and Thatcher were markets, not people.

I wonder if we would be in the mess economically we are in now, if Reagan and Thatcher hadn't been so keen to remove the controls on financial institutions.

Glorious patriotism and an Anglo-American spirit of unity! This is what is missing from today's generation!

And what is so sadly missing from that picture is a hail of bullets :p

The only thing made freer under Reagan and Thatcher were markets, not people.
Without getting into the other things, which I literally debate almost daily:

The freer the market, the freer the people.

Praise the Anglosphere and Anglo-American cooperation!

Yes, how evil. Reducing government,
And increasing corporate control of the government. Besides, he only 'reduced' government in the private sector. He did his damnedest to expand government in the social lives of Americans.
putting economic pressure on the Soviets (that they couldn't take),
Soviet Union would have collapsed with or without Reagan.
bombing Libya,
This defeats my point how?
taking people off welfare
And putting them out on the streets with no money.
and allowing more economic freedom (making it easier to start business/less taxes)
As I said, increasing corporate control of the country.
. . . plus restoring American's pride in their nation.
This matters how?

Not to mention many of our problems in the Middle East are directly his fault. And the whole widening the rich-poor gap. And the whole overthrowing democratically elected governments in favor of brutal military dictators.

Without getting into the other things, which I literally debate almost daily:

The freer the market, the freer the people.

I wish I had the freedom to starve. Damn hippy welfarist do-gooder governments.

Freedom = Crushing the unions, so employers can sack at will, and then taking away benefits so the situation of those unemployed is dramatically worsened.

FREEDOM THROUGH GREATER OPPRESSION AND IMPOVERISHMENT OF THE WORKFORCE!

Did I mention war is peace and ignorance is strength? :p

The freer the market, the freer the people.

I have yet to see evidence that his maxim is accurate.

On a side note, I find it funny how people here complain when anti-Obama posters call Obama disrespectul and often insulting names, yet have no problem calling Lady Thatcher "a bitch" and things along those lines.

I find that they are elected heads of states and deserve atleast some respect. It just looks very low-class, quite low-brow to call Obama a ****** of Lady Thatcher a bitch or something like that . . .

On a side note, I find it funny how people here complain when anti-Obama posters call Obama disrespectul and often insulting names, yet have no problem calling Lady Thatcher "a bitch" and things along those lines.

Who in this thread who has called Thatched a bitch has complained about Obama being called a disrespectful name?

On a side note, I find it funny how people here complain when anti-Obama posters call Obama disrespectul and often insulting names, yet have no problem calling Lady Thatcher "a bitch" and things along those lines.

I find that they are elected heads of states and deserve atleast some respect. It just looks very low-class, quite low-brow to call Obama a ****** of Lady Thatcher a bitch or something like that . . .

Obama hasn't done anything yet, Thatcher brough misery to millions.

When Obama has done that I'll be the first to call him a twat, until then I'll stick with insulting those who deserve it.

And what is so sadly missing from that picture is a hail of bullets :p

Do you support terrorism and vigilante justice then, comrade?

Do you support terrorism and vigilante justice then, comrade?

Of course I do. Haven't you worked out from the rest of the thread that I despise freedom with a ferocious burning passion, comrade? :p

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvg7lRsCVJ8

This is worth watching too.

I have yet to see evidence that his maxim is accurate.

I've seen plenty of historical evidence that the opposite is truer.

I've seen plenty of historical evidence that the opposite is truer.

Yep.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvg7lRsCVJ8

This is worth watching too.

A nice speech, very moving and full of all the buzz-phrases that will make a politician very popular with the electorate.

A nice speech, very moving and full of all the buzz-phrases that will make a politician very popular with the electorate.


And the reason they make you popular is that they're true.

And the reason they make you popular is that they're true.

Nah.

And the reason they make you popular is that they're true.

What a load of crap. You cant possibly be that naive. The reason it makes you popular is that it appeals to the inflated ego of the demos.

And the reason they make you popular is that they're true.
Are you saying every popular politician speaks the truth?

Are yousaying every popular politician speaks the truth?

The Jews really were destroying Germany!:rolleyes:

Are you saying every popular politician speaks the truth?

No, I mean that certain 'platitudes' are popular because they are true, even if the politician uttering them doesn't intend to ever live up to them.

No, I mean that certain 'platitudes' are popular because they are true

Nah. Theyre popular because they appeal to the ego of the demos.

No, I mean that certain 'platitudes' are popular because they are true, even if the politician uttering them doesn't intend to ever live up to them.

Nah. Theyre popular because they appeal to the ego of the demos.

You realize it can be both, right?

Nah. Theyre popular because they appeal to the ego of the demos.

So you mean ordinary people are too stupid to know what's good for them, right?

I've seen plenty of historical evidence that the opposite is truer.

I haven't. The USSR and China spring to mind.

So you mean ordinary people are too stupid to know what's good for them, right?

Haha yes! Because thats exactly what I said!:rolleyes:


If youre not interested in having a real discussion, gtfo.

I haven't. The USSR and China spring to mind.

I counter with the whole world pre-unionisation, employee protection laws and supervision of economic institutions.

Without getting into the other things, which I literally debate almost daily:

The freer the market, the freer the people.

TAI, Reagan didn't make the market freer, he gave it the impression that it was, while expanding government control in almost every other region, minus welfare.

I counter with the whole world pre-unionisation, employee protection laws and supervision of economic institutions.

It appears there is more to human freedom then a free market!:eek:

It appears there is more to human freedom then a free market!:eek:

But a Free Market is still an important part of human freedom.

Haha yes! Because thats exactly what I said!

So what does 'appealing to the ego of the demos' mean?

I counter with the whole world pre-unionisation, employee protection laws and supervision of economic institutions.

Then I suggest that you read Kropotkin (who was not a capitalist by any means) in his descriptions of employee conditions in New England factories in the first half of the 19th century. Girls were not just paid good wages, they were given board in dormitories. In fact, the purchasing ability of employees in the United States was rising even throughout the Great Depression (though through the Great Depression, a lot of people became unemployed).

I also recommend you read Alexis de Tocqueville about pauperism in England - and about the reasons why pauperism was virtually unknown in Europe at the time.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvg7lRsCVJ8

This is worth watching too.

A damn fine speech. It is all bullshit, but most political speeches are.

It appears there is more to human freedom then a free market!:eek:

I'm sorry, but I find nuanced arguments that reflect all the evidence far less convincing than overly simplistic and one-sided slogans that can easily be countered with actual historical cases.

Free market must mean free people. Because they both use the word "free".

TAI, Reagan didn't make the market freer, he gave it the impression that it was, while expanding government control in almost every other region, minus welfare.

While I am in agreement that Reagan wasn't a market libertarian, I would like to have proof of your statement.

Then I suggest that you read Kropotkin (who was not a capitalist by any means) in his descriptions of employee conditions in New England factories in the first half of the 19th century. Girls were not just paid good wages, they were given board in dormitories. In fact, the purchasing ability of employees in the United States was rising even throughout the Great Depression (though through the Great Depression, a lot of people became unemployed).

I also recommend you read Alexis de Tocqueville about pauperism in England - and about the reasons why pauperism was virtually unknown in Europe at the time.

What exactly should I be reading?

Given it's 8:30pm on Easter Monday where I am and I can't get to a library perhaps you could summarise?

So what does 'appealing to the ego of the demos' mean?
The demos likes to be told that what they believe is the best/how awesome they are.

No one thinks critically about compliments and the reinforcement of their values. No one. Not even the smartest amongst us.

Then I suggest that you read Kropotkin (who was not a capitalist by any means) in his descriptions of employee conditions in New England factories in the first half of the 19th century. Girls were not just paid good wages, they were given board in dormitories. In fact, the purchasing ability of employees in the United States was rising even throughout the Great Depression (though through the Great Depression, a lot of people became unemployed).
Yes. Get out there and read revisionist history!

I also recommend you read Alexis de Tocqueville about pauperism in England - and about the reasons why pauperism was virtually unknown in Europe at the time.
Having read Tocqueville, I can safely say that he does not say exactly what you think he says.

In essence, the Industrial Revolution was not the same everywhere. Not the entire world was like Britain's poor-homes. I already summarized my key points in my post above.

