0 members (),
10
guests, and
1
robot. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Forums59
Topics17,128
Posts314,550
Members6,305
|
Most Online294 Dec 6th, 2017
|
|
There are no members with birthdays on this day. |
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
The continual drift of this thread away from the original topic suggested to me the need to start a new thread. I started one. Why Jihadists Attack Americans Let's see if that is successful. But to address that in the context of this thread, I submit that the conditions that ultimately led to the specific attacks of 9/11 has their impetus in the Reagan administration, specifically: Withdrawing from Beirut after the attack (showing lack of resolve in the Middle East); taking Iraq's side against against Iran by supplying weapons and intelligence, supporting Saddam Hussein; beefing up suppressive regimes in the Middle East and ignoring democratic initiatives; funding and training jihadists in Afghanistan. What think y'all?
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,643
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,643 |
Well, this tread is jumping all over the place.
I think NW Ponderer said what can best characterize Reagan many pages of postings ago. The overall portrayals of Reagan's days as president is one of the most overly embellished, almost fairy tale like perceptions of any president in modern history.
NWP...I agree with you...it's all very clear that Reagan was one of the best one-man-shows ever...incredibly skilled at playing the role of a president, but without delivering anything other than very costly outcomes to the American people.
I voted for the man...and afterward, I had the greatest sense of regret.
Turn on ANY brand of political machine - and it automatically goes to the "SPIN and LIE CYCLE" 
Yours Truly - Gregg
|
|
|
|
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,235
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Jul 2005
Posts: 6,235 |
NWP, you may have identified the straw (or straws) that broke the camel's back, said break evidenced most dramatically by the events of 911. Interesting, yes. Useful? So isolated, not so much. I think the better way of looking at such things is the approach the NTSB uses when it investigates an airplane accident.
A "big picture", composed of all determinable causal elements, carefully analyzed and digested, results in a narrative history that provides a (potentially) useful understanding of the tragic fate of the camel and its back.
Sometimes blame can be assigned - most times there's plenty of responsibility to share.
So, the new thread is more than appropriate.
"I have studied. I have thought about it. I know I am correct." J. Coleman (Founder of the Weather Channel poo-poos Globwarm)
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,290
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,290 |
Now that the jihad folks have gone elsewhere for another rehash of 9/11 we can continue to debunk "Reagan's principles". There have been a number of people on these threads that maintain that if George Bush had just maintained Reagan's principles or those of Barry Goldwater that then all would have been well in the conservative world. Frankly when you look at who has been influential in the GOP, Goldwater, Nixon, Gerald Ford,( I don't really count him as he wasn't around long enough) Reagan, Bush Sr. Bush Jr., the only two with serious intellectual capability were Nixon and and Bush Sr. But then I can already hear people crying, but Goldwater is the father of modern conservatism. Was he really? Just as pundits failed to critique Reagan, the demented puppet, there is a very similar picture to be painted of Goldwater's intellectual prowess. link The Man Who Knew Too Little By John B. Judis Sunday, September 24, 1995 John B. Judis is a senior editor of the New Republic and author of "William F. Buckley: Patron Saint of the Conservatives." Lee Edwards, a conservative intellectual who served as Goldwater's press aide in the 1964 presidential campaign, provides the most complete reconstruction yet of that campaign and reveals much that is new about Goldwater's relationship with other conservatives, including Ronald Reagan.
Running through both books are disturbing revelations about his intellectual abilities and about his independence of mind. These books unwittingly portray him as a good-hearted but stupid and sometimes weak man whose success depended upon his following carefully a script that other people wrote.
Both books depict Goldwater as an abysmal student. After ninth grade, he was advised to leave Phoenix's public high school. Out of desperation, his parents sent him to Staunton Military Academy in Virginia, where he had to repeat the ninth grade and still received Cs and Ds. After graduating from Staunton, Goldwater went to the University of Arizona, but he dropped out after his freshman year because he was having too much difficulty keeping up with the work. Goldwater's sister Carolyn told Edwards that she could not recall his ever reading a book.
As a senator, Goldwater doesn't seem to have displayed any intellectual curiosity. He authored three political books and two autobiographies, but he didn't write them. Other politicians also don't write their own books, but Goldwater didn't seem even to go over them carefully.
Clifton White, who later headed the Draft Goldwater Committee, wrote in his memoir that Goldwater never even saw The Conscience of a Conservative before it was published. Goldwater later claimed that Bozell constructed the book from his speeches, but Bozell wrote those speeches. The truth is that Goldwater had almost nothing to do with the book that made him famous and launched his national political career.
Goldwater became known for his strong, even strident, foreign policy stands, but he devoted little of his first years to foreign policy. He began to take provocative positions in the late '50s when Bozell, whose principal interest was rolling back communism, began to write his speeches.
