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.

i can think of a place where there are no corporations, and everyone is happy, and there is still a functioning economy...its called imagination land!

Y'know frazzled, I generally enjoy debating with you (actually I'm usually on your side), you've always been a rather level headed poster. The least you could do is approach this discussion with an open mind and treat me with dignity and respect, as I have you.

chaos0xomega wrote:Y'know frazzled, I generally enjoy debating with you (actually I'm usually on your side), you've always been a rather level headed poster. The least you could do is approach this discussion with an open mind and treat me with dignity and respect, as I have you.

You mean other than get bent (well when you're my age, bent is a way of life). Starting off talking about corporate slavery just means know one can take you seriously on this particular thread. Further, this is a thread on Ronald Reagan not the evils of capitalism. But in the spirit of your last post lets reboot.

A negative not often remarked is, in addition to the fall of capitalism, an opening to the doorway of islamofascism via Afghanistan.
What else. SOme really real great one liners and speechmaking abilities that really makes anteceding Presidents appear as lesser men.

Never told you to get bent, I was talking to that other guy that said I hate capitalism.

How about a positive: He reinvigorated the military, and resolved the hollow force that came about with Carter in the 70s... too bad the presidents that came after him haven't been able to keep that up...

sorry, always come off a little more harsh than i mean to, just get a little in the moment.

and reagan did have negatives as well; iran contra scandal, many of his banking laws created indirectly led to the huge recession we are currently in

chaos0xomega wrote:Never told you to get bent, I was talking to that other guy that said I hate capitalism.

I wasn't taking it as a negative. All neaderthals are bent...AND PROUD!

How about a positive: He reinvigorated the military, and resolved the hollow force that came about with Carter in the 70s... too bad the presidents that came after him haven't been able to keep that up...

True dat. Without Reagan we wouldn't have had cool M1 tanks and stealth aircraft, the staple of anti alien goodness for decades.

Reagan reminded America that we are a great country filled with great people. Not because we are born any differently than anyone else, but that our nation is one of individual freedom and endless possibility. He also had the guts to draw a line in the sand and stand up to communism. Prior to Reagan we had 50 years of cold war. Im not sure I can count how many small 3rd world nations were hurt in the chess match. Reagan ended it through moral leadership, and frankly, simply standing up to them. But we shouldn't forget Lady Thatcher who was every bit Reagan equal. When a people are free from overbearing, overreaching, oppressive government they are free to aspire to any goal, or, if they chose, not. After the garbage of the 60's and 70's, Reagan came along and reminded us who we are, not all our failings. We need another one, quickly.

chaos0xomega wrote:Have you ever heard of dead peasants insurance?

Yes, and I don't see how it's relevant.

chaos0xomega wrote: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).

And this is a bad thing? Allowing corporations to own property is pretty essential to modern business. There's nothing about property ownership that requires an actual person.

chaos0xomega wrote:Then there is the fact that employers have the right to deny you vacation time based on their own criteria.

Not exactly. You could quit and take as long a vacation as you want.

Also, most slaveholders (afaik, I'll admit to not having done a lot of research on the topic) were pretty stingy with vacation time. Probably moreso than most bosses.

chaos0xomega wrote:Your boss decides when you get to take your lunch break, etc. etc. etc.

And he tells me what to do!

chaos0xomega wrote: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.

But you don't get arrested if you fail to show up. And yes, you are rewarded or punished for behavior, but that isn't indicative of slavery.

chaos0xomega wrote:In any case, we live in a corporate oligarchy/plutocracy, and that is undeniable.

No, it's not.

chaos0xomega wrote: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.

Assuming what you've said above is true...what's the appropriate response? Giving government more power?

Giving government more power doesn't do anything to lessen "corporate influence" over the government, it simply creates a stronger incentive for corporations to get involved with government.

chaos0xomega wrote:Also entertaining is this Citigroup internal memo (maybe you've heard of it):
https://docs.google.com/fileview?id=0BzgUudifBc68ZGUyNzA0MzAtZDZkZC00ZmZjLTkwY2ItNzBlZWRmNjI1ZTNm&hl=en

Pretty sure that's fake. Consider the source, as they say.

Its not (a fake), do a bit of research on it, it was even featured in Michael Moores Capitalism: A Love Story. A crazy socialist pig he may be but he researches his stuff pretty thoroughly.