Why are we celebrating the two worst leaders of the Western world since WWII?

In essence, the Industrial Revolution was not the same everywhere. Not the entire world was like Britain's poor-homes. I already summarized my key points in my post above.Most of Europe wasn't undergoing the industrial revolution in the 1830s, or had barely begun it.

http://i558.photobucket.com/albums/ss30/Trve_photos/3183_1069769752989_1488464789_30256.jpg

:D

Thatcher and Reagan are pure liberty.

Thatcher and Reagan are pure liberty

Provided that when you say 'liberty' you mean 'evil', I agree.

I counter with the whole world pre-unionisation, employee protection laws and supervision of economic institutions.

"That is a misconception. Living conditions during the Industrial Revolution were comparable to living conditions beforehand. In fact, it was crucial to the creation of the modern middle class. RAAAARRRRRRR!" (http://www.daisyowl.com/comic/2009-02-11)

:p

Agreed.

You are a socialist tyrant, go back to the USSR please.

Thatcher and Reagan are pure liberty.

Just like pigs are the most pure breed of bird.

While I am in agreement that Reagan wasn't a market libertarian, I would like to have proof of your statement.

Defense, is obvious and apparent without a deep look, his acceleration of the 'War on Drugs' did not help matters in any way and merely set the groundwork for the modern day war, where smoking a hallucenagenic substance can get you jail time, even if you don't break any other law and harm no one. The AMT tax system springs to mind, I'm sure there's others I could think of.

Just like pigs are the most pure breed of bird.

Tyranny.

You are a socialist tyrant, go back to the USSR please.

You are a capitalist tyrant, go back to pre-industrial revolution UK please.

Tyranny.

eh?

Tyranny.

Shouldnt you be talking to a lawyer in preperation for your lawsuit against Jolt?

Shouldnt you be talking to a lawyer in preperation for your lawsuit against Jolt?

Chaps at Hare Court aren't open on a Bank Holiday.

You are a capitalist tyrant, go back to pre-industrial revolution UK please.

Quite happily, my family were very well off Industrialist-Aristocrats then so pip pip.

Most of Europe wasn't undergoing the industrial revolution in the 1830s, or had barely begun it.

This means... what? How is this relevant to my post on the living conditions in the 19th century United States? Or to Tocqueville's observation on British pauperism?

In essence, the Industrial Revolution was not the same everywhere. Not the entire world was like Britain's poor-homes. I already summarized my key points in my post above.

Kropotkin didn't visit the US until the 1890s, why would I be relying on him to describe living conditions pre 1850? Also you didn't answer my question, exactly what would I be reading that backs your claim? The guy has quite a back catalogue and I don't have that much time.

I'm also curious what you've read by Tocqueville as the bit of him I've read wouldn't back your claim at all.

Defense, is obvious and apparent without a deep look, his acceleration of the 'War on Drugs' did not help matters in any way and merely set the groundwork for the modern day war, where smoking a hallucenagenic substance can get you jail time, even if you don't break any other law and harm no one. The AMT tax system springs to mind, I'm sure there's others I could think of.


On the other hand, smoking various substances was already illegal before Reagan. And one would argue that defense is a legitimate function of te state, unless you're an anarchist.

Furthermore, hasn't Reagan eliminated around 20,000 pages of regulations?

Tyranny.

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! Fear me, for I am Tyrannyosaurus Rex! Watch me brutally tax poor defenceless capitalists and establish a welfare safety net! Look in horror at how I viciously permit the poor to have jobs by not fellating the corporations nor destroying the unions!

This means... what? How is this relevant to my post on the living conditions in the 19th century United States? Or to Tocqueville's observation on British pauperism?You stated, (emphasis mine)

I also recommend you read Alexis de Tocqueville about pauperism in England - and about the reasons why pauperism was virtually unknown in Europe at the time.It would have been unknown in continental Europe at the time because they hadn't gone through the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution, while it had the effect of making lots of people better off, made the poorest of the poor (paupers) worse off than they'd been before it.

I'm also curious what you've read by Tocqueville as the bit of him I've read wouldn't back your claim at all.

I guessing nothing, considering Tocqueville doesnt say what the poster thinks he says.

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! Fear me, for I am Tyrannyosaurus Rex! Watch me brutally tax poor defenceless capitalists and establish a welfare safety net! Look in horror at how I viciously permit the poor to have jobs by not fellating the corporations nor destroying the unions!

Oh my God. I dont know which I like better. My current sig or this.

RAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAH! Fear me, for I am Tyrannyosaurus Rex! Watch me brutally tax poor defenceless capitalists and establish a welfare safety net! Look in horror at how I viciously permit the poor to have jobs by not fellating the corporations nor destroying the unions!

That isn't rah at all, rah rah is all about Jack Wills, polo, shooting and rowing at Henley you cad.

It would have been unknown in continental Europe at the time because they hadn't gone through the industrial revolution. The industrial revolution, while it had the effect of making lots of people better off, made the poorest of the poor (paupers) worse off than they'd been before it.

In relative terms? Sure. In absolute terms - no.

On the other hand, smoking various substances was already illegal before Reagan. And one would argue that defense is a legitimate function of te state, unless you're an anarchist.

Furthermore, hasn't Reagan eliminated around 20,000 pages of regulations?

He increased the already bloated defense budget, started a MINIMUM SENTENCE for drug users, opposed gay rights legislation, and I'll need a source for the last statement.

In relative terms? Sure. In absolute terms - no.In absolute terms, yes. Prior to the industrial revolution, most people lived in the countryside, and when times were tough they were still able to eke an existence out of the land. After the industrial revolution, when they moved to the cities, not only were some people unemployed, but they didn't have the land as a backup.
City poverty was worse than country poverty.

He increased the already bloated defense budget, started a MINIMUM SENTENCE for drug users, opposed gay rights legislation, and I'll need a source for the last statement.

He opposed racial integration and equal rights for women.

What remedy can be applied to such evils? Legal alms comes to mind first—legal alms in all forms—sometimes unconditional, sometimes hidden in the disguise of a wage. Sometimes it is accidental and temporary, at other times regular and permanent.
But intensive investigation quickly demonstrates that this remedy, which seems both so natural and so effective, is a very dangerous expedient. It affords only a false and momentary sop to individual suffering, and however used it inflames society’s
sores.

Here. Tocqueville blames the Poor Laws squarely for the misfortune of the British poor.

I haven't. The USSR and China spring to mind.

Truely free markets died because of the Great Depression.

Here. Tocqueville blames the Poor Laws squarely for the misfortune of the British poor.

When did he write that?

He increased the already bloated defense budget, started a MINIMUM SENTENCE for drug users, opposed gay rights legislation, and I'll need a source for the last statement.Not to mention essentially ignoring AIDS until 1987. (Or at least not talking about it in public.)

TAI, Reagan didn't make the market freer, he gave it the impression that it was, while expanding government control in almost every other region, minus welfare.

Nobel Prize winner economist Milton Friedman said that the Reagan tax cuts were "one of the most important factors in the boom of the 1990s."

Also, because of Reagan's economic policy unemployent and inflation (both of which were quite high due to the Carter years) shrank considerably. Over 10 million new jobs were created under Reagan. The Reagan years were the best years for small businesses and entrepreneurs.

plus restoring American's pride in their nation.
This matters how?

It matters because it brings unity and greater enjoyment of life. Also, productivity goes up when people in general beleive things are going in the right direction . . . under Reagan, people beleived that. Nobody will ever take that away from him, the fact that he inspired our nation and brought pride back to our people:

http://patriotpost.us/images/editions/09-05d.jpg

Reagan may have died, but the ideas that he contained, which spread from Goldwater to him, still exist and are just waiting to be embodied by the next hero who is up to the task.

Which idea is that? Sponsoring Latin American Nun Rapers, or the half arsed economics?

Nobel Prize winner economist Milton Friedman said that the Reagan tax cuts were "one of the most important factors in the boom of the 1990s."

Funny how noble prize winning economists are only acceptable use in an appeal to authority when they are economists who agree with you.

Here. Tocqueville blames the Poor Laws squarely for the misfortune of the British poor.

The poor laws were created in reaction to the horrific suffering the poor people were already going through during the laissez faire period.

Fuck Thatcher and everything she stands for.

That is all.