Until the late '80s, Goldwater was also not known for taking strong stands on abortion or gay rights. As Edwards notes, conservatives ascribe these later stands to the influence of Goldwater's gay grandson and his liberal second wife, Susan.
During most of Goldwater's career, he did and said what others told him to.
Arizonan Stephen Shadegg agreed to run his first Senate campaign in 1952 on the condition that Goldwater not make impromptu speeches or statements and not take positions that he and Shadegg had not reached agreement on.
During the next decades in office, when Goldwater was given the chance to speak off-the-cuff, he displayed a thoughtless bluster more appropriate to a bar stool than a political podium.
He called for taking the Vietnam war to South China. "It would be fairly easy," he declared at a press conference.(sounds like a cakewalk) These statements were not lapses, but revealed that Goldwater did not have the capacity for judgment or reflection required of a president.
In summing up Goldwater's 1964 campaign: "seemed too casual in his judgments, too careless about words and facts, too indifferent to complexity, a man of too little intellectual discipline."
Goldwater simply did not possess the mentality to deal with the enormous challenges posed by the Vietnam War, ghetto riots, growing white unrest in the South, and the erosion of America's economic superiority.
The more puzzling question raised by these books is how a man of such limited gifts managed to find himself atop the conservative movement.
Goldwater looked and acted the part of the new Western conservative. So if you look at it, the current president, and Goldwater are appallingly similar. The current administration cannot even fall back on the lame excuse of losing their way and not following the Goldwater/Reagan Path. We obviously cannot say with certainty what a Goldwater presidency would have been like, but it seems likely, that there would have seen horrific mistakes, reminiscent of the current administration, which can now be seen not as an aberration of conservative philosophy but a characteristic culmination of it, and hopefully its swan song. TAT
Last edited by Tatuma; 10/30/07 03:10 AM.
There's nothing wrong with thinking Except that it's lonesome work sevil regit
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 12,129 Likes: 257
Pooh-Bah
|
Pooh-Bah
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 12,129 Likes: 257 |
I often wonder what percentage of politicians opt for the Republican Party not because of any personal ideology, but rather because they know they don't have the populist appeal to be a successful Democratic Party candidate or the intelligence and patience to be a successful Democratic office holder.
Instead of all the effort required to accomplish anything socially useful, it is much easier to just loudly proclaim that "Government is the Enemy!", and vote against everything.
|
|
|
|
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 19,831 Likes: 180
Carpal Tunnel
|
Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 19,831 Likes: 180 |
I heard the blade rasping as the flesh had yielded all it could and was stopped only by the bony plate protecting the heart of the beast. The intellect of each and every conservative has been challenged, their heroes and saints shown to be no more than puppets. Herein, however lies the flaw! The puppet-masters, what of them, who pull the mighty strings of state? Who pulls, in turn, the strings that pull the pullers of the strings?
Good coffee, good weed, and time on my hands...
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,290
old hand
|
old hand
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 4,290 |
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dick_CheneyEarly White House appointments Dick Cheney's political career began in 1969, as an intern for Congressman William A. Steiger during the Nixon Administration. The intern Cheney then joined the staff of Donald Rumsfeld, who was then Director of the Office of Economic Opportunity from 1969–70.
Deputy Assistant to the President from 1974–1975. It was in this position that Cheney suggested in a memo to Rumsfeld that the Ford White House should use the Justice Department in a variety of legally questionable ways to exact retribution for an article published by New York Times investigative reporter Seymour Hersh.[20]
Under President Gerald Ford, Cheney worked as Assistant to the President. Rumsfeld first oversaw Ford's White House "transition team" and then later became Ford's Chief of Staff. Rumsfeld was named Secretary of Defense, and Cheney became Chief of Staff to the President. In addition, Cheney and Rumsfeld successfully pushed for William Colby to be replaced by George H. W. Bush as the Director of Central Intelligence, forging what would become a long-term relationship with the future president.
Cheney was campaign manager for Ford's 1976 Presidential Campaign, while James Baker served as Campaign Chairman.
In 1978, Cheney was elected to represent Wyoming in the U.S. House of Representatives serving until 1989. He was Chairman of the Republican Policy Committee from 1981 to 1987 when he was elected Chairman of the House Republican Conference. The following year, he was elected House Minority Whip.
