Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dajobe wrote:? i like the comic, but missed how it applied to the discussion...that may just be me.

Well, I did it to try to lighten up the mood. I have this fear that threads like this can become arguments quickly.

If Reagan was around today, his views wouldn't be conservative enough for today's Republicans.

that is probably true, i find myself disagreeing with much of the current republican party because...most are...a little radical in my taste, and found it hard to vote GOP in the last midterm election and if they continue down such a radical road will find it more so. but then again, i find democrats annoying as well...quite the dilemma...i guess i will have to vote on an issue by issue basis. quite the concept for some people

alarmingrick wrote:If Reagan was around today, his views wouldn't be conservative enough for today's Republicans.

Says the Democrat. If Kennedy were alive, he'd be considered a NeoCon.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dajobe wrote:quite the dilemma...i guess i will have to vote on an issue by issue basis. quite the concept for some people

Excellent.

alarmingrick wrote:If Reagan was around today, his views wouldn't be conservative enough for today's Republicans.

That's true, a lot of his views are. Unfortunately, the way he dealt with gorbachev isn't going to work with ghaddafi.

Of course, the views of democrats and republicans is like a game of kicks and punches, each one thinks they're better, but if neither of them is doing it right, we all lose.

remilia_scarlet wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:If Reagan was around today, his views wouldn't be conservative enough for today's Republicans.

That's true, a lot of his views are. Unfortunately, the way he dealt with gorbachev isn't going to work with ghaddafi.

Of course, the views of democrats and republicans is like a game of kicks and punches, each one thinks they're better, but if neither of them is doing it right, we all lose.

He dealt with Khaddafy by bombing his ass.

I hear what people are saying about his charisma and vision for America, and his deadpan diary entry about being shot is funny as f***! as they say in the UK.

But there is the small matter of the Iran-Contra affair(thank you wikipedia) and Reagan before the HuAC.

So I say this to Reagan admirers: how do you react to these above issues? And yeah, what about those hippies that got beaten up at Berkley when RR was Governor of California

Frazzled wrote:

remilia_scarlet wrote:

alarmingrick wrote:If Reagan was around today, his views wouldn't be conservative enough for today's Republicans.

That's true, a lot of his views are. Unfortunately, the way he dealt with gorbachev isn't going to work with ghaddafi.

Of course, the views of democrats and republicans is like a game of kicks and punches, each one thinks they're better, but if neither of them is doing it right, we all lose.

He dealt with Khaddafy by bombing his ass.

That's the only way you can communicate with tyrants. Of course, obama doesn't realise that he's not kennedy, he's not reagan, he's not clinton, he's obama.

But there is the small matter of the Iran-Contra affair(thank you wikipedia) and Reagan before the HuAC.
***Lets see, making money on having two enemies killing each other and then using the proceeds to fight a commie guerrilla movement in central America we didn't like. Sounds positively Caesaresque to me.

So I say this to Reagan admirers: how do you react to these above issues? And yeah, what about those hippies that got beaten up at Berkley when RR was Governor of California
***

I am not a fan of Ronaldus Magnus. I think the obscene love for the man amongst older generations is because the US was never more prosperous than under his presidency. Money and jobs were easy to come by, we were at peace but we were strong, the evil empire was collapsing, etc. etc. I.E. - life was good. My generations love for him comes from them hearing their parents talk favorably about those days, but not really truly understanding what he actually did himself, etc.

I personally blame him for starting America's downward spiral into a corporate slave state, and I hold him responsible for 'setting us up the [time] bomb'.

Corporate slave state?

Frazzled wrote:Corporate slave state?

Yessuh massuh!

remilia_scarlet wrote:

Frazzled wrote:Corporate slave state?

Yessuh massuh!

I forgot to add this:

remilia_scarlet wrote:That's the only way you can communicate with tyrants. Of course, obama doesn't realise that he's not kennedy, he's not reagan, he's not clinton, he's obama.

However, he may be Carter.

Not sure if that's better.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:But there is the small matter of the Iran-Contra affair(thank you wikipedia)

Well, first of all, there's no evidence that he was actually engaged in the Iran-Contra "scandal." Second, I fail to see how encouraging the overthrow of a military junta is a bad thing.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Reagan before the HuAC.