40kFSU wrote:Reagan reminded America that we are a great country filled with great people. Not because we are born any differently than anyone else, but that our nation is one of individual freedom and endless possibility. He also had the guts to draw a line in the sand and stand up to communism. Prior to Reagan we had 50 years of cold war. Im not sure I can count how many small 3rd world nations were hurt in the chess match. Reagan ended it through moral leadership, and frankly, simply standing up to them. But we shouldn't forget Lady Thatcher who was every bit Reagan equal. When a people are free from overbearing, overreaching, oppressive government they are free to aspire to any goal, or, if they chose, not. After the garbage of the 60's and 70's, Reagan came along and reminded us who we are, not all our failings. We need another one, quickly.

While I agree with you that he gave us back our pride, I disagree with you that he ended communism. That was a failing system, and was destined for failure well before Reagan came on the scene. Ultimately, the person, or people responsible for its end were average Soviet citizens. Once Gorbachev started loosening things up, they took the concepts of perestroika and glasnost and ran with it. He never intended for it to go as far as it did, but by the time he realized how far it had gone, it was too late to stop it, it would have been like trying to stop a freight train.

http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2011/06/20/everything_you_think_you_know_about_the_collapse_of_the_soviet_union_is_wrong?page=0,0

Frazzled wrote:
2. Charismatic. He didn't need a telepromptor to talk for two minutes. Compare to the current President.

Reagan used a teleprompter for every major, public speaking event, and when he didn't he made frequent mistakes.

Frazzled wrote:
3. He had a very strong positive view of this country. Compare to the current President.

One of Obama's campaign slogans was "Yes We Can!"

Frazzled wrote:
5. Vision to win the Cold War. Not just to hold them back, not in 100 years, not in 20 years, but now. Its easy to forget now, but before Reagan the communists were winning.

That's beyond an ignorant statement. You can argue that a lot of people believed they were winning, but at no point did the Soviets have a significant economic or military lead on the United States.

For once I agree with Dogma (specifically on that last bit).

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
2. Charismatic. He didn't need a telepromptor to talk for two minutes. Compare to the current President.

Reagan used a teleprompter for every major, public speaking event, and when he didn't he made frequent mistakes.

Frazzled wrote:
3. He had a very strong positive view of this country. Compare to the current President.

One of Obama's campaign slogans was "Yes We Can!"

Frazzled wrote:
5. Vision to win the Cold War. Not just to hold them back, not in 100 years, not in 20 years, but now. Its easy to forget now, but before Reagan the communists were winning.

That's beyond an ignorant statement. You can argue that a lot of people believed they were winning, but at no point did the Soviets have a significant economic or military lead on the United States.

i think that your first and third points have merit to them, but believe that just because a president has a slogan that says something, doesnt necessarily mean he believes it.

chaos0xomega wrote:In any case, we live in a corporate oligarchy/plutocracy, and that is undeniable.

The word you're looking for is plutarchy.

You could fairly easily argue that the US is a plutocracy in that the wealthy have a disproportionate influence on the political process (Nixon's campaign strategist famously did exactly that), but that argument can be made with respect to any system of government that include privately held wealth. Money and power are basically the same thing, only in very few instances can you not buy something. Hell, you can still buy people in most of the world, and not in the sense of influencing them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dajobe wrote:
i think that your first and third points have merit to them, but believe that just because a president has a slogan that says something, doesnt necessarily mean he believes it.

Of course not, but there's also no reason to believe anything Reagan said. He was a public figure for his whole life in a period of time when the appearance of patriotism was extremely lucrative.

Oh wow Dogma insulting me again, thats so original.

In the 60s: South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Hungarian oppression, Czech oppression

in the 70s: Polish oppression, Nicaragua, Afghanistan.

The Reagan doctrine went from defese to offense. The west pushed back and the USSR cratered because it couldn't match the spending needed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Doctrine

Comparing Obama to Reagan is like comparing, Bush to Reagan.

okay dogma, i will give you that, there is no way that we can prove how either one actually feels about the public, touche, but frazzled is correct i believe also in that reagan and obama are very different as well

I'll note the thread is also about what people thought about Reagan, not lets play semantics and attack posters.

I'd proffer Dogma doesn't have a clue as he wasn't around. This is fine. You youngins!

I'll put forth as another negative, others thought he was an idiot, prone to fall asleep, not get details, and didn't care about the working class-hence the fun about the trickle down economy. But then they ran people like Mondale and wondered why they got the hell beat out of them.

Frazzled wrote:Oh wow Dogma insulting me again, thats so original.