*Bitch Slaps*

The poor laws were created in reaction to the horrific suffering the poor people were already going through during the laissez faire period.

The Poor Laws were created in the 1600s and then periodically updated.

The Poor Laws were created in the 1600s and then periodically updated.

Well you know what I mean, the specific ones enacted during the industrial revolution.

http://patriotpost.us/images/editions/09-05d.jpg

This picture is cute, but its a bit inaccurate.


It should say "Here is what happens when someone runs against a member of the Carter administration":p

*Bitch Slaps*

*Points and laughs*

*Points and laughs*

Why don't you like her? She is the epitome of Britishness.

lulz reagan. Oh lookie I can post again :p

Why don't you like her? She is the epitome of Britishness.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14696986&postcount=22

For a start.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=14696986&postcount=22

For a start.

A free market at the expense of any region that didn't vote for her, stripping the unions of all power until the working man has no power in his own workplace and a war that any leader would have fought and won and would have been a lot easier to fight if the tories hadn't been systematically stripping the armed forces of men and material until just before it was fought, not to mention presiding over a foreign office that completely missed the fact that the Argentinians were about to invade?

Not exactly reasons to support that bitch.

She had to break the union's backs- they had all the power.

And considering the economical situation in Britain at the time, it was natural for spending cuts.

Why don't you like her? She is the epitome of Britishness.

No, 'the epitome of all the negative aspects of'.

No, 'the epitome of all the negative aspects of'.

She was possibly the best PM of all time.

She had to break the union's backs- they had all the power.

How awful, the majority of the people having most of the power. :rolleyes:

The unions had too much power at that time but the way she went about it was wrong.

And considering the economical situation in Britain at the time, it was natural for spending cuts.

Yes it was, and most of the spending cuts had actually been started by the previous government however you don't get to claim you were the saviour of the Falklands at the same time you are disembowling the military and didn't even spot it was going to happen in the first place.

She was possibly the best PM of all time.

Since I respect your opinion, I shall study, and reconsider, her.

She was possibly the best PM of all time.

By what measure?

By what measure?

No idea, but I will investigate. I know I am a "radical liberal" person and I have come to appreciate Nixon as one of the greatest leaders of the 20th Century.

Since I respect your opinion, I shall study, and reconsider, her.

Someone respects my opinion!?

I need a lie down.

No idea, but I will investigate. I know I am a "radical liberal" person and I have come to appreciate Nixon as one of the greatest leaders of the 20th Century.

He was, despite watergate.

No idea, but I will investigate. I know I am a "radical liberal" person and I have come to appreciate Nixon as one of the greatest leaders of the 20th Century.

See now you've made the sarcasm too obvious. If you'd said Carter then I'd have bought it.

See now you've made the sarcasm too obvious. If you'd said Carter then I'd have bought it.

I am serious.

Nixon was the first President since before FDR to cut military spending.

He abolished the draft.

He ended the Vietnam War.

He made an effort to reform welfare in a plan called "FAP", which would increase aid by four billion dollars.

His administration furthered the cause of Affirmative Action.

He signed SALT I.

He made friends with China.

He created the EPA.

The list goes on. The guy was brilliant, with an I.Q. of 143.

I'm sorry to have to correct you, but it's Reagan-Thatcher Day.

Margaret Thatcher is the true hero of the cold war. She made tough decisions necessary to push the UK into a new era. The decisions made by Lady Thatcher and continued under The Rt. and Hon. Mr. Blair are really the only reason Briton is still a world power.

As for President Reagan, I didn't care much for most of his policies but I will say this. The man gave Americans someone to be proud of in a time when we desperately needed an infusion of national pride.

I hate Fox "News"!

Good day

Someone respects my opinion!?

I need a lie down.

"ADMIRATION, n. Our polite recognition of another's resemblance to ourselves."

Your political leaning and the fact that you are vegetarian convince me that you see things much the way I do, so I figured that if I study Thatcher, I would understand why you considered her a fine PM.

I am serious.

Nixon was the first President since before FDR to cut military spending.

He abolished the draft.

He ended the Vietnam War.

He made an effort to reform welfare in a plan called "FAP", which would increase aid by four billion dollars.

His administration furthered the cause of Affirmative Action.

He signed SALT I.

He made friends with China.

He created the EPA.

The list goes on. The guy was brilliant, with an I.Q. of 143.

Ha, he ain't so smart.

He was, despite watergate.

He was. The trouble is, too many pay attention to his words (many of which were political lies), rather than his actions.

For instance, he made friends with Christian extremists, and constantly spoke of the greatness of the Bible, but according to his autobiography, he stopped believing that Christ was the "Son of God" in college.

"ADMIRATION, n. Our polite recognition of another's resemblance to ourselves."

Your political leaning and the fact that you are vegetarian convince me that you see things much the way I do, so I figured that if I study Thatcher, I would understand why you considered her a fine PM.

You're a vegetarian?

Ha, he ain't so smart.

http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2008/04/17/nixons-iq/

As far as foreign policy went, he was, being the first Cold War President who could see our enemy was not communism in itself, but merely Soviet expansionism. He also said he preferred to think of nuclear arms in terms of "sufficiency, rather than superiority", claiming arms build-up was waste of time, since the Soviets and the Americans could nuke one another to Hell, anyway.

He realized things that most of the population did not until after the Cold War ended.

You're a vegetarian?

Absolutely.

He was. The trouble is, too many pay attention to his words (many of which were political lies), rather than his actions.

For instance, he made friends with Christian extremists, and constantly spoke of the greatness of the Bible, but according to his autobiography, he stopped believing that Christ was the "Son of God" in college.
I wasn't aking, I was agreeing with you.
http://blog.vdare.com/archives/2008/04/17/nixons-iq/

As far as foreign policy went, he was, being the first Cold War President who could see our enemy was not communism in itself, but merely Soviet expansionism. He also said he preferred to think of nuclear arms in terms of "sufficiency, rather than superiority", claiming arms build-up was waste of time, since the Soviets and the Americans could nuke one another to Hell, anyway.

He realized things that most of the population did not until after the Cold War ended.

Yeah well I think that last part says more about the average American's intellegence than his.

And my comment btw was aimed at his IQ.

Soz I'm confusing.

Absolutely.

For how long?

For how long?

All my life. I verbally expressed disgust at meat in a market place very early in my life. Lately (past two years), I have also become concerned about animals being mistreated, so I started eating only certain brands of dairy.

I'm not a fan of Reagan. In addition to crippling us with a load of tremendous debt and waging a generally belligerent foreign policy, he also massively expanded the size of the government, his minarchist rhetoric notwithstanding. Then there was the corruption, as exemplified in the Iran-Contra scandal.

I will say one thing, though: The man was a brilliant politician and an excellent speaker. Too bad he didn't employ these talents in service of a better cause.

I wasn't aking, I was agreeing with you.

Right-o.


Yeah well I think that last part says more about the average American's intellegence than his.

I.Q. is about intelligence compared to the average person.

And my comment btw was aimed at his IQ.

Soz I'm confusing.

He technically got 143 on the test. Do you think it is fairly easy to score that on the Otis (which is, admittedly, flawed)?

Why are we celebrating the two worst leaders of the Western world since WWII?

Truman, LBJ, and Nixon were much worse.

All my life. I verbally expressed disgust at meat in a market place very early in my life. Lately (past two years), I have also become concerned about animals being mistreated, so I started eating only certain brands of dairy.

So you were raised one? I wasn't I choose a few years ago. It's awful how they do it. As for dairy and eggs I only eat free range and whatnot.

Yes. Get out there and read revisionist history!
Allanea's wonky dates of his visit to the US aside, why do you call Kropotkin's writings revisionist history?

So you were raised one? I wasn't I choose a few years ago. It's awful how they do it. As for dairy and eggs I only eat free range and whatnot.

Yes, raised one. Though I now see my parents as hypocrites, since they fail to care about animal conditions concerning dairy.

I feel awfully sorry for animals. At one time humans could not understand another race feeling pain; now they do, and I am hoping they will someday comprehend the same thing about animals.

Truman, LBJ, and Nixon were much worse.

Nixon....

LBJ was terrible.

Truman's dropping of the atomic bombs make me dislike him immensely. I also do not condone the corruption he let roam unchecked through his administration. However, I will say that most of the other aspects of his Terms were positive.

