CE - Volume 1, pp 1-43

[Dr. Drum]

ProudIllness said:

there was no economic boost of the 80s.

We can boot all the rest of it around - winners, losers, etc. etc. - that's all up for debate but the American economy did expand between 1982 and 1990.

www.pkarchive.org/column/061104.html

[Proud]

no.

[stratman19]

"someone", you asked me why I thought Ronald Reagan was one of our greatest presidents. I thought I had made all of that clear with my posts here at the time of his death, but I'll try and reiterate the high points again, and in so doing also speak to some of Drum's, JLLM's, and Proud Illness's points.

Reagan came along at the perfect time. The Carter presidency had been a disaster. Interest rates above 20%, raging inflation, soaring tax rates, high unemployment, energy crisis, American weakness around the globe, military in shambles, hostages in Iran. The terms "national malaise", and "misery index" were coined by this doom and gloom administration.

Reagan was immensely popular with the American people, as witnessed by his election and re-election by overwhelming landslides. He came to power with undimmed optimism for the future, and he had an exceptional ability to communicate that optimism to the American people. Reagan vowed to take a strong stand against communism, began a massive military build up, and set about restoring American pride.

Proud Illness, Drum is right on a couple of counts. The USSR was spending 30%-35% of her GDP on the military. Even during Reagan's buildup, the US was only spending somewhere in the neighborhood of 3% of GDP. Do I believe that Reagan ended the Cold War? Of course not. Do I believe that Reagan greatly hastened the end of the Cold War? Absolutely I believe that. I believe that by forcing the Soviets to spend so much in an attempt to keep up, that Reagan did expedite the end much more quickly. Reagan also took the very public stance that he would not back down from the Soviet threat. Again this is just my opinion.

Drum is also right about the American economy. Under Reagan, it was the greatest economic expansion in the history of the United States up to that time. The numbers don't lie Proud. I believe Reagan's policies of tax cuts and less regulation had a great deal to do with this expansion. Again, we can argue "cause and effect" til the cows come home, I'm only stating my opinion. I don't believe any nation has ever taxed it's way to prosperity. I don't know how old you are Proud, but I'm old enough to have voted for Reagan twice. I remember what it was like.

Lastly, there is no bigger admirer of Ronald Reagan on these boards than me. The regulars here already know that. I'd like to dispel one more myth. The myth put forward by the Left that Reagan was a dottering old fool. I've read scores of books about Reagan, and nothing could be further from the truth. Reagan wrote speeches for Barry Goldwater, as well as others, and wrote most of his own speeches as governor of California. Even as President, he had a strong hand in crafting his speeches, and he was instrumental in the "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall" speech. In scores of letters written to all manner of individuals over the years, Reagan demonstrated that he had a strong knowledge and understanding of the issues. Reagan was the right man at the right time in history, in my opinion.

I hope I sufficiently answered your question, "someone". These are strictly my opinions, and open for debate, of course.

[stratman19]

The BBC is impartial.

Do you really believe that JLLM? From where I sit, the BBC appears to be obviously left wing.

[Thorngrub]

I'm back in the ring. I have composed myself. Hello stratman, Chrisfan. And hello JLLM, Blaney, and all the rest of you.

Here is a story we've all probably seen today -- link provided below for the source:

Records Destroyed

Fri Jul 9,10:49 AM ET


WASHINGTON - Military payroll records that could more fully document President Bush (news - web sites)'s whereabouts during his service in the Texas Air National Guard were inadvertently destroyed, according to the Pentagon (news - web sites).

In a letter responding to a freedom of information request by The Associated Press, the Defense Department said that microfilm containing the pertinent National Guard payroll records was damaged and could not be salvaged. The damaged material included payroll records for the first quarter of 1969 and the third quarter of 1972.

"President Bush's payroll records for those two quarters were among the records destroyed," wrote C.Y. Talbott, of the Pentagon's Freedom of Information and Security Review section. "Searches for back-up paper copies of the missing records were unsuccessful."

In February, the White House released some payroll and medical records from Bush's Vietnam-era service to counter Democrats' suggestions that he shirked his duty in the Texas Air National Guard.

Bush was in the Texas Air National Guard from 1968 to 1973, much of the time as a pilot, but never went to Vietnam or flew in combat. Sen. John Kerry (news - web sites) of Massachusetts, the Democratic presidential candidate, is a decorated Vietnam veteran, and some Democrats have questioned whether Bush showed up for temporary Guard duty in Alabama while working on a political campaign during a one-year period from May 1972 to May 1973.

