Metro Jacksonville

“I made a speech by that title [A Time for Choosing] in 1964. I said, "We've been told increasingly that we must choose between left or right." But we're still using those terms -- left or right. And I'll repeat what I said then in '64. "There is no left or right. There's only an up or down": up to the ultimate in individual freedom, consistent with an orderly society -- or down to the totalitarianism of the ant heap. And those today who, however good their intentions, tell us that we should trade freedom for security are on that downward path.”
Ronald Reagan quotes (American 40th US President (1981- 89), 1911-2004)

Here is why I a Liberal Democrat voted for RR in 1980 and 1984. I didn't care for all what RR stood for but since September 11th 2001 I have felt America slipping away.  :(

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 12, 2012, 05:49:18 PM
“I made a speech by that title [A Time for Choosing] in 1964. I said, "We've been told increasingly that we must choose between left or right." But we're still using those terms -- left or right. And I'll repeat what I said then in '64. "There is no left or right. There's only an up or down": up to the ultimate in individual freedom, consistent with an orderly society -- or down to the totalitarianism of the ant heap. And those today who, however good their intentions, tell us that we should trade freedom for security are on that downward path.”
Ronald Reagan quotes (American 40th US President (1981- 89), 1911-2004)

Here is why I a Liberal Democrat voted for RR in 1980 and 1984. I didn't care for all what RR stood for but since September 11th 2001 I have felt America slipping away.  :(

Setting aside the absurdity of voting for Ronald Reagan based solely on a quote, aren't you the same person who advocated (or at least mooted) jailing the film maker who made the anti-Muslim film that has caused the recent unrest in North Africa?

If that isn't "trading freedom for security," I don't know what is   :)

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 12, 2012, 05:49:18 PM
“I made a speech by that title [A Time for Choosing] in 1964. I said, "We've been told increasingly that we must choose between left or right." But we're still using those terms -- left or right. And I'll repeat what I said then in '64. "There is no left or right. There's only an up or down": up to the ultimate in individual freedom, consistent with an orderly society -- or down to the totalitarianism of the ant heap. And those today who, however good their intentions, tell us that we should trade freedom for security are on that downward path.”
Ronald Reagan quotes (American 40th US President (1981- 89), 1911-2004)

Here is why I a Liberal Democrat voted for RR in 1980 and 1984. I didn't care for all what RR stood for but since September 11th 2001 I have felt America slipping away.  :(

Huh...? Do you have ANY concept/notion of pre-9/11 history? If you did, you'd probably realize we've been "slipping away" for decades...

Not to mention Reagan was too brain-dead/not-all-there to write anything with substance. The above-mentioned quote was definitely written by a speech writer...

Quote from: stephendare on September 12, 2012, 06:48:48 PM

Quote from: ben says on September 12, 2012, 06:33:16 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 12, 2012, 05:49:18 PM
“I made a speech by that title [A Time for Choosing] in 1964. I said, "We've been told increasingly that we must choose between left or right." But we're still using those terms -- left or right. And I'll repeat what I said then in '64. "There is no left or right. There's only an up or down": up to the ultimate in individual freedom, consistent with an orderly society -- or down to the totalitarianism of the ant heap. And those today who, however good their intentions, tell us that we should trade freedom for security are on that downward path.”
Ronald Reagan quotes (American 40th US President (1981- 89), 1911-2004)

Here is why I a Liberal Democrat voted for RR in 1980 and 1984. I didn't care for all what RR stood for but since September 11th 2001 I have felt America slipping away.  :(

Huh...? Do you have ANY concept/notion of pre-9/11 history? If you did, you'd probably realize we've been "slipping away" for decades...

Not to mention Reagan was too brain-dead/not-all-there to write anything with substance. The above-mentioned quote was definitely written by a speech writer...

Peggy Noonan, to be precise.

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/ed/Reagan_with_Peggy_Noonan.jpg)

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

Wow, she's quite the overachiever if she wrote that speech in 1964 at age 14!