I'll let the man speak for himself.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:And yeah, what about those hippies that got beaten up at Berkley when RR was Governor of California

I will admit that this was one of Reagan's failings. Obviously not enough hippies were beaten up at Berkley when he was Governor. Maybe if more hippies had been beaten up they would have left.

biccat wrote: Second, I fail to see how encouraging the overthrow of a military junta is a bad thing.

So breaking the law is okay? giving money to the Iranians was okay, especially in today's climate?

Look it up. I feel corporations have too much power these days. The amount of influence they have on the government and on policies is ridiculous. I feel sorry for you if you don't acknowledge this, as you really are blind to reality. CEO's and corporation heads have had something like a 500% increase in income over the past 20 years, while the rest of the country has seen something like a 10% increase over the same period. Corporations are regularly cutting jobs without creating new ones, but are maintaining rather constant levels of productivity and seeing greater profits than ever before, all while paying next to nothing in federal income taxes. What this basically translates to is that corporations and their CEOs/corporate heads are making more money than ever before, while us little folk are making about the same amount of money that we were in the 80s, despite an increased cost of living, inflation, etc. More importantly, it also means that the little folk are doing twice as much work as before for the same pay.

I dont know about you, but I have friends and family that break their backs working 7 days a week, gak hours and gak pay. They haven't had a day off in months. Sure, they have vacation time, but their afraid to use them. There are a lot of people out there that would love to have their jobs, and management knows this. Taking a day off to them is basically asking to be fired and replaced. When they complain about their working conditions to management, the response is 'you're lucky you have a job'.

THAT is corporate slavery.

alarmingrick wrote:

biccat wrote: Second, I fail to see how encouraging the overthrow of a military junta is a bad thing.

So breaking the law is okay? giving money to the Iranians was okay, especially in today's climate?

How does today's international climate impact whether the decision at the time was correct or not? I would love to see the causal relationship between selling arms to Iran and their current attitude towards us.

[quote=biccat

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:And yeah, what about those hippies that got beaten up at Berkley when RR was Governor of California

I will admit that this was one of Reagan's failings. Obviously not enough hippies were beaten up at Berkley when he was Governor. Maybe if more hippies had been beaten up they would have left.

chaos0xomega wrote:Look it up. I feel corporations have too much power these days. The amount of influence they have on the government and on policies is ridiculous. I feel sorry for you if you don't acknowledge this, as you really are blind to reality. CEO's and corporation heads have had something like a 500% increase in income over the past 20 years, while the rest of the country has seen something like a 10% increase over the same period. Corporations are regularly cutting jobs without creating new ones, but are maintaining rather constant levels of productivity and seeing greater profits than ever before, all while paying next to nothing in federal income taxes. What this basically translates to is that corporations and their CEOs/corporate heads are making more money than ever before, while us little folk are making about the same amount of money that we were in the 80s, despite an increased cost of living, inflation, etc. More importantly, it also means that the little folk are doing twice as much work as before for the same pay.

I dont know about you, but I have friends and family that break their backs working 7 days a week, gak hours and gak pay. They haven't had a day off in months. Sure, they have vacation time, but their afraid to use them. There are a lot of people out there that would love to have their jobs, and management knows this. Taking a day off to them is basically asking to be fired and replaced. When they complain about their working conditions to management, the response is 'you're lucky you have a job'.

THAT is corporate slavery.

Thats not slavery. This is slavery. Comparing the two is insulting.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NolzEpUStak&feature=related

Also, i have seen what CEO's do, 99.99% of the population could not effectively do what they do, which is why they are paid so much, and deserve every penny they earn(usually). True, most people do "deserve" more money, but that is often not feasible to pay every employee the sums that they ask for.

dajobe wrote:Also, i have seen what CEO's do, 99.99% of the population could not effectively do what they do, which is why they are paid so much, and deserve every penny they earn(usually). True, most people do "deserve" more money, but that is often not feasible to pay every employee the sums that they ask for.

While I believe that not at all, there's a massive difference between that and "everyone's a slave!"
But of course this is blindingly off topic.

Look up the definition(s) of slavery, and you will see that it is in large part applicable to describe this situation. The only part that is tenuous as best is the part about being 'legal property of another'.

chaos0xomega wrote:Look up the definition(s) of slavery, and you will see that it is in large part applicable to describe this situation. The only part that is tenuous as best is the part about being 'legal property of another'.

Frazzled wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:Look up the definition(s) of slavery, and you will see that it is in large part applicable to describe this situation. The only part that is tenuous as best is the part about being 'legal property of another'.