If you didn't say ignorant things, I wouldn't need to describe them as ignorant.

Frazzled wrote:
In the 60s: South Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Hungarian oppression, Czech oppression

South Vietnam was a victory of Chinese influence, which was never a part of the USSR. They're also still communist.

The Khmer Rouge had no connection to the Soviet Union, and were hated by the Chinese for their genocide of ethnic Chinese. In fact, it was the pro-Soviet Salvation Front that ended the Khmer Rouge domination of the state, where they remain a significant parliamentary force.

Laos was also a victory of Chinese influence, and is still communist.

Oppression in Eastern Europe is irrelevant, as it was essentially a change of Soviet domestic policy, not anything approaching a victory. If anything it exposed the internal divisions in Moscow, and noticeably showed that Moscow was unwilling and unable to deploy its own forces to hold the Eastern Bloc under sway.

Frazzled wrote:
in the 70s: Polish oppression, Nicaragua, Afghanistan.

The oppression of the Poles happened under Gomulka, in the 60's, not Gierek in the 70's. In the 70's the Communist Party attempted to liberalize Poland, which had been distanced from Moscow by Gomulka, and ended up essentially going broke; this lead directly the fall of the Party.

The Sandinistas weren't communists, not in the sense you're using the word.

You're really going to cite Afghanistan as an example of Soviet success? Hell, the Chinese even aided the mujahideen.

Frazzled wrote:
The Reagan doctrine went from defese to offense. The west pushed back and the USSR cratered because it couldn't match the spending needed.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reagan_Doctrine

You're conflating Communism with the USSR, which already tells me that you don't know what you're talking about. Furthermore, the Regan Doctrine only went into effect after all of these supposed Soviet success had already failed.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Frazzled wrote:
I'll note the thread is also about what people thought about Reagan, not lets play semantics and attack posters.

I'd proffer Dogma doesn't have a clue as he wasn't around. This is fine. You youngins!

So you want to claim that we shouldn't attack posters, and then make a statement which you would clearly interpret as an attack if I made it regarding you?

How very droll.

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Did Reagan really end the cold war?

No. It's a bit like claiming the English won the French revolution. I mean, the US certainly benefited from the collapse of the Soviet Union, but they didn't do it.

Does he deserve his reputation for fiscal prudence i.e lowering taxes and reducing federal involvement in trade and commerce.

No, his tax cuts significantly reduced revenue from what you'd expect, meanwhile he grew spending incredibly each year in office. The deficit you guys have now has it's origins in Reagan's voodoo economics stupidity.

Or the arming of various groups/interests in South America?

I don't think Americans particularly care about the stupid, expensive and completely immoral shenanigans their government gets up to in South America. In fact, I don't think anyone other than South Americans care. Which is weird, and doesn't say much about the morality of most people, but it is what it is.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Dajobe, that is exactly the question I'm asking on this forum as it has lots of Americans in it and my class has none. Why do you guys love him?

Reagan was lucky enough to come to the presidency during an economic upswing, driven mostly by the personal computing revolution.

Add in a lot of people trying really hard to ignore what Reagan actually did, and you pretty much have the entirety of the cause of Reagan's reputation today. Basically, read 40KSFU's answer. He's so keen to imagine Reagan killed communism that he's let himself believe that having moral leadership caused the Soviet regime to fall down. He seriously let himself believe something that ridiculous.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dajobe wrote:i can think of a place where there are no corporations, and everyone is happy, and there is still a functioning economy...its called imagination land!

I don't agree with the corporate slave state either, but you really need to consider the idea that you can reign in the excesses of corporations and make them more open to public scrutiny, and still have corporations. In fact, you might even consider that under the theories of any major economist, including darlings of the right like Adam Smith, this would produce a more productive, more efficient economy.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dajobe wrote:i think that your first and third points have merit to them, but believe that just because a president has a slogan that says something, doesnt necessarily mean he believes it.

What is this thing? This idea that some presidents believe the US is super-awesome, and some believe it is horrible? How can someone actually believe that is true, or that a means one damn thing even if it were true.

Frazzled wrote:
He dealt with Khaddafy by bombing his ass.

And then Gaddafi had Pan Am 103 destroyed in mid air, along with UTA 772. Clearly the operation was ineffective.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
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.