Quote from: Adam W on September 12, 2012, 05:58:34 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 12, 2012, 05:49:18 PM
“I made a speech by that title [A Time for Choosing] in 1964. I said, "We've been told increasingly that we must choose between left or right." But we're still using those terms -- left or right. And I'll repeat what I said then in '64. "There is no left or right. There's only an up or down": up to the ultimate in individual freedom, consistent with an orderly society -- or down to the totalitarianism of the ant heap. And those today who, however good their intentions, tell us that we should trade freedom for security are on that downward path.”
Ronald Reagan quotes (American 40th US President (1981- 89), 1911-2004)

Here is why I a Liberal Democrat voted for RR in 1980 and 1984. I didn't care for all what RR stood for but since September 11th 2001 I have felt America slipping away.  :(

Setting aside the absurdity of voting for Ronald Reagan based solely on a quote, aren't you the same person who advocated (or at least mooted) jailing the film maker who made the anti-Muslim film that has caused the recent unrest in North Africa?

If that isn't "trading freedom for security," I don't know what is   :)

If you would look at something other then Fox news Adam W. the unrest in North Africa looks as this attack was planned ahead before the film came out. And I did change my mind on maybe jailing the film maker is this a crime. I also said I didn't care for everything RR stood for. But you left that out didn't you.

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 12, 2012, 08:28:49 PM

Quote from: Adam W on September 12, 2012, 05:58:34 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 12, 2012, 05:49:18 PM
“I made a speech by that title [A Time for Choosing] in 1964. I said, "We've been told increasingly that we must choose between left or right." But we're still using those terms -- left or right. And I'll repeat what I said then in '64. "There is no left or right. There's only an up or down": up to the ultimate in individual freedom, consistent with an orderly society -- or down to the totalitarianism of the ant heap. And those today who, however good their intentions, tell us that we should trade freedom for security are on that downward path.”
Ronald Reagan quotes (American 40th US President (1981- 89), 1911-2004)

Here is why I a Liberal Democrat voted for RR in 1980 and 1984. I didn't care for all what RR stood for but since September 11th 2001 I have felt America slipping away.  :(

Setting aside the absurdity of voting for Ronald Reagan based solely on a quote, aren't you the same person who advocated (or at least mooted) jailing the film maker who made the anti-Muslim film that has caused the recent unrest in North Africa?

If that isn't "trading freedom for security," I don't know what is   :)

If you would look at something other then Fox news Adam W. the unrest in North Africa looks as this attack was planned ahead before the film came out. And I did change my mind on maybe jailing the film maker is this a crime. I also said I didn't care for everything RR stood for. But you left that out didn't you.

Adam W doesn't strike me as one who watches Fox News...

Quote from: ben says on September 12, 2012, 08:53:35 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 12, 2012, 08:28:49 PM

Quote from: Adam W on September 12, 2012, 05:58:34 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 12, 2012, 05:49:18 PM
“I made a speech by that title [A Time for Choosing] in 1964. I said, "We've been told increasingly that we must choose between left or right." But we're still using those terms -- left or right. And I'll repeat what I said then in '64. "There is no left or right. There's only an up or down": up to the ultimate in individual freedom, consistent with an orderly society -- or down to the totalitarianism of the ant heap. And those today who, however good their intentions, tell us that we should trade freedom for security are on that downward path.”
Ronald Reagan quotes (American 40th US President (1981- 89), 1911-2004)

Here is why I a Liberal Democrat voted for RR in 1980 and 1984. I didn't care for all what RR stood for but since September 11th 2001 I have felt America slipping away.  :(

Setting aside the absurdity of voting for Ronald Reagan based solely on a quote, aren't you the same person who advocated (or at least mooted) jailing the film maker who made the anti-Muslim film that has caused the recent unrest in North Africa?

If that isn't "trading freedom for security," I don't know what is   :)

If you would look at something other then Fox news Adam W. the unrest in North Africa looks as this attack was planned ahead before the film came out. And I did change my mind on maybe jailing the film maker is this a crime. I also said I didn't care for everything RR stood for. But you left that out didn't you.