Bush had asked to be able to transfer temporarily from the Texas Guard to an Alabama base during that time so he could work on the Senate campaign of a family friend. Reports differ on how long he was actually in Alabama, but it's generally believed that he returned to his Texas unit after the November 1972 election. The White House says Bush went back to Alabama again after that.

The Pentagon letter was sent in response to an April lawsuit filed by the AP under the federal Freedom of Information Act. That law requires government agencies to make public information not specifically exempted for disclosure.

The letter said that in 1996 and 1997, the Pentagon "engaged with limited success in a project to salvage deteriorating microfilm." During the process, "the microfilm payroll records of numerous service members were damaged," the letter said.

This process resulted in "the inadvertent destruction of microfilm containing certain National Guard payroll records," including Bush's, the letter said.

Trying to calm the political unrest, the White House on Feb. 13 released Bush's Vietnam-era military records to counter suggestions he shirked his duty. But there was no new evidence given at that time to show that he was in Alabama during the period when Democrats questioned whether he performed his service obligation.

The records showed that Bush, a pilot, was suspended from flying status beginning Aug. 1, 1972, because of his failure to have an annual medical examination. His last flight exam was on May 15, 1971. There were no new documents, during that February release, to shed any light on Bush's service in Alabama.

______________________________________
taken from Yahoo.news

rsjunior.proboards18.com/index.cgi?board=news&action=modify&thread=1084642838&id=1089396181&start=495

[Thorngrub]

Now I would like to present, especially for the edification of stratman and Chrisfan -- and anyone else who feels Bush is doing a "great job" fighting the terrorists, my own personal reasoning behind why I think that is simply not the case:



I think the terrorists luuurrvveeee our cuddly lil president and his "go get em" policy of speaking softly & carrying a big stick. [& that they'd fear Kerry + Edwards a lot more: expecting intelligent retaliation from them.] They especially love Bush's decidedly Un-Christian policy of Retaliating With Full Military Force rather than turning the other cheek.

The reason I think this to be the case is simply that these enemies of ours have been borne & bred into a perpetual cadre of hardened fighters for...what? -- over the last couple of thousand years -?


They are akin to a "hive" colony that strictly produces generation after generation of "freedom fighters"; whereas just look at us. Even had we produced hardened fighters every generation . . . we're only, 200 years young-? Except we haven't. We're greeeeeeeeen, in their eyes.


Yes Al-Quaida is cunning. They know that We would want to keep a war as short as possible... That we don't want to send our Sons and Daughters into war year after year after year after year after year after year.


This is why I believe they have already "Won" this "War on Terror".


Sept 11 was the "check" move against us, in this militaristic/political chess game.


The very move they were expecting Mr.Bush to make back was the one they were counting on: He Retaliated With Vengeful Force.


Which opened up & gave free reign for their Check Mate.


In other words . . . the terrorists who masterminded 911 (and "masterminded" is a good word, I think -- remember to assume they are smarter than us when it comes to this particular engagement) had their fingers crossed behind their backs that Mr.Bush would NOT respond in a TRUE Christian Manner representing Honest Inner Strength & Courage In The Face Of His Enemies: By Turning The Other Cheek and Standing Strong (Yet With Our Armed Forces' Laser Crosshairs Centered On Target With The Safety Off).


That was the only possible strategic move that our President could have made in this "chess game" that would have properly countered their "check" move and prevented it from going to the "Check Mate" that it already has come to.


In other words (because of Bush): GAME OVER.

The Game Is Already Over (IMO).

So long as Bush keeps his Presidency & Policy of fighting this War on Terror -- We Have Already Lost.



That is merely what I truly think.

[stratman19]

Welcome back Thorn. I'm glad you reconsidered.

[strat-0]

I don't think we've been checkmated yet, Thorn. We've only just castled at this point.

[Meursault]

Americans: Do you guys like our anthem?

[Thorngrub]

[glow=blue,2,300]Welcome back Thorn. I'm glad you reconsidered. [/glow]

Thanks stratman, I appreciate that.

strat-0 said:

I don't think we've been checkmated yet, Thorn. We've only just castled at this point.