Yes, raised one. Though I now see my parents as hypocrites, since they fail to care about animal conditions concerning dairy.
Well at least they're vegatarions though. That's something.

I feel awfully sorry for animals. At one time humans could not understand another race feeling pain; now they do, and I am hoping they will someday comprehend the same thing about animals.

I know, but it ain't gonna change anytime soon. My brothers say that there's no point cos the nimals die if I eat them or not. But if enough people stopped eating meant it might make a difference.
I can't see how anyone can eat it these days, it's like eating your pet dog. That's all I'd be able to see in my mind if I ate it.

Have you ever accidentally eaten meat- I have- it nakes you feel awful. When I did it I made my self throw it up cos I felt so bad.

Nixon....

LBJ was terrible.

Truman's dropping of the atomic bombs make me dislike him immensely. I also do not condone the corruption he let roam unchecked through his administration. However, I will say that most of the other aspects of his Terms were positive.

Truman was a prick. Therw wasn't any need to drop it, they just wanted to see if it worked and try to prove dominence over the Russians.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lvg7lRsCVJ8

This is worth watching too.

That speech is epic. God, how I admire him.

Well at least they're vegatarions though. That's something.



I know, but it ain't gonna change anytime soon. My brothers say that there's no point cos the nimals die if I eat them or not. But if enough people stopped eating meant it might make a difference.
I can't see how anyone can eat it these days, it's like eating your pet dog. That's all I'd be able to see in my mind if I ate it.

Have you ever accidentally eaten meat- I have- it nakes you feel awful. When I did it I made my self throw it up cos I felt so bad.

Less eating of meat would make a huge difference--it could help stop starvation. It takes an enormous amount of land to grow the food that must be fed to over-bred animals, which are slaughtered to provide very little food by comparison.

But we are making in a difference: In California, farmers must now provide their stock with time in the field and better treatment. Change takes time.

I have not accidentally eaten meat for years, and that was in some sauce. I am very cautious about what I eat: I examine dishes served to me, and I can generally notice chunks of meat by their appearance. Yes, the accidental eating of animal is not something I wish to experience again.

Truman was a prick. Therw wasn't any need to drop it, they just wanted to see if it worked and try to prove dominence over the Russians.

If he had not dropped such flame-packages (pilots had to wear masks to filter the stench of burning Japanese civilians) and the atomic bombs on Japan he might have made "decent". But those unforgivable tactics mark him as an asshole in my book.

Nixon...

...was a statist bloodthirsty warmonger, interventionist, corrupt, etc.

LBJ was terrible.

No question.

Truman's dropping of the atomic bombs make me dislike him immensely. I also do not condone the corruption he let roam unchecked through his administration. However, I will say that most of the other aspects of his Terms were positive.

He also permanently entrenched the military-industrial complex in American society, virtually destroyed Congress's power to make war, and helped further consolidate the American Empire abroad.

Less eating of meat would make a huge difference--it could help stop starvation. It takes an enormous amount of land to grow the food that must be fed to over-bred animals, which are slaughtered to provide very little food by comparison..
True, true. Apparently in some places they feed the animals other animals. Do ya know if that's true? Cos if it is- that's fucked up. And that's not to mention the shit they inject em with.

But we are making in a difference: In California, farmers must now provide their stock with time in the field and better treatment. Change takes time.
Not a big difference, but every little helps.

I have not accidentally eaten meat for years, and that was in some sauce. I am very cautious about what I eat: I examine dishes served to me, and I can generally notice chunks of meat by their appearance. Yes, the accidental eating of animal is not something I wish to experience again.

I know- hose bastards can put it in pretty much anything and I wouldn't know any better. I think that they should introduece new ledgeslation, where if something has got meat in it it ha a big red V on it and a big green on for stuff without. I think this should be put on every food product.

...was a statist bloodthirsty warmonger, interventionist, corrupt, etc.

Who abolished the draft, ended the War in Vietnam, and was the first President since before FDR to cut military spending. Are you judging him by his rhetoric, or his actions?

He intervened, sure. But far less than other Presidents of his time, especially when he understood the Soviets, not communism, were a threat to the world.

Corrupt? I doubt he stole money, if that is what you mean. He lied and used dirty-tricks--which is what all politicians do, he just got tragically carried away.

You cannot excuse someone just by saying "oh, all politicians do that".

You cannot excuse someone just by saying "oh, all politicians do that".

I never excused him. But his wrong doings do not negate the fact that his policies were superb.

True, true. Apparently in some places they feed the animals other animals. Do ya know if that's true? Cos if it is- that's fucked up. And that's not to mention the shit they inject em with.

http://www.freepatentsonline.com/5741508.html


Not a big difference, but every little helps.

Yes.

I know- hose bastards can put it in pretty much anything and I wouldn't know any better. I think that they should introduece new ledgeslation, where if something has got meat in it it ha a big red V on it and a big green on for stuff without. I think this should be put on every food product.

Not likely to happen until politicians depend enough upon vegetarians for campaign funds.

Who abolished the draft, ended the War in Vietnam, and was the first President since before FDR to cut military spending. Are you judging him by his rhetoric, or his actions?

Both.

And he didn't "abolish" the draft out of humanitarian concerns. Also, he ended the (U.S. involvement in the) Viet Nam War, but he also helped spread the war further into Cambodia and massively escalated it there, leading to Pol Pot's eventual rise to power.

Also, do you have a source for the bolded part? I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's news to me.

He intervened, sure. But far less than other Presidents of his time, especially when he understood the Soviets, not communism, were a threat to the world.

The Soviets weren't a threat to the world. And his "intervention" included supporting a genocidal regime in Pakistan that killed up to a few million Bangladeshis.

Corrupt? I doubt he stole money, if that is what you mean. He lied and used dirty-tricks--which is what all politicians do, he just got tragically carried away.

Can't argue there.

Corrupt? I doubt he stole money, if that is what you mean. He lied and used dirty-tricks--which is what all politicians do, he just got tragically carried away.
Yes and no. Dirty tricks aren't exclusive to Richard Nixon, but not all politicians use the government itself to attack opponents or perceived enemies. The slush fund of the Committee to Re-Elect the President is pretty illegal, stealing someone's psychiatric records or breaking into Democratic headquarters is even worse. The difference between run-of-the-mill dirty tricks and Nixonian corruption is the difference between a hand ball and drugging the goalie's Gatorade.

That being said, he did do some good things as president, and I'm sincere about that.

That being said, he did do some good things as president, and I'm sincere about that.

I can think of only two things: Seek rapprochement (sp?) with the P.R.C., and resign.

I can think of only two things: Seek rapprochement (sp?) with the P.R.C., and resign.

Rapprochement is one of them. (I don't know how to spell it either, but Firefox isn't underlining it so I think you're right.) His pull back from Vietnam (even if it was for insincere reasons) is another, although the secret war in Cambodia may cancel that out.

Rapprochement is one of them. (I don't know how to spell it either, but Firefox isn't underlining it so I think you're right.) His pull back from Vietnam (even if it was for insincere reasons) is another, although the secret war in Cambodia may cancel that out.

His rapprochement with the P.R.C. is, IMO, one of the best accomplishments of any President.

Both.

And he didn't "abolish" the draft out of humanitarian concerns.

I do not care why he did it.

Also, he ended the (U.S. involvement in the) Viet Nam War, but he also helped spread the war further into Cambodia and massively escalated it there, leading to Pol Pot's eventual rise to power.

He was secretly asked to do this by Lon Nol. Nixon was in the process of negotiating a peace that would have prevented Pol Pot's reign when he was forced to resign.

Also, do you have a source for the bolded part? I'm not saying you're wrong, but it's news to me.

"Under Nixon, direct payments from the federal government to individual American citizens in government benefits (including Social Security and Medicare) rose from 6.3% of the Gross National Product (GNP) to 8.9%. Food aid and public assistance also rose, beginning at $6.6 billion and escalating to $9.1 billion. Defense spending decreased from 9.1% to 5.8% of the GNP. The revenue sharing program pioneered by Nixon delivered $80 billion to individual states and municipalities.[65]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon

The Soviets weren't a threat to the world.