Adam W doesn't strike me as one who watches Fox News...

I bet he is a closet Fox News Fan?

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 12, 2012, 09:01:50 PM

Quote from: ben says on September 12, 2012, 08:53:35 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 12, 2012, 08:28:49 PM

Quote from: Adam W on September 12, 2012, 05:58:34 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 12, 2012, 05:49:18 PM
“I made a speech by that title [A Time for Choosing] in 1964. I said, "We've been told increasingly that we must choose between left or right." But we're still using those terms -- left or right. And I'll repeat what I said then in '64. "There is no left or right. There's only an up or down": up to the ultimate in individual freedom, consistent with an orderly society -- or down to the totalitarianism of the ant heap. And those today who, however good their intentions, tell us that we should trade freedom for security are on that downward path.”
Ronald Reagan quotes (American 40th US President (1981- 89), 1911-2004)

Here is why I a Liberal Democrat voted for RR in 1980 and 1984. I didn't care for all what RR stood for but since September 11th 2001 I have felt America slipping away.  :(

Setting aside the absurdity of voting for Ronald Reagan based solely on a quote, aren't you the same person who advocated (or at least mooted) jailing the film maker who made the anti-Muslim film that has caused the recent unrest in North Africa?

If that isn't "trading freedom for security," I don't know what is   :)

If you would look at something other then Fox news Adam W. the unrest in North Africa looks as this attack was planned ahead before the film came out. And I did change my mind on maybe jailing the film maker is this a crime. I also said I didn't care for everything RR stood for. But you left that out didn't you.

Adam W doesn't strike me as one who watches Fox News...

I bet he is a closet Fox News Fan?

I don't watch Fox News (and don't have access to it). I was referring to your post on another thread, in which you said the film maker should be jailed. I also understand that the US gov't now believes the attack in Benghazi was planned ahead of the rioting. But that information was not known when the thread was started and we all found out about it at the same time - heck, it was even posted IN the thread! Even a Fox News viewer would've known  :)

And it's worth noting that the rioting in Egypt is still being linked to the movie and is not linked to the unrest in Benghazi. In fact, it has been speculated that the rioting in Benghazi may have been independent of the attack and may have been used as cover by the people who planned the attack on the Consulate. So the rioting in Benghazi may indeed have been linked to the movie (regardless of whether the attack on the Consulate was a pre-planned operation).

I may not watch Fox News, but it would seem that I might at least be as informed as you. Maybe *gasp* even a little more?

Quote from: Adam W on September 13, 2012, 03:05:27 AM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 12, 2012, 09:01:50 PM

Quote from: ben says on September 12, 2012, 08:53:35 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 12, 2012, 08:28:49 PM

Quote from: Adam W on September 12, 2012, 05:58:34 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 12, 2012, 05:49:18 PM
“I made a speech by that title [A Time for Choosing] in 1964. I said, "We've been told increasingly that we must choose between left or right." But we're still using those terms -- left or right. And I'll repeat what I said then in '64. "There is no left or right. There's only an up or down": up to the ultimate in individual freedom, consistent with an orderly society -- or down to the totalitarianism of the ant heap. And those today who, however good their intentions, tell us that we should trade freedom for security are on that downward path.”
Ronald Reagan quotes (American 40th US President (1981- 89), 1911-2004)

Here is why I a Liberal Democrat voted for RR in 1980 and 1984. I didn't care for all what RR stood for but since September 11th 2001 I have felt America slipping away.  :(

Setting aside the absurdity of voting for Ronald Reagan based solely on a quote, aren't you the same person who advocated (or at least mooted) jailing the film maker who made the anti-Muslim film that has caused the recent unrest in North Africa?

If that isn't "trading freedom for security," I don't know what is   :)

If you would look at something other then Fox news Adam W. the unrest in North Africa looks as this attack was planned ahead before the film came out. And I did change my mind on maybe jailing the film maker is this a crime. I also said I didn't care for everything RR stood for. But you left that out didn't you.

Adam W doesn't strike me as one who watches Fox News...