I see someone doesn't know anything about Nicaraguan history. The forces Reagan supported, the Contras, were the remnants of the Somoza security forces. You know, the Somoza family which headed the hereditary dictatorship of Nicaragua for 43 years. Compare this to the Sandinista junta (it wasn't a military junta), a conglomeration of rebel groups and corporate interests lead by the FSLN, who held an open election (as certified by everyone except the United States) in which they won an uncontested victory because the United States forced its client parties to abstain from participation. This, of course, occurred in 1984 before Iran-Contra ever took place.

You're right though, no evidence ever directly linked the President himself to the scandal. And it was a scandal. Even if you don't except that it countermanded a Congressional resolution (which it did), it would be scandal for no other reason than political fallout.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

biccat wrote:
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.

The arms were, initially, sold to forces outside the Revolutionary Guard, which is essentially the center of Iranian military power. It isn't a particularly difficult argument to make once that is known. Though that part of the Iran-Contra affair was far less important to the Iranian opinion of the US than our support of the Shah.

And that's all I've got to say about that.

It owuld be interesting to see how many posters on this board were actually alive when Reagan was President.

I'd question whether that matters.

The history is fairly clear on many of the matters that dogma and sebster covered. While those that were either not alive when Reagan was President or were to young to really appreciate the time will have a different view than those that lived through it we're not discussing how it felt to live during that time.

Reagan did a lot of things that at the time seemed like the right decisions. He also gets credit for a lot of things that he had nothing to do with, such as the economy. But at the same time so did Clinton. The presidents have little to no control over the economy when they are in office. Reagan also was in office when the USSR finally collapsed but it would have happened eventually regardless, Reagan did speed it up with his actions though. I think it would be very tough to argue either of those points IMO.

This is a hind sight is 20/20 discussion. Reagan did a lot of things that are screwing us now. Tax cuts with more spending but at the time I think you would have been very hard pressed to find to many people who thought it would lead to what it has. I mean really 14+ trillion dollars of debt? Even the most cynical economist would have choked if they were told that.

I think Reagan was a good President, not great just good, but he's been put on this crazy pedestal by so many people because of how things felt at the time. Which while understandable can be aggravating today since he started the current mess we're in now.

Sebster you are completely incorrect in my opinion . It is a proven fact lower tax rates grow the tax base, which provides more revenue. All you have to know is our current socialist administration fought like hell to keep Bush's tax cuts in place back in December because they knew the economy would collapse further. We have a 1.4 Trillion dolllar deficit because of the idiotic government take over of healthcare and stupid stimulus bill the administration admits failed. The economic upswing didnt start until 2 years after his policies were in place. Reagan was the first to take on the Soviets. Every other president, and pathetic other powers, just accepted them as the status quo. Frankly, the fact you know so much about Reagan is an admission of his greatness. But the fact is, your opinion on him doesn't matter. And for those of you who think tax cuts cause problems I ask you. Are you really not paying enough out of your hard earned paycheck? Or is the government simply doing what they want and spending too much. Why do you owe them more?

40kFSU wrote:Sebster you are completely uninformed. It is a proven fact lower tax rates grow the tax base, which provides more revenue.

No it isn't. It's a theory, supported by some, argued against by others.

. Reagan was the first to take on the Soviets.

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



Oh yeah : Can you please format your posts a wee bit better please, they're a bit hard to read spaced out as they are. Much obliged.

stay calm please everyone. Ta.

reds8n wrote:

40kFSU wrote:Sebster you are completely uninformed. It is a proven fact lower tax rates grow the tax base, which provides more revenue.

No it isn't. It's a theory, supported by some, argued against by others.

Like evolution, you mean?







*chortle*

...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/wondermonkey/2011/07/faith-versus-science-does-crea.shtml


[/assembles rod for own back]

( but let's not divert here okay folks. ta. )

Don't worry, that was just a 'meta-post' on my part. I have absolutely zero time for that argument anymore. Total yawnfest.

If high, oppressive taxes and huge governments worked, the European Union would rule the world. Instead they are teetering on financial collapse. Again, America isnt the most powerfull nation in the world because our DNA is different, its because we have freedom and low taxes and small government. Until 2008, and you see where we are in that short time.

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

40kFSU wrote:If high, oppressive taxes and huge governments worked, the European Union would rule the world. Instead they are teetering on financial collapse. Again, America isnt the most powerfull nation in the world because our DNA is different, its because we have freedom and low taxes and small government. Until 2008, and you see where we are in that short time.

Point of order.

The government wasn't "small" before 2008. You pretty much have to go back to pre-FDR to find a "small" government in the US. Although both Clinton and GW Bush dramatically increased the size of our government.