Yes, they were. Stalin was like Hitler, only he killed more, and stayed in power long enough to establish a Government that would continue his mission. The Soviet Union's mission was expansionism, but it would not chance war with the U.S.

And his "intervention" included supporting a genocidal regime in Pakistan that killed up to a few million Bangladeshis.

Which one?

Can't argue there.

Kennedy probably cheated in the 1960 Election--then again, Nixon might have too, could he have gotten away with it.

I never excused him.

But you do seem to trivialise what he did.

He was secretly asked to do this by Lon Nol. Nixon was in the process of negotiating a peace that would have prevented Pol Pot's reign when he was forced to resign.

He could have told Lon Nol "no."

"Under Nixon, direct payments from the federal government to individual American citizens in government benefits (including Social Security and Medicare) rose from 6.3% of the Gross National Product (GNP) to 8.9%. Food aid and public assistance also rose, beginning at $6.6 billion and escalating to $9.1 billion.

Those aren't good things.

Defense spending decreased from 9.1% to 5.8% of the GNP. The revenue sharing program pioneered by Nixon delivered $80 billion to individual states and municipalities.[65]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Nixon

The percentage of the GNP may have decreased, but did he actually reduce defense spending at all?

Yes, they were. Stalin was like Hitler, only he killed more, and stayed in power long enough to establish a Government that would continue his mission. The Soviet Union's mission was expansionism, but it would not chance war with the U.S.

The Soviet Union couldn't even feed its own people. It was only a matter of time before it collapsed. Trade with the West is all that kept it alive.

Which one?

The Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971. Nixon knew about the genocide that was going on, thanks to the "Blood telegram."

Kennedy probably cheated in the 1960 Election--then again, Nixon might have too, could he have gotten away with it.

Kennedy did cheat.

But you do seem to trivialise what he did.

In fairness to TPE, I don't think he's trivializing Nixon's misdeeds, per se; only pointing out that the Nixon Administration wasn't (in his opinion) all black or white, that were good things as well as bad ones.

And his father was a bootlegger and couldn't leave Britain fast enough in 1939 when war against Germany was declared.

But you do seem to trivialise what he did.

Yes, because he used fewer wiretaps than Kennedy or Johnson, and because Johnson had his plane bugged. I see Nixon's actions as reprehensible, but I also believe that if foul play negates good actions, than all Presidents within living memory, except for Carter, are bad.

Nixon committed crimes against Democracy; terrible, but still in the same vein of all our leaders.

In fairness to TPE, I don't think he's trivializing Nixon's misdeeds, per se; only pointing out that the Nixon Administration wasn't (in his opinion) all black or white, that were good things as well as bad ones.

I think he's saying more then that, he's hardly indifferent towards him is he? Also, not placing as much importance on his aggressive and illegal tactics because of the greater good would be in line broadly speaking with a Machiavellian outlook.

He could have told Lon Nol "no."

The Vietcong were moving to Cambodia to recuperate. He wanted to end the war as quickly as possible.

Those aren't good things.

What if unnecessary spending is cut to a point at which we can afford them?



The percentage of the GNP may have decreased, but did he actually reduce defense spending at all?


http://www.geocities.com/gordonite32/philo/budget/fp_defense.gif

http://www.geocities.com/gordonite32/philo/fedpercapita.htm

The Soviet Union couldn't even feed its own people. It was only a matter of time before it collapsed. Trade with the West is all that kept it alive.

Another thing: Nixon allowed wheat sales to the Soviets when they suffered famine, something Carter would later cancel.

Nixon also said that the Soviet Union's defeat was certain, and that, though it would have taken more time, he preferred Reagan not win it by a burst of spending.


The Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971. Nixon knew about the genocide that was going on, thanks to the "Blood telegram."


God, that sucks.

May I ask: What would you have done in Nixon's place?


Kennedy did cheat.

Yes.

I think he's saying more then that, he's hardly indifferent towards him is he? Also, not placing as much importance on his aggressive and illegal tactics because of the greater good would be in line broadly speaking with a Machiavellian outlook.

Machiavelli says in his Discourses that one should not do things against the Constitution of one's country, even for the greater good, because such actions would set a precedent for evil men to follow.

The Vietcong were moving to Cambodia to recuperate. He wanted to end the war as quickly as possible.

No, he didn't. He wanted to end U.S. involvement in the war gradually.

What if unnecessary spending is cut to a point at which we can afford them?

Still a bad idea.

http://www.geocities.com/gordonite32/philo/budget/fp_defense.gif

http://www.geocities.com/gordonite32/philo/fedpercapita.htm

Point conceded.

Another thing: Nixon allowed wheat sales to the Soviets when they suffered famine, something Carter would later cancel.

Nixon also said that the Soviet Union's defeat was certain, and that, though it would have taken more time, he preferred Reagan not win it by a burst of spending.

I'm not saying that selling wheat to them is a bad thing, only that they couldn't even feed their own people by themselves. I don't think the government has any business telling me what I can say, and to whom I can sell it.

God, that sucks.

May I ask: What would you have done in Nixon's place?

Nothing at all, other than urge restraint by both sides and offer to mediate a peaceful resolution, or suggest a country with a history of impartialty (i.e., Switzerland) to do so for them.

Reagan deserved the end he got. Thatcher deserves to be killed by blood loss after being thrown in a very deep pool filled with razor blades.

No, he didn't. He wanted to end U.S. involvement in the war gradually.

He wanted to end the war, period.

Still a bad idea.

Eh, my response belongs on a different thread.

Point conceded.

So is not calling him a "Warmonger" a tad inaccurate?



I'm not saying that selling wheat to them is a bad thing, only that they couldn't even feed their own people by themselves. I don't think the government has any business telling me what I can say, and to whom I can sell it.

Right.



Nothing at all, other than urge restraint by both sides and offer to mediate a peaceful resolution, or suggest a country with a history of impartialty (i.e., Switzerland) to do so for them.

When you are in the middle of talks with China?

Reagan deserved the end he got. Thatcher deserves to be killed by blood loss after being thrown in a very deep pool filled with razor blades.
Um...didn't Reagan die quietly in his sleep? I hardly think mortality is some sort of divine punishment, as it seems to happen to most people. ;)

Defense, is obvious and apparent without a deep look, his acceleration of the 'War on Drugs' did not help matters in any way and merely set the groundwork for the modern day war, where smoking a hallucenagenic substance can get you jail time, even if you don't break any other law and harm no one. The AMT tax system springs to mind, I'm sure there's others I could think of.

Very true. As the late Murray N. Rothbard ably demonstrated (http://www.lewrockwell.com/rothbard/rothbard60.html), Ronnie was bad through and through.

Reagan deserved the end he got.

Death?

Thatcher deserves to be killed by blood loss after being thrown in a very deep pool filled with razor blades.

Why?

He wanted to end the war, period.

Only because it was unpopular, not because he opposed the war per se.

Eh, my response belongs on a different thread.

Perhaps, but at any rate, I would rather see the government spend on social programs instead of bombing people.

So is not calling him a "Warmonger" a tad inaccurate?

He sharply escalated the war in Cambodia.

When you are in the middle of talks with China?

What I mean is that he shouldn't have provided aid to Pakistan, especially with a human rights record as abhorrent as the one it had.

Um...didn't Reagan die quietly in his sleep? I hardly think mortality is some sort of divine punishment, as it seems to happen to most people. ;)

After losing his mind.

After losing his mind.

He 'lost it' decades before becoming President. *runs*

You're mean Heikoku :(

After losing his mind.

Not sure that was such a big deal for him of all people, but I take your point.

Only because it was unpopular, not because he opposed the war per se.

I still fail to see why this makes any difference on the issue of whether or not he was a good President.

He sharply escalated the war in Cambodia.

To end the Vietnam War, which it did.


What I mean is that he shouldn't have provided aid to Pakistan, especially with a human rights record as abhorrent as the one it had.

Right. What would you have done in his place, if you were in the process of negotiating with China?

Parkus, out of interest, do you think Nixon was a good person, or just a good president?

I still fail to see why this makes any difference on issue of whether or not he was a good President.

Because it shows he was a public opinion whore who had no moral qualms about shedding blood, and only cared about getting elected.

To end the Vietnam War, which it did.

At a terrible cost.

Right. What would you have done.