QFT, if you dont like capitalism(which is basically whats being said), go live somewhere else

chaos0xomega wrote:Look up the definition(s) of slavery, and you will see that it is in large part applicable to describe this situation. The only part that is tenuous as best is the part about being 'legal property of another'.

Tenuous at best? I think you're reaching a bit in order to get the result that you want.

dajobe wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

chaos0xomega wrote:Look up the definition(s) of slavery, and you will see that it is in large part applicable to describe this situation. The only part that is tenuous as best is the part about being 'legal property of another'.

QFT, if you dont like capitalism(which is basically whats being said), go live somewhere else

I hear North Korea is hiring. Protip-you might eat first.

THEYRE HIRING!!! what am i still doing here? come on everybody, LETS GO! i hear Kim Jung Il is a swell guy!

dajobe wrote:THEYRE HIRING!!! what am i still doing here? come on everybody, LETS GO! i hear Kim Jung Il is a swell guy!

North Korea is BEST Korea!

Typical. I think corporations are overstepping their bounds, so I hate capitalism, right? Go get bent.

As for 'reaching a bit' perhaps, but perhaps not. Have you ever heard of dead peasants insurance? Then there is the fact that corporations are their own separate and distinct legal entities with the same rights as an individual (thus able to own property). Then there is the fact that employers have the right to deny you vacation time based on their own criteria. Your boss decides when you get to take your lunch break, etc. etc. etc. In some instances, if its an issue of security clearances, your employer has the right to deny you travel to certain parts of the globe. Of course, this all varies from employer to employer, but some masters are kinder than others. All that is really missing is a formal declaration of ownership. If you do something wrong, they have their ways of punishing you. If you do something right, maybe they will reward you. If you 'run away' by not showing up for a couple days, they alert the authorities of your absence by filing a missing persons report. Is that really that different from a slave owner? Hell, some corporations even make housing their responsibility.

Perhaps slavery is to strong a word, maybe servitude is a better word, but whatever.

In any case, we live in a corporate oligarchy/plutocracy, and that is undeniable. When you have the CEO/chairmans of goldman sachs serving as secretary treasury, and said company receiving billions in taxpayer dollars as part of a 'bailout', that could not be clearer. Here is a rather interesting and eyeopening article: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/7364/1/ pay attention to where the author is from too, its at the end, this isn't some whackjob.

Also entertaining is this Citigroup internal memo (maybe you've heard of it):
https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0BzgUudifBc68ZGUyNzA0MzAtZDZkZC00ZmZjLTkwY2ItNzBlZWRmNjI1ZTNm&hl=en

chaos0xomega wrote:Typical. I think corporations are overstepping their bounds, so I hate capitalism, right? Go get bent.

As for 'reaching a bit' perhaps, but perhaps not. Have you ever heard of dead peasants insurance? Then there is the fact that corporations are their own separate and distinct legal entities with the same rights as an individual (thus able to own property). Then there is the fact that employers have the right to deny you vacation time based on their own criteria. Your boss decides when you get to take your lunch break, etc. etc. etc. In some instances, if its an issue of security clearances, your employer has the right to deny you travel to certain parts of the globe. Of course, this all varies from employer to employer, but some masters are kinder than others. All that is really missing is a formal declaration of ownership. If you do something wrong, they have their ways of punishing you. If you do something right, maybe they will reward you. If you 'run away' by not showing up for a couple days, they alert the authorities of your absence by filing a missing persons report. Is that really that different from a slave owner? Hell, some corporations even make housing their responsibility.

Perhaps slavery is to strong a word, maybe servitude is a better word, but whatever.

In any case, we live in a corporate oligarchy/plutocracy, and that is undeniable. When you have the CEO/chairmans of goldman sachs serving as secretary treasury, and said company receiving billions in taxpayer dollars as part of a 'bailout', that could not be clearer. Here is a rather interesting and eyeopening article: http://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2009/05/the-quiet-coup/7364/1/ pay attention to where the author is from too, its at the end, this isn't some whackjob.

Also entertaining is this Citigroup internal memo (maybe you've heard of it):
https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0BzgUudifBc68ZGUyNzA0MzAtZDZkZC00ZmZjLTkwY2ItNzBlZWRmNjI1ZTNm&hl=en

So its off to North Korea for you then or are you going to stay here as a mole against THE MAN?