|
|
Post by Meursault on Jul 8, 2004 10:30:46 GMT -5
How exactly does Switzerland works. Take your time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Thorngrub on Jul 8, 2004 10:33:33 GMT -5
....That was beautiful, Melon.
I see that I am ill equipped to maintain a respectable level of proper discourse here among you fine posters.
In the interest of keeping this board a decent place for all of you to keep on debating in a civil fashion, I am gracefully bowing out.
Yes, this means that it is I who have been "defeated"; I admit that.
Your poem was very thoughtful Melon -- and I will continue to come back here and re-read it. There are many stanzas and many couplets within that provide much food for thought. Thank you.
I'm sorry for being a disgrace to this board -- it's really not for me, as much as I'd like to be a part of this CE-clique. I'm just way too "out there" for this kind of board.
Please accept my apologies for muddying these waters, for resorting to low brow name calling, and useless hyperbole.
I want you to know - stratman, Chrisfan, and Melon -- that should I encounter you elsewhere on these boards, I will have nothing but the utmost courtesy to show you. I can only hope that you would do the same for me.
Later
|
|
|
|
Post by Mary on Jul 8, 2004 15:58:31 GMT -5
To answer your question from this morning, chrisfan...
I'm actually totally fine with the same warnings being given to prospective police officers and firefighters—although I don't know that much about police recruiting...if it's more the kind of job that people just go to themselves, without being heavily recruited for it, then I'd be less concerned about it, because part of my concern was how military recruiting aggressively targets poor people and tries to sell itself as one of the best ways they can find opportunities that otherwise wouldn't be available to them.
I really don't think post offices and universities are remotely comparable, though. The very nature of military work and police work and fire fighting involves the ever-present risk of serious injury and death. It's built into what you're doing. This simply does not apply to postal workers or college professors. The fact that there have been shootings in these environments is no different from a random, unexpected shooting anywhere else, and merely being alive means that you are at risk of that kind of unexpected violence. But it's entirely different from seeking a job that violence and life-risking activities are a fundamental component of. I mean, every time I go outside, it's possible some nutjob will just open fire on me and sixteen other pedestrians. That doesn't mean that going outside and joining the military are comparable activities with respect to risk.
M
|
|
|
|
Post by stratman19 on Jul 8, 2004 16:00:07 GMT -5
phew. sorry. You didn't ask for a treatise on America, but somehow, responding to your friendly jest just set me off!!!!
That's okay Mary. I sorta knew I'd get more than a one or two line answer! ;D
Seriously, I'm glad you went into such depth, it gives me a lot better handle on where you're coming from.
|
|
|
|
Post by someone on Jul 8, 2004 20:17:02 GMT -5
I consider Ronald Reagan to be one of our greatest presidents.
Can I just go ahead and ask why? I know why I disagree with you, and I'm willing to be as open and kind about it as possible, but I need to know how someone could come across this conclusion? From where you stand, how was he a great president?
Riley, the short answer to yoru question is yes. But as I've said to Thorn, I've grown quite tired of people who are willing to criticize the "other side", and question opposing points of view, yet aren't willing to put their own thoughts out there. So I'll leave my answer as short as your statements.
chrisfan, this is just one of the many examples of how you are the most difficult poster to read and interact with. Sometimes I think you're just imbalanced, but most of the time, I'm positive it's because you talk out of your ass. You know, when you're not participating in semantics and ass kissing. Everytime I read one of your posts I find myself barely able to contain myself from throwing up all over my computer.
|
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Jul 9, 2004 6:54:11 GMT -5
Reagan one of the greatest Presidents? The economic figures don't support that supposition at all.
|
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Jul 9, 2004 7:55:47 GMT -5
the economy, no matter who says it got better, was shit under reagan. i remember reading my high school history book and seeing all these great goings ronald reagan supposedly did. destroyed communism... gave people jobs... iran contr--... hey, wait a minute! iran-contra is nowhere to be found! hmm... gee... i wonder why...
give weapons to the middle east, and it's a blessing. get your dick sucked, and you're the devil.
|
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Jul 9, 2004 7:57:42 GMT -5
Just been digging back through this thread to check on responses to F9/11.
Mary, a quite brilliant critique of both Moore's film, and Hitchen's 'review' of it. Bravo.
|
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Jul 9, 2004 8:03:18 GMT -5
There's limited scope to debate the efficacy of Reaganomics. Just look at the figures.
Regardless of the esteem and affection that Americans may feel for him, in the wider scheme of things his long-term reputation will largely rest on his part in the Cold War, I'll wager.
|
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Jul 9, 2004 8:21:55 GMT -5
what scares me is that i think he'll be regarded as being as great as lincoln for years and years to come. in fact, i consider that frightening. i'm very concerned about the future of this country...
|
|
|
|
Post by Meursault on Jul 9, 2004 8:27:07 GMT -5
I'm concerned about the whole world, there are to many wackos. But that's just a part of life, dumb animals.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dr. Drum on Jul 9, 2004 9:03:15 GMT -5
Three basic claims of greatness are made on behalf of Ronald Reagan:
1. That he won the Cold War and essentially engineered the break-up of the Soviet Union;
2. That Reaganomics created the economic boom of the 80s;
3. That he made America feel good about itself again after the upheavals of the 60s and 70s (Civil Rights Movement, Vietnam War, stagflation, Iran hostage crisis, etc. etc.).
Seems obvious that there is substance to claim no. 3, at least as far as certain segments of America are concerned but claims 1 and 2 are off base, IMO.
On the first, it was Soviet central planning coupled with militarism that doomed the USSR, not the increases Reagan made to the U.S. defence budget after he took office. By the late 60s, central planning had resulted in a shrinking Soviet economy yet, year after year over the course of the 1970s, the decade prior to Reagan’s inauguration, the USSR was allocating 30 – 35% of its GDP to the military. The USSR was the second biggest oil producer in the world at the time, so high oil prices in the wake of the Arab oil embargo of 1973 and the Iranian revolution of 1979 propped them up for a time but the oil price dropped sharply in 1981, just after Reagan took office. From that point on, the USSR’s days were numbered. Reagan benefited from these circumstances – he didn’t create them.
I’m no economist but I believe the situation is the much the same on claim no. 2 – Reagan benefited from circumstances as opposed to creating them. That 1981 drop in oil prices, coupled with other factors, obviously also helped to fuel the economic recovery in America. Reagan’s boosters claim that it was his massive 1981 tax cut which led to the economic recovery and subsequent boom but he actually undid a lot of that tax cut himself, boosting taxes in 1982 and again in 1983.
|
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Jul 9, 2004 9:07:56 GMT -5
In it's recent Newsnight feature on Reagan the BBC claimed that when he left office the tax burden, unemployment, inflation and interest rates were all higher than when he came into power, and record trade deficits on top of that.
The BBC is impartial.
|
|
|
|
Post by Proud on Jul 9, 2004 9:10:12 GMT -5
there was no economic boost of the 80s.
|
|
|
|
Post by JesusLooksLikeMe on Jul 9, 2004 9:16:44 GMT -5
I think there was a clear economic boost for certain people. Were you, in short, "one of us"? If so then you could make a mint under the so-called 'boom and bust' economics of Reagan and Thatcher, which were all about the short term.
Shame both nations had to deal with the consequences of this short termism in such a painful way in terms of drawn-out recessions and massive polarisation of society between rich and poor.
|
|