Man I hope you're right about that, strat-0. Of course there will always be that part of me that will refuse to accept defeat. I am an American, after all. And anyhow, what those terrorists are doing, is just flat wrong. Insofar as the concept of "karma" goes, they will get their due payback, in the end. So I have no choice but to believe we will come through this triumphant.


Meursault ~ You mean "Blame Canada!"-? I think it's a fantastic Natl. anthem. Would that more countries had the self-deprecating sense of humour y'all do.

[melon1]

Regarding the opinions previously expressed about Reagan:

How I Underestimated Reagan
By Dinesh D'Souza
FrontPageMagazine.com | June 11, 2004

In early 1987, I joined the Reagan White House as a senior domestic policy analyst. I was part of a generation of young conservatives who came to Washington in the 1980s, inspired by Reagan and the idea of America that he espoused.

What we found new about Reagan was his bold and optimistic challenge to collectivism. Collectivism is the great idea of the twentieth century, and opposition to it was the unifying element of Reagan’s thought. Soviet socialism, what Reagan called the “evil empire,” was only the most grotesque example of collectivism taken to its extreme limit. At home, Reagan was equally fierce in resisting the expansion of the welfare state. With typical aplomb, he announced, “Government is not the solution; government is the problem.”



I came to Washington and spent a few years as a journalist, writing articles about the Reagan revolution. But by the time I joined the White House in early 1987, I must confess that my enthusiasm about Reagan was waning. Reagan had been in office for six years, and little had changed. Reagan spoke about cutting the size of government, but government was bigger than ever. The Soviet bear remained on the prowl, without suffering a single major defeat at Reagan’s hands.



Moreover, Reagan seemed a poor administrator. The Iran-Contra scandal had erupted in late 1986, and chaos abounded in the White House. No one appeared to be in charge. Reagan struck me, and many of my colleagues, as a president somewhat detached from the everyday responsibilities of high office. Many of us continued to believe the things Reagan said; we just didn’t think he would do them. We were genuinely fond of Reagan, but we worried that he was not a very effective leader, certainly not the revolutionary he once seemed to be.



Now, with more than a decade of hindsight, I realize how wrong I was. Reagan badly bungled the Iran affair, but his basic motive in selling arms to Iran was to bring American hostages home, so people eventually forgave him, and Iran-Contra quickly became an historical footnote. While many people – both critics and supporters – were obsessed with minutiae, like whether this Labor Department regulation should be continued or that tax loophole closed, Reagan over his two terms somehow managed to keep focused on the big issues, and he brought about massive changes that only came to full fruition after he left office.



I remember sitting with other White House staffers in the Old Executive Office Building in 1987 watching Reagan on television deliver his address at the Brandenburg Gate. “General Secretary Gorbachev, tear down this wall.” And we cheered the old boy and marveled at his rhetoric, a bit hyperbolic perhaps, but those were words that needed to be said. But which of us knew then that only two years later, the Berlin Wall would come crashing down? No one. The event simply seemed too large, too momentous, to contemplate. So nobody expected it, and nobody predicted it.



Except Reagan. Early in his presidency Reagan repeatedly said that the death of Soviet communism was imminent. In 1981 he said at the University of Notre Dame, “The West will not contain Communism. It will transcend Communism. It will dismiss it as a bizarre chapter in human history whose last pages are even now being written.” At the time, there was virtually unanimity across the political spectrum that the Soviet empire was permanent. Reagan’s top Soviet advisers were part of that consensus. Reagan was almost unique in the Western world in seeing the fragility at the heart of the Soviet system.



Not only was Reagan prophetic in forecasting the Soviet demise, he was prescient in the strategy he employed to hasten it. In the first term, Reagan was tough in dealing with the Russians, while the liberals warned that he was leading the world closer to nuclear holocaust. In the second term, Reagan was soft in dealing with the new Soviet leader, Gorbachev, while many conservatives worried that Reagan was being outmaneuvered. I confess to being one of those conservatives. But with hindsight we can now see that it was Reagan, and only Reagan, who was right all along. He shepherded the “evil empire” to its grave with almost uncanny prescience and statesmanship.



When has a great empire succumbed with so little loss of life? The miracle of the Cold War was that it was a war not made, but prevented. We owe Reagan a lot for that. Margaret Thatcher said a few years ago, “Reagan won the Cold War without firing a shot.” That comes close to defining his legacy.