I bet he is a closet Fox News Fan?

I don't watch Fox News (and don't have access to it). I was referring to your post on another thread, in which you said the film maker should be jailed. I also understand that the US gov't now believes the attack in Benghazi was planned ahead of the rioting. But that information was not known when the thread was started and we all found out about it at the same time - heck, it was even posted IN the thread! Even a Fox News viewer would've known  :)

And it's worth noting that the rioting in Egypt is still being linked to the movie and is not linked to the unrest in Benghazi. In fact, it has been speculated that the rioting in Benghazi may have been independent of the attack and may have been used as cover by the people who planned the attack on the Consulate. So the rioting in Benghazi may indeed have been linked to the movie (regardless of whether the attack on the Consulate was a pre-planned operation).

I may not watch Fox News, but it would seem that I might at least be as informed as you. Maybe *gasp* even a little more?

Depending on the subject you may be a little more informed then I. But the real question is do I care?  :P

You should......

Quote from: ben says on September 13, 2012, 10:07:19 AM
You should......

Why?  I thought that's why we had these guys:
















(http://cdn4.eraffe.net/modified/2009/11/11/15/7748ac9212ec240411ec6292de3964ba_640.jpg/gluecksbaerchis.jpg)

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 13, 2012, 10:00:56 AM

Quote from: Adam W on September 13, 2012, 03:05:27 AM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 12, 2012, 09:01:50 PM

Quote from: ben says on September 12, 2012, 08:53:35 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 12, 2012, 08:28:49 PM

Quote from: Adam W on September 12, 2012, 05:58:34 PM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 12, 2012, 05:49:18 PM
“I made a speech by that title [A Time for Choosing] in 1964. I said, "We've been told increasingly that we must choose between left or right." But we're still using those terms -- left or right. And I'll repeat what I said then in '64. "There is no left or right. There's only an up or down": up to the ultimate in individual freedom, consistent with an orderly society -- or down to the totalitarianism of the ant heap. And those today who, however good their intentions, tell us that we should trade freedom for security are on that downward path.”
Ronald Reagan quotes (American 40th US President (1981- 89), 1911-2004)

Here is why I a Liberal Democrat voted for RR in 1980 and 1984. I didn't care for all what RR stood for but since September 11th 2001 I have felt America slipping away.  :(

Setting aside the absurdity of voting for Ronald Reagan based solely on a quote, aren't you the same person who advocated (or at least mooted) jailing the film maker who made the anti-Muslim film that has caused the recent unrest in North Africa?

If that isn't "trading freedom for security," I don't know what is   :)

If you would look at something other then Fox news Adam W. the unrest in North Africa looks as this attack was planned ahead before the film came out. And I did change my mind on maybe jailing the film maker is this a crime. I also said I didn't care for everything RR stood for. But you left that out didn't you.

Adam W doesn't strike me as one who watches Fox News...

I bet he is a closet Fox News Fan?

I don't watch Fox News (and don't have access to it). I was referring to your post on another thread, in which you said the film maker should be jailed. I also understand that the US gov't now believes the attack in Benghazi was planned ahead of the rioting. But that information was not known when the thread was started and we all found out about it at the same time - heck, it was even posted IN the thread! Even a Fox News viewer would've known  :)

And it's worth noting that the rioting in Egypt is still being linked to the movie and is not linked to the unrest in Benghazi. In fact, it has been speculated that the rioting in Benghazi may have been independent of the attack and may have been used as cover by the people who planned the attack on the Consulate. So the rioting in Benghazi may indeed have been linked to the movie (regardless of whether the attack on the Consulate was a pre-planned operation).

I may not watch Fox News, but it would seem that I might at least be as informed as you. Maybe *gasp* even a little more?

Depending on the subject you may be a little more informed then I. But the real question is do I care?  :P

Dude, I'm only saying that you insulted me and called me a Fox News viewer and tried to act like I wasn't up on the news in this case - and maybe I know as much about it as you. Maybe more, but easily as much.