Again, nothing. Foreign aid to any country is a bad idea, especially to genocidal regimes.

Again, nothing. Foreign aid to any country

Why? I can see how it is a very bad idea if it is treated as a solution to poverty, but it still often has demonstrably positive effects with many countries (although negative with others).

This thread is getting off track. Back to more praise of the fearless leaders of the free world and the defenders of the free market!

Cheerio!

http://newsimg.bbc.co.uk/media/images/40239000/jpg/_40239609_maggie-ap203.jpg

Before we go any further, is today really some sort of holiday celebrating Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, or have I once again been led down the garden path?

Because it shows he was a public opinion whore who had no moral qualms about shedding blood, and only cared about getting elected.

Do you honestly believe any President out there gives a shit about anything other than being elected?

At a terrible cost.

I believe that during Nixon's Presidency, fewer lives were lost in Vietnam every day. His furious pursuit of the Vietcong brought about peace. And if he had been able to finish his negotiations in Vietnam, many lives would have been saved.

Again, nothing. Foreign aid to any country is a bad idea, especially to genocidal regimes.

What do you think would have eventually happened, regarding China and Russia?

Why? I can see how it is a very bad idea if it is treated as a solution to poverty, but it still often has demonstrably positive effects with many countries (although negative with others).

Because it never helps the people it is supposedly meant to benefit, and it often helps dictators prop up their own regimes and enrich themselves. Foreign aid helped people like Western-backed tyrant Mobutu become billionaires.

Because it never helps the people it is supposedly meant to benefit

Generalisation.


, and it often helps dictators prop up their own regimes and enrich themselves.

Often, but not always. Again, there's no reason to abolish aid entirely, just make sure that the aid is going to something useful, rather than to corrupt regimes.

You're mean Heikoku :(

SOMEONE has to be the anti-hero.

Parkus, out of interest, do you think Nixon was a good person, or just a good president?


A good person? :tongue:

I believe Jimmy Carter was a good person.

Do you honestly believe any President out there gives a shit about anything other than being elected?

The people that do give a shit, and actually have principles, are the ones who never get elected.

I believe that during Nixon's Presidency, fewer lives were lost in Vietnam every day. His furious pursuit of the Vietcong brought about peace. And if he had been able to finish his negotiations in Vietnam, many lives would have been saved.

But many lives weren't saved. "Vietnamization" was utterly stupid. We should have just pulled out immediately, which would have prevented many more needless deaths rather than postponing the inevitable.

What do you think would have eventually happened, regarding China and Russia?

Who cares? It wasn't our place to intervene.

A good person? :tongue:

I believe Jimmy Carter was a good person.

I agree with you on Carter. Not a fan of his presidency, but he's had one of the best post-presidential careers ever.

Before we go any further, is today really some sort of holiday celebrating Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan, or have I once again been led down the garden path?

Of course there is! We are celebrating, what more formalities do you need?

http://www.historycommons.org/events-images/a999ronaldandnancy_2050081722-23675.jpg
http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00110/thatcher_hultonarch_110601s.jpg

SOMEONE has to be the anti-hero.

Anti-heroes kick ass: Magus (from Chrono Trigger), the Punisher, Venom, Deadpool, Solo (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solo_(Marvel_Comics)), Cardiac (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cardiac_(comics))...

The people that do give a shit, and actually have principles, are the ones who never get elected.

Of course not. Which is why it is stupid to call a President bad because he did not care "deep inside".

But many lives weren't saved. "Vietnamization" was utterly stupid. We should have just pulled out immediately, which would have prevented many more needless deaths rather than postponing the inevitable.


To be fair, Nixon did not start that war: He ended. So while he took some time to do so, he should not be impugned for it. Since Truman we were over there, and Nixon ended it.

Who cares? It wasn't our place to intervene.

Who cares about what wars might start, and how they might spread? As a leader one has to consider everything; a lack of thought about the situation in Pakistan could easily have lead to nuclear war. I am not justifying Nixon's policy there, but I am saying it would have been stupid to do nothing.

I agree with you on Carter. Not a fan of his presidency, but he's had one of the best post-presidential careers ever.

It just goes to show you that honesty, principles, and integrity do not necessarily make someone a good President.

*snip*

Is it any coincidence that the countries who have received the most so-called "aid" are among the world's poorest countries? Also, as Mises succintly put it:

We must comprehend that it is impossible to improve the economic conditions of the underdeveloped nations by grants in aid. If we send them foodstuffs to fight famines, we merely relieve their governments from the necessity of abandoning their disastrous agricultural policies.

Of course not. Which is why it is stupid to call a President bad because he did not care "deep inside".

He's bad for all sorts of different reasons.

To be fair, Nixon did not start that war: He ended. So while he took some time to do so, he should not be impugned for it. Since Truman we were over there, and Nixon ended it.

True. But under Truman and Eisenhower, our role there was merely an advisory one. We sent military advisors and money, but didn't actively fight until Kennedy (when he massively escalated our presence there and gave advisors permission to engage the enemy).

Who cares about what wars might start, and how they might spread? As a leader one has to consider everything; a lack of thought about the situation in Pakistan could easily have lead to nuclear war. I am not justifying Nixon's policy there, but I am saying it would have been stupid to do nothing.

I know what you're saying, and you have a good point. I'm just saying, intervening in other countries' affairs is generally a bad idea.

It just goes to show you that honesty, principles, and integrity do not necessarily make someone a good President.

That's true.

Of course there is! We are celebrating, what more formalities do you need?

http://www.historycommons.org/events-images/a999ronaldandnancy_2050081722-23675.jpg
http://www.independent.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00110/thatcher_hultonarch_110601s.jpg

What is there to celebrate about Reagan?

Is it any coincidence that the countries who have received the most so-called "aid" are among the world's poorest countries?

No, generally poorer countries need more aid.


Also, as Mises succintly put it:

Mises is attacking a strawman, aid is not used for long term economic development, it's used to stop people from suffering horrifically and starving to death, and there are many examples of this working.

What is there to celebrate about Reagan?

Revitalization of the American economy! There is a reason Reagan is on the 10,000,000 dollar bill you know!

http://www.noveltieswholesale.com/files/reaganbill.jpg

Allanea's wonky dates of his visit to the US aside, why do you call Kropotkin's writings revisionist history?

Based on the claims that the poster said he makes. Most of Kropotkin's claims that the poster quoted are more or less false.


In other regards he may be correct. Not on that.

No, generally poorer countries need more aid.

And yet they remain poor in spite of our "aid."

Mises is attacking a strawman, aid is not used for long term economic development, it's used to stop people from suffering horrifically and starving to death, and there are many examples of this working.

Some foreign aid is used for that. Other kinds (i.e., emergency relief to a country after a natural disaster) obviously aren't.

And his point remains: If foreign governments are continually shielded from the consequences of their ruinous policies (after all, why end policies that impoverish their countries if they know they'll keep getting bailed out by the West?), they are much less likely to implement reforms.

What is there to celebrate about Reagan?

He loved freedom, apperantly.


Freedom for the corperate elite and white, middle class, Christian America.

Revitalization of the American economy!

I've heard extremely mixed things about this. Some people say he's responsible for nothing short of an economic miracle; others claim he's responsible for nothing less than a total catastrophe.

others claim he's responsible for nothing less than a total catastrophe.

Obviously these are dissenters and need to be dealt with properly!

http://www.supanet.com/media/00/13/96/firing-squad.jpg

He loved freedom, apperantly.

Freedom for the corperate elite and white, middle class, Christian America.

He loved freedom for his electoral base and the politically-connected wealthy (upon whose support he depended), it's true, but not for most others. He wasn't particularly concerned about freedom in, say, the Sudan (President Nimiery, who was overthrown in 1985, was a major benefactor of U.S. aid), Pinochet's Chile, Marcos's Philippines (he only ceased support when it was apparent that Marcos's downfall was inevitable), El Salvador, Guatemala (where the pro-U.S. military dictatorship killed tens of thousands of innocent people, especially Amerindians), South Africa, Zaire (he praised Mobutu Sese Seko as "a voice of good sense and goodwill"), or Argentina (he supported the military dictatorship until the Falklands/Malvinas war broke out).

Although, he did do one good thing: He further isolated the Stroessner regime in Paraguay, paving the way for its eventual downfall.