But it’s not quite enough. Reagan’s second major accomplishment is to bring about a major shift in American culture that is now spreading throughout the world. To understand this, it helps to go back a generation and recall President Kennedy’s rallying cry to young people. If you are idealistic, Kennedy said, if you care, you should join the Peace Corps, you should become a “public servant.” And millions of Americans did.



Since the 1960s the “public servant” was seen as the height of American idealism. If you tried to make money in the private sector you were seen as selfish and greedy, but if you joined the government you were seen as serving the common good. Reagan challenged this view. For him, the “public servant” was nothing more than a “bureaucrat.” Reagan contrasted the do-nothing bureaucrat with the entrepreneur. In Reagan’s view the entrepreneur, who uses creativity and imagination to produce things that didn’t exist before, was the embodiment of American possibility.



Today we are living in the Age of the Entrepreneur. Virtually everyone now accepts that the market, not the government, will basically run the economy. Reagan, more than any single person, has brought about this shift in the culture and in policy. His vision has decisively triumphed over Kennedy’s. And even though the federal government remains far too big, the era of collectivism that began in 1932 with Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal came to an end in 1989 when the Berlin Wall fell.



Many historians who have opposed Reagan all his life are reluctant to credit his accomplishments. But even many of us who supported Reagan and worked for him underestimated his effectiveness. We liked him as a person and felt he had the right ideas, but we didn’t think he could do what he did. Only in retrospect do we see how much he accomplished. And in time most people (even most academics) will also see this. History, I am convinced, will view Reagan as one of our great presidents. He won the Cold War and launched the world into a new era of peace, growth and technological expansion. As Reagan passes into history, we who benefit from what he accomplished owe him a profound debt of gratitude.

[stratman19]

Americans: Do you guys like our anthem?

Shane, I think you guys have a great anthem. What's the name of that guy that sings the anthems at Maple Leafs home games? I think he's a cop. He does a fantastic job on both anthems. Great voice.

[RocDoc]

-- and anyone else who feels Bush is doing a "great job" fighting the terrorists, my own personal reasoning behind why I think that is simply not the case:

I think very FEW would say 'great JOB!' to what has happened so far. It's a horrific and complicated mess into which Bush and his cabinet have done what they believed to be the 'best'
given what was happening,
given what they THOUGHT the intel was TELLING THEM was happening,
given the PERCEIVED danger to America they felt,
given the resources they had to work what most would say will be an absolute miracle IF it works just ½-WAY toward what the US and the UK had hoped to accomplish in terms of a wake-up call, giving 'notice' as it were, to those who'd consider harboring West-hating terrorists or supplying them...

...AND I'd say that you're insane to think that the Kerry ticket, which is riding ONLY on a campaign to discredit, would be somehow giving you the utmost confidence that they will not only improve the situation IF given the chance....but ALSO to think that they would have 100% done a STELLAR job given the circumstances which were presented to GWB & Co, starting with 9 / 11...

NO-ONE can predict an "if 'A', then 'B'" sort of future in the mess which Iraq was, is and will be for the forseeable future as Al Q'aeda stirs THAT cauldron...

Kerry would as be at the SAME near complete loss for what to do at striving for these 'perfect' resolutions which you mercilessly think ANY politico like GWB should have been able to do even in his sleep, given the shifting world order which 9 / 11 signalled.

Ooooh, that's a tough sentence for youse guys...I meeean to say that as complex as what would have been presented to a Kerry-like liberal at 9 / 11, he would have had just as great a likelihood of handling things as IMperfectly as Dubya has.

And fuck yeah, he's been IMperfect...but understandably imperfect....when there's no true 'solution', you improvise.
He chose to shake the world of radical Islam, while hoping that the REST of the world would join in that condemnation. Instead there's fucking appeasement.
Lovely.

[Proud]

i was originally a conservative and a bush supporter. then i opened my eyes.

[JesusLooksLikeMe]

stratman19 said:

The BBC is impartial.

Do you really believe that JLLM? From where I sit, the BBC appears to be obviously left wing.

It's been said - lots of lefties at the Beeb. But I don't think its reporting or current affairs coverage is left wing. I can see why you'd think so, but you have to remember the differences between US and European political culture, and how much further to the right American society is in general.

Having said that, I did have tongue in cheek about impartiality, given all that's gone on in the Beeb since the Iraq/Dr Kelly thing kicked off. You can tell they've got the knives out for Blair now, any chance they get.