No need to get stroppy because I pointed out that you started a thread about the dangers of trading freedom for security almost immediately after stating (on another thread) that we might want to jail the film maker who made the offending film.

You've got to appreciate the irony.

Hey, hey, stop it!  You guys are fellow Obama worshipers!  Now hold hands and watch MSNBC.   And no more reading anything Ronald Reagan wrote, you might hurt yourselves...  ;)

Quote from: NotNow on September 13, 2012, 10:27:08 AM
Hey, hey, stop it!  You guys are fellow Obama worshipers!  Now hold hands and watch MSNBC.   And no more reading anything Ronald Reagan wrote, you might hurt yourselves...  ;)

“I believe Ronald Reagan can make this country what it once was. . . a large Arctic region covered with ice.”
Steve Martin quotes (American Comedian, Writer, Producer, Actor and Musician. b.1945)

Quote from: ben says on September 13, 2012, 10:07:19 AM
You should......

Nope........

Quote from: NotNow on September 13, 2012, 10:27:08 AM
Hey, hey, stop it!  You guys are fellow Obama worshipers!  Now hold hands and watch MSNBC.   And no more reading anything Ronald Reagan wrote, you might hurt yourselves...  ;)

I'm not an Obama supporter. Just an FYI  >:(

Quote from: Adam W on September 13, 2012, 10:56:17 AM

Quote from: NotNow on September 13, 2012, 10:27:08 AM
Hey, hey, stop it!  You guys are fellow Obama worshipers!  Now hold hands and watch MSNBC.   And no more reading anything Ronald Reagan wrote, you might hurt yourselves...  ;)

I'm not an Obama supporter. Just an FYI  >:(

Why Not Obama is a better president then George W. Bush was even if he doesn't win in Nov 2012!

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 13, 2012, 10:38:04 AM

Quote from: NotNow on September 13, 2012, 10:27:08 AM
Hey, hey, stop it!  You guys are fellow Obama worshipers!  Now hold hands and watch MSNBC.   And no more reading anything Ronald Reagan wrote, you might hurt yourselves...  ;)

“I believe Ronald Reagan can make this country what it once was. . . a large Arctic region covered with ice.”
Steve Martin quotes (American Comedian, Writer, Producer, Actor and Musician. b.1945)

And yet in actuality, he made this country well respected, happy, and safer.  And is now one of the most revered Presidents (not here of on MJ course, but in America).   Hmmm.

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 13, 2012, 11:11:17 AM

Quote from: Adam W on September 13, 2012, 10:56:17 AM

Quote from: NotNow on September 13, 2012, 10:27:08 AM
Hey, hey, stop it!  You guys are fellow Obama worshipers!  Now hold hands and watch MSNBC.   And no more reading anything Ronald Reagan wrote, you might hurt yourselves...  ;)

I'm not an Obama supporter. Just an FYI  >:(

Why Not Obama is a better president then George W. Bush was even if he doesn't win in Nov 2012!

Yeah!  Just look at the results!  He has cut the defi...wait.
Well, he has reduced the national deb.....hold on.
OK, he has closed Guantanam....
Well, he hasn't invaded any foreign countr....
Or ordered killin..
He has opened up government and has the most transpare....um...
Unemployment is dow....
But the average income of Americans has gone u....shit
The savings ra..
He has settled the Middle Ea...
He stopped corporate giveawa.....damn
But there is no more revolving door of lobbyis...


Hey, Bush sucks!

Quote from: NotNow on September 13, 2012, 11:14:28 AM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 13, 2012, 10:38:04 AM

Quote from: NotNow on September 13, 2012, 10:27:08 AM
Hey, hey, stop it!  You guys are fellow Obama worshipers!  Now hold hands and watch MSNBC.   And no more reading anything Ronald Reagan wrote, you might hurt yourselves...  ;)

“I believe Ronald Reagan can make this country what it once was. . . a large Arctic region covered with ice.”
Steve Martin quotes (American Comedian, Writer, Producer, Actor and Musician. b.1945)

And yet in actuality, he made this country well respected, happy, and safer.  And is now one of the most revered Presidents (not here of on MJ course, but in America).   Hmmm.