However, human rights was not a paramount concern vis-a-vis Paraguay; he only distanced the U.S. from Stroessner because the U.S. government suspected (rightly) that the Paraguayan government was smuggling drugs.

Obviously these are dissenters and need to be dealt with properly!

http://www.supanet.com/media/00/13/96/firing-squad.jpg

If someone is wrong, refute, don't shoot.

(Hey, I'm a poet and didn't know it! :eek::p)

And yet they remain poor in spite of our "aid."


Again, aid is not used (at least by most people) for economic growth, it's used to help people, not the economy.


Other kinds (i.e., emergency relief to a country after a natural disaster) obviously aren't.


Are you for abolishing emergency relief? Or was that statement "foreign aid to any country is a bad idea" bullshit?


And his point remains: If foreign governments are continually shielded from the consequences of their ruinous policies (after all, why end policies that impoverish their countries if they know they'll keep getting bailed out by the West?), they are much less likely to implement reforms.

Show me actual examples of this happening.

Again, aid is not used (at least by most people) for economic growth, it's used to help people, not the economy.

Were that true, we would not provide "aid."

Are you for abolishing emergency relief? Or was that statement "foreign aid to any country is a bad idea" bullshit?

I stand by that statement.

Show me actual examples of this happening.

Zaire. Mobutu, who was repeatedly bailed out by the U.S., France, Belgium, the World Bank, and the IMF, repeatedly refused to implement meaningful reforms, because he knew he could always play his "Mobutu or chaos" trump card when it looked like aid wold dry up. And even when aid is conditional on reform (it isn't, except on paper), many dictators (Mobutu included) will briefly and haltingly implement the absolute bare minimum of "reforms," and once more money trickles in, they'll abandon any pretense at "reform" until it's once again time to go to Washington for hand-outs.

Again: What incentive is there to reform, when you know you'll get money, either way? Most governments will not implement needed reforms if their policies are necessary to their political survival.

I stand by that statement.


So you do think we should abolish emergency relief. I don't think much more needs to be said.

So you do think we should abolish emergency relief. I don't think much more needs to be said.

I don't believe in coerced charity. I believe in voluntarily helping others. People have a moral duty, IMO, to assist those in need. But enforcing this moral duty is wrong.

The picture's a bit big, so I'll go for a link (http://krakownacodzien.blox.pl/resource/pl_ct_nap.JPG) instead.
It's not far from here.

Posted this just for fun.

I don't believe in coerced charity. I believe in voluntarily helping others. People have a moral duty, IMO, to assist those in need. But enforcing this moral duty is wrong.

So this comes down to moral opposition to taxation?

So this comes down to moral opposition to taxation?

Yes.

But many lives weren't saved. "Vietnamization" was utterly stupid. We should have just pulled out immediately, which would have prevented many more needless deaths rather than postponing the inevitable.

Or, better still, Eisenhower should have just let the Vietnamese handle it themselves from 1954.

How so?

Probably the bit where he trained and funded death squads that were actively committing genocide.

Calls for a classic:

http://www.myconfinedspace.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/06/reagan-smash-animated.gif

How is that funny? I happen to be quite fond of both Reagan and Thatcher and I approve of their message of liberty.

Supporting brutal dictatorships and introducing economic policies that dramatically increase corporate control of government and inequality (both of outcome and opportunity, since the two are closely related) clashes somewhat with my understanding of liberty. The only thing made freer under Reagan and Thatcher were markets, not people.

Anyone else notice the distinct irony of a Thatcher admirer using V as an icon? Because I distinctly remember Alan Moore was "inspired" by the Thatcher government to write V For Vendetta.

Or, better still, Eisenhower should have just let the Vietnamese handle it themselves from 1954.

^ This.

Because I distinctly remember Alan Moore was "inspired" by the Thatcher government to write V For Vendetta.

Well, that's one good thing Thatcher inspired. V for Vendetta is an excellent graphic novel.

He loved freedom for his electoral base and the politically-connected wealthy (upon whose support he depended), it's true, but not for most others. He wasn't particularly concerned about freedom in, say, the Sudan (President Nimiery, who was overthrown in 1985, was a major benefactor of U.S. aid), Pinochet's Chile, Marcos's Philippines (he only ceased support when it was apparent that Marcos's downfall was inevitable), El Salvador, Guatemala (where the pro-U.S. military dictatorship killed tens of thousands of innocent people, especially Amerindians), South Africa, Zaire (he praised Mobutu Sese Seko as "a voice of good sense and goodwill"), or Argentina (he supported the military dictatorship until the Falklands/Malvinas war broke out).

Although, he did do one good thing: He further isolated the Stroessner regime in Paraguay, paving the way for its eventual downfall.

However, human rights was not a paramount concern vis-a-vis Paraguay; he only distanced the U.S. from Stroessner because the U.S. government suspected (rightly) that the Paraguayan government was smuggling drugs.

Reagan's foreign policy was the product of the times IMO. It was the Cold War, in the minds of the CIA and policymakers Communism was still a very real threat if somewhat lessened with the advent of glasnost later on, and the Containment Doctrine made dealing with less-than-savory characters a necessity. Not saying it was necessarily a good thing or the most farsighted of doctrines but when it comes down to it you gotta do what you gotta do.

She was possibly the best PM of all time.

....her legacy being now entirely discredited, her rabid right wing pro-Americanism reviled. She never won more than 42% of the vote. A vile, disgusting, loathsome woman.

....her legacy being now entirely discredited, her rabid right wing pro-Americanism reviled. She never won more than 42% of the vote. A vile, disgusting, loathsome woman.

Okay then, let's think about the PMs in my life time.
John Major=Epic Fail.
Blair- you say she was pro American. :rolleyes:
Brown- pludged us into economic crisis.

She's the best of the last half century at least.

Brown- pludged us into economic crisis.

No he didn't. While I hate that man with a passion, you may have noticed that the whole world is in an economic slowdown that he didn't start.

Sorry, but fuck reagen. Most of his policies were what bush endorsed, and his trickle down theory sucked.

Reagan deserved the end he got. Thatcher deserves to be killed by blood loss after being thrown in a very deep pool filled with razor blades.

Care to say why?

Brown- pludged us into economic crisis.


Gordo was every bit as "free market" as Thatcher.....

No he didn't. While I hate that man with a passion, you may have noticed that the whole world is in an economic slowdown that he didn't start.
He didn't start it, but when he was chancelor(spelling?) he made it allot worse. They should've seen it coming.

They should've seen it coming.

They should've predicted that the sub-prime mortgage market would drive the banks over here into meltdown?

They should've predicted that the sub-prime mortgage market would drive the banks over here into meltdown?

Well, if a simpleton like me could see it coming, I really think that econmic experts should have done the same.

Well, if a simpleton like me could see it coming, I really think that econmic experts should have done the same.

You predicted the recession before Northern Rock collapsed?

You predicted the recession before Northern Rock collapsed?

Yep. They come around every 15/20 years and I guessed it would start before I left school. It was inevitable. With inflation and housing prices the way they were.

You predicted the recession before Northern Rock collapsed?
Didn't you? The only person that didn't see this coming was the Satan himself, Gordon Brown! Don't you remember the Tories & Lib dems telling us in 2005 we needed to stem house price inflation, tax increases & spending cuts to save up for the impending crisis and strictuer controls on financial institutions? Hell, in your local you'll find at least one person who (thinks he) should be Governor of the Bank of England!

[/sarcasm]

....her legacy being now entirely discredited, her rabid right wing pro-Americanism reviled. She never won more than 42% of the vote. A vile, disgusting, loathsome woman.

And she had the IRA cowering in the corner like the bastards they were, which may be why you hate her so much.

And she had the IRA cowering in the corner like the bastards they were, which may be why you hate her so much.

I lol'd. I wonder if Brown will do so well, now that the IRA i attacking again. :rolleyes:

Also, because of Reagan's economic policy unemployent and inflation (both of which were quite high due to the Carter years) shrank considerably.No, because of Volcker's economic policy, these things happened, and they happened because Carter hired him and told him to shrink inflation and then, once that was accomplished, fix the unemployment problem.

Truman, LBJ, and Nixon were much worse.No. While they were also bad, there is at least something positive to say about their administrations. This isn't the case for Reagan, he literally did nothing good (intentionally).