Cheney also served as ranking minority member of the Congressional committee investigating Iran-Contra — a scandal involving members of the Reagan Administration who helped to illegally sell arms to Iran, and then used the proceeds to fund, also illegally, the Contras, a guerrilla militia in Nicaragua resisting the elected Sandinista government.[26] In that role he supervised the production of a minority report, which strongly rejected the majority finding[27] that a "cabal of zealots" in the administration who had "disdain for the law" had violated the statute.[28][29] Cheney's role in the investigation of the Iran-Contra affair and should not be underestimated,though he had a minority in the house. He was instrumental, under the guise of bipartisanism. of protecting Bush Sr. from having to testify under oath about what he knew in the Iran-Contra as vice President. Reagan was pleading dementia, but it's obvious that Bush Sr. was very involved into its workings. Had Bush Sr. had to testify under oath, he would have had to either perjure himself, which would set him up for an impeachable offense when he became president, or lie to remain a viable candidate for the next election!
Cheney's protection from testifying under oath,removed this obstacle to and paved the way for Bush Sr. presidency. As you can see from the next paragraphs he was amply rewarded when Bush Sr. won the presidency and he became secretary of defense sealing forever a little codependence dirty little secret pack between the Bush's and the Cheney's and was no doubt instrumental in his selection is as vice president, and the role he has played in this administration As a Wyoming Representative, he was also known for his vigorous advocacy of the state's petroleum and coal businesses. The federal building in Casper, a regional center of the oil and coal business
." Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney
House Minority Whip
In December 1988, the House Republicans elected Cheney to the second spot in the leadership, but he only served two and a half months, as he was appointed Secretary of Defense (see below) to replace former Texas Senator John G. Tower, whose nomination had been rejected by the Senate in March 1989.
As it turned out, Cheney won his last term in the House in 1988, when he easily defeated the Democrat Bryan Sharratt, later a member of the Clinton administration defense team.
Secretary of Defense
Cheney served as the Secretary of Defense from March 1989 to January 1993 under President George H. W. Bush. He directed the United States invasion of Panama and Operation Desert Storm in the Middle East. In 1991 he was awarded the Presidential Medal of Freedom for "preserving America's defenses at a time of great change around the world." Stringed puppets are unsuitable for our highly photographed executive branch as the strings are clearly visible, the actual preferred manipulation is from below. Think of a full arm inserted from below, controlling all the actions of the executive. It's a dirty job, but veterinarians do it every day with their full arm rubber gloves. The process is no doubt more uncomfortable for the puppet than the puppeteer. One can only imagine how difficult it could be to read a Teleprompter, with Cheney ass a fully embedded assistant. TAT
There's nothing wrong with thinking Except that it's lonesome work sevil regit
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,643
enthusiast
|
enthusiast
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 3,643 |
Tat: But then I can already hear people crying, but Goldwater is the father of modern conservatism. Was he really? Just as pundits failed to critique Reagan, the demented puppet, there is a very similar picture to be painted of Goldwater's intellectual prowess. Tat...just before Goldwater died he, like the long ago baby/child raising expert, Dr. Spock, confessed something like...I'm a fake, don't really believe all the stuff I told ya. Well, now...isn't that in true keeping with people in power? When I think of our government...I now just think of FEMA's latest propaganda scheme. They are all in it together...forever. "We the People" can't stop them...wait, 'won't stop them'.
Turn on ANY brand of political machine - and it automatically goes to the "SPIN and LIE CYCLE" 
Yours Truly - Gregg
|
|
|
|
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655
member
|
member
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 1,655 |
While I am a big fan and supporter of Ronald W. Reagan it is because I have read a lot about him from both sides and his own writings. To learn about Reagan there are three books that are quite helpful. Unfortunately I don't remember the titles of two of them. One book is a collection of the radio talks he gave over the years. All of the talks were written by him. The other two are biographies of him. The title of the book I do remember is Reagan's War and it is a look at his fight against communism. His opposition to communism comes from his days in Hollywood when he had to carry a gun because a communist controlled union, the president of the union later admitted he was a communist and worked for the Communist Party, had threatened his life. If those who dislike Reagan do some research by looking at sources biased in favor of Reagan and most importantly unbiased sources I truly believe their opinion of Reagan would change. Looking only a sources that are biased against anyone will create a negative opinion of that person.
The state can never straighten the crooked timber of humanity. I'm a conservative because I question authority. Conservative Revolutionary
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
|
Moderator Carpal Tunnel
Joined: Sep 2011
Posts: 18,003 Likes: 191 |
To learn about Reagan there are three books that are quite helpful. Unfortunately I don't remember the titles of two of them... That's OK, Senator, he wouldn't have either...  My opinions of Ronald Reagan were formed from my own personal experiences having lived through that time. While they may be reinforced by later, unbiased analyses, the views expressed were my own. I never understood how people became so enthralled by him. He wasn't even a very good actor, and I thought he was only a marginal orator. I never owned a pair of rose-colored glasses, so maybe I just never got it. I was conscious throughout the procedure (the 80's), which explains why it hurt so much.
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.
Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich
|
|
|
|
|