Well respected to republicans, happy because the 1% became richer and safer are you kidding? The Patriot Act signed by :o George Walker Bush on October 26th 2001. And again by  ::)Obama on May 26th 2011 which really pissed me off but not so much that I'm still going to vote for him November 6th 2012. P.S. remember Notnow I have Freedom of speech.  ;D

Actually, we all became richer and safer under the Reagan administration.   And yes, you do enjoy freedom of speech.  I hope you remember who to thank for that.

Quote from: NotNow on September 13, 2012, 11:42:02 AM
Actually, we all became richer and safer under the Reagan administration.   

Hardly.

Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.

Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of unmatched economic boom for all Americans, Reagan disproportionately taxed the poor and middle class, but the economic growth of the 1980′s did little help them. “Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled,” the New York Times’ David Leonhardt noted.

Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Talbian and Osama Bin Laden â€" a prominent mujahidin commander â€" emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services’ close relations to these fighters. In fact, Reagan’s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden’s ascendancy.

Quote from: stephendare on September 13, 2012, 12:07:13 PM

Quote from: NotNow on September 13, 2012, 11:42:02 AM
And yes, you do enjoy freedom of speech.  I hope you remember who to thank for that.

Yes, the Creator who gave us freedom of choice, and the Founding Fathers and writers of the Enlightenment, who insisted that we were endowed with that basic right.

Why Dare!  I'm shocked that you got something right!  Congratulations!

No man can alter what God has given.

Quote from: finehoe on September 13, 2012, 11:58:53 AM

Quote from: NotNow on September 13, 2012, 11:42:02 AM
Actually, we all became richer and safer under the Reagan administration.   

Hardly.

Reagan nearly tripled the federal budget deficit. During the Reagan years, the debt increased to nearly $3 trillion, “roughly three times as much as the first 80 years of the century had done altogether.” Reagan enacted a major tax cut his first year in office and government revenue dropped off precipitously. Despite the conservative myth that tax cuts somehow increase revenue, the government went deeper into debt and Reagan had to raise taxes just a year after he enacted his tax cut. Despite ten more tax hikes on everything from gasoline to corporate income, Reagan was never able to get the deficit under control.

Unemployment soared after Reagan’s 1981 tax cuts. Unemployment jumped to 10.8 percent after Reagan enacted his much-touted tax cut, and it took years for the rate to get back down to its previous level. Meanwhile, income inequality exploded. Despite the myth that Reagan presided over an era of unmatched economic boom for all Americans, Reagan disproportionately taxed the poor and middle class, but the economic growth of the 1980′s did little help them. “Since 1980, median household income has risen only 30 percent, adjusted for inflation, while average incomes at the top have tripled or quadrupled,” the New York Times’ David Leonhardt noted.

Reagan helped create the Taliban and Osama Bin Laden. Reagan fought a proxy war with the Soviet Union by training, arming, equipping, and funding Islamist mujahidin fighters in Afghanistan. Reagan funneled billions of dollars, along with top-secret intelligence and sophisticated weaponry to these fighters through the Pakistani intelligence service. The Talbian and Osama Bin Laden — a prominent mujahidin commander — emerged from these mujahidin groups Reagan helped create, and U.S. policy towards Pakistan remains strained because of the intelligence services’ close relations to these fighters. In fact, Reagan’s decision to continue the proxy war after the Soviets were willing to retreat played a direct role in Bin Laden’s ascendancy.

It is true that some mistakes were made during the Reagan administration.  Like all Presidents, some good things AND some bad thiings happened during his watch.  It is my opinion that the good far outweighed the bad during Reagan's tenure.  The habit here to portray Republicans as "stupid" should not be taken seriously by anyone with a brain.  Anyone who has read the writings of Ronald Reagan will appreciate his intellect, regardless of politics. 

Reagan is remembered fondly by the nation for good reason.  His leadership restored a faith in America that had been lost at that time.  He was unabashedly patriotic, and he led from the front.  A rare quality in any politician.  I didn't always agree with him, but he had my respect.

Quote from: NotNow on September 13, 2012, 11:19:19 AM

Quote from: If_I_Loved_you on September 13, 2012, 11:11:17 AM

Quote from: Adam W on September 13, 2012, 10:56:17 AM

Quote from: NotNow on September 13, 2012, 10:27:08 AM
Hey, hey, stop it!  You guys are fellow Obama worshipers!  Now hold hands and watch MSNBC.   And no more reading anything Ronald Reagan wrote, you might hurt yourselves...  ;)

I'm not an Obama supporter. Just an FYI  >:(

Why Not Obama is a better president then George W. Bush was even if he doesn't win in Nov 2012!

Yeah!  Just look at the results!  He has cut the defi...wait.
Well, he has reduced the national deb.....hold on.
OK, he has closed Guantanam....
Well, he hasn't invaded any foreign countr....
Or ordered killin..
He has opened up government and has the most transpare....um...
Unemployment is dow....
But the average income of Americans has gone u....shit
The savings ra..
He has settled the Middle Ea...
He stopped corporate giveawa.....damn
But there is no more revolving door of lobbyis...


Hey, Bush sucks!

Yeah and the first 2 years he behaved like a president should. Work to compromise.
The last 2 years.
You gotta be kidding me.
The biggest piece of crap obstructionists, um I mean Congress in my lifetime.
And although the great things he has accomplished are ignored or despised by the left, sorry to tell you he has accomplished a great deal.
And the crowning jewel an attempt to reform healthcare, which was gutted by "the biggest piece of crap obstructionists, um I mean Congress," that many presidents have toyed with with but none had the balls to attempt.
There are others but it's a waste of my time to mention them.
And everything he has done has pissed off the right. So of course you think he's a loser.

And for the record, Bush did suck. In my opinion the worst President of my lifetime. HANDS DOWN!

Quote from: NotNow on September 13, 2012, 11:42:02 AM
Actually, we all became richer and safer under the Reagan administration.   And yes, you do enjoy freedom of speech.  I hope you remember who to thank for that.

We bred the most selfish, "must have it now," generation in my lifetime. I blame the greedy climate that Regan created for everything that has wrecked the economy.   
But I will give the "bad actor," credit for realizing he had to raise taxes when the debt was going up.                           

Quote from: stephendare on September 13, 2012, 01:03:03 PM
As it happens, I disagree with both of you, although Ive passed through phases where I also agreed with you both.

Ronald Reagan was great for this country's morale, but he was absolutely disastrous in terms of the outcomes of his policies, both long and short term.

I find that the thing that makes conservatives attractive--when they are attractive, is their optimistic belief in the innate goodness of the country.  It gives credence to a lot of supremely nonsensical policy, based not on the merits of the policy, but rather on the underlying sentiments of the policy maker.

Unfortunately the future is not made of the sentiments and intentions of the past, but rather the details and consequences of policy.  The only time motivation matters is in remembering the persons of history. 

I think Reagan hastened the slide of our international economic system, our internal economic parity, and the world order as he knew it.

In the last instance, that is exactly what he intended to do.  He intended to defeat the forces of revolution and totalitarian communism in the world.  As the world was a bipolar entity for those brief decades following the end of ww2 and the collapse of eastern Europe, this policy by definition was the destruction of world order.

But I dont think that he spent much time anticipating what would replace that order.

But the economic system is not Ronald Reagan's fault.  If anything, the seeds of our current decline were sowed in the fires of the Great Depression.

I should have read your post first.

The way I remember it, the fall of the Iron Curtain, freedom for millions, and massive reduction of the chances of nuclear annhilation count for a lot. 

Interesting read:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/danielmitchell/2012/02/02/one-year-later-another-look-at-obamanomics-vs-reaganomics/

Quote from: NotNow on September 13, 2012, 01:59:02 PM
Interesting read

Somewhat interesting, but by Mitchell's own numbers, the recession Obama inherited was almost four times as deep as the one Reagan caused