Yep. They come around every 15/20 years and I guessed it would start before I left school. It was inevitable. With inflation and housing prices the way they were.

So in other words they are cyclic and not caused by politicians?

No. While they were also bad, there is at least something positive to say about their administrations.

I disagree.

This isn't the case for Reagan, he literally did nothing good (intentionally).

That might be true, but the bad things he did were not nearly as bad as the things done by Truman, LBJ, and Nixon, IMO.

That might be true, but the bad things he did were not nearly as bad as the things done by Truman, LBJ, and Nixon, IMO.I disagree; he did as bad as them, and worse.

I'm American, and as a true patriot I make a point to know absolutely nothing about politicians in other countries, so I have nothing to say about Thatcher.

Reagan, however, was definitely one of the five worst presidents in American history. It's pretty damn sad when people insist on naming hospitals and airports and boulevards after a thief who committed high treason.

I disagree; he did as bad as them, and worse.

Compare the number of people killed (directly and indirectly) by the U.S. and dictators subsidized by it during the Reagan Administration to the number killed under Truman, LBJ, or Nixon.

Reagan, however, was definitely one of the five worst presidents in American history. It's pretty damn sad when people insist on naming hospitals and airports and boulevards after a thief who committed high treason.

Who are the other four worst, in your opinion?

Too bad when Reagan died he didnt take Thatcher with him.

Too bad that they didn't both die in a British Railways train wreck... Thatcher's privatise-them-all policies led to the BR becoming the most unsafe railways of Europe iirc.

Too bad that they didn't both die in a British Railways train wreck... Thatcher's privatise-them-all policies led to the BR becoming the most unsafe railways of Europe iirc.

Umm not sure on that score. Unreliable, overpriced and overcrowded, yeah sure.

Compare the number of people killed (directly and indirectly) by the U.S. and dictators subsidized by it during the Reagan Administration to the number killed under Truman, LBJ, or Nixon.Lessee, for Reagan:

Helped the Contras kill 50,000 people.
Helped the Iraqis gas 100,000+ people.
Helped the Iranians kill Iraqis.
Aided Colombia and El Salvador in their massacres of people.
Invaded Grenada.
Considered South Africa's Apartheid regime an important ally.
Helped further the Angolan civil war. This war lasted 27 years and an estimated 500,000 people died (of course, not all under Reagan's watch).
Aided "freedom fighters" in Mozambique.
Gave aid to the Mujahadeen (by extension, furthering global terrorism).
Effectively ignored the AIDS epidemic, thus helping to further its spread.

Who are the other four worst, in your opinion?

Dubya is definitely the worst in history, purely because of scale. Other presidents have been just as corrupt, stupid, and personally dangerous, but thanks to the modern era and all our technologies it is Dubya who was able to wreak the most harm around the world and upon this country.

Nixon I would rank right up there, not just because he was a criminal but because he basically shattered the last remnants of idealism that people had about the office of the presidency. The cynicism that came from his activities completely changed American politics.

Hoover, of course, because duh.

Buchanan, for being a total douche, supporting Dred Scott, supporting slavery, and basically helping to cause the Civil War. And for believing, to his dying day, that history would vindicate him because he technically fulfilled the letter-of-the-law requirements of his office.

Johnson and Pierce can fight it out for the last spot.

And before somebody asks, no, I'm not going to bash William Henry Harrison just because he died within a month of taking office. He never had a fair chance to be a catastrophic fuckup.

Effectively ignored the AIDS epidemic, thus helping to further its spread.
People always seem to forget this.

Seriously, folks, if Ronald Reagan hadn't been a revoltingly homophobic elitist who didn't give two shits as long as it was poor fags dying, the AIDS epidemic might never have gotten such a serious foothold in this country. AIDS research could be a decade ahead of where it is today.

Umm not sure on that score. Unreliable, overpriced and overcrowded, yeah sure.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_rail_accidents_in_the_United_Kingdom

Between 1985 and 2000 the BR had an amount of casualties in crashes that is unheard of even in Italy.

Lessee, for Reagan:

Helped the Contras kill 50,000 people.
Helped the Iraqis gas 100,000+ people.
Helped the Iranians kill Iraqis.
Aided Colombia and El Salvador in their massacres of people.
Invaded Grenada.
Considered South Africa's Apartheid regime an important ally.
Helped further the Angolan civil war. This war lasted 27 years and an estimated 500,000 people died (of course, not all under Reagan's watch).
Aided "freedom fighters" in Mozambique.
Gave aid to the Mujahadeen (by extension, furthering global terrorism).
Effectively ignored the AIDS epidemic, thus helping to further its spread.

The first one is highly suspect. 50,000 is about how many people died, in total, during the Nicaraguan conflict in the 1980s. I very highly doubt that the Contras were responsible for each of those deaths. A majority, sure, probably an overwhelming majority, but not all of them. And, while not nearly as brutal as the Contras, the FSLN weren't exactly angels, either (not that this justifies Reagan's actions vis-a-vis Nicaragua, of course).

As you have shown, Reagan is responsible, directly or indirectly, for hundreds of thousands of deaths. The Viet Nam War alone, which was at its zenith under LBJ and Nixon, killed many more than that. Then there was Nixon's support for the government of Pakistan during a time when the latter was slaughtering Bangladeshis by the millions.

If you measure a President's degree of evil by the number of deaths, Reagan would rank very highly, but I doubt he would rank first.

Dubya is definitely the worst in history, purely because of scale. Other presidents have been just as corrupt, stupid, and personally dangerous, but thanks to the modern era and all our technologies it is Dubya who was able to wreak the most harm around the world and upon this country.

Nixon I would rank right up there, not just because he was a criminal but because he basically shattered the last remnants of idealism that people had about the office of the presidency. The cynicism that came from his activities completely changed American politics.

Hoover, of course, because duh.

Buchanan, for being a total douche, supporting Dred Scott, supporting slavery, and basically helping to cause the Civil War. And for believing, to his dying day, that history would vindicate him because he technically fulfilled the letter-of-the-law requirements of his office.

Johnson and Pierce can fight it out for the last spot.

And before somebody asks, no, I'm not going to bash William Henry Harrison just because he died within a month of taking office. He never had a fair chance to be a catastrophic fuckup.

Which Johnson? I assume you mean LBJ.

And she had the IRA cowering in the corner like the bastards they were, which may be why you hate her so much.


Hehehe. Yeah.

Thatcher was one of the best recruiting 'posters' Republicanism ever had.

Ron Reagan Jr is okay

Which Johnson? I assume you mean LBJ.
Andrew, actually. Sorry that wasn't clear. He and Pierce would make my list for basically the same reason, which is why they can fight it out. :D

Andrew, actually. Sorry that wasn't clear. He and Pierce would make my list for basically the same reason, which is why they can fight it out. :D

Ah, gotcha. Why Pierce? I know nothing about the man, to be honest. :confused:

Ah, gotcha. Why Pierce? I know nothing about the man, to be honest. :confused:

He was absolutely nuts about expanding the US and acquiring new states, which in and of itself was shitty considering all the Native Americans this fucked over, but on top of it he was all about adding new SLAVE states to the Union. So he pretty much fucked over all the non-whites on the continent, and also fucked over the whites by helping to ensure that the Civil War would happen.

Johnson, meanwhile, managed to fuck up the joint beautifully during the Reconstruction era. He helped ensure that black people, while technically emancipated, would remain sub-second-class citizens for over a century. He vigorously opposed the 14th Amendment. I have to admit, he's not TECHNICALLY as horrible a president as others, in terms of gross incompetence or the active murder of his own people, but I still think he's big hairy asshole. :P

God bless them both.

When is Reagan Easter - the day Reagan rises from the dead to lead the GOP to the promised land.

When is Reagan Easter - the day Reagan rises from the dead to lead the GOP to the promised land.

Every...single...Election....Day. Notice: he is still voted for.

Sorry, but fuck reagen. Most of his policies were what bush endorsed, and his trickle down theory sucked.

You will fit in well here, young grasshopper.

You will fit in well here, young grasshopper.

Yeah, next the ricepaper test!:D

Every...single...Election....Day. Notice: he is still voted for.

Huh?

Did I miss something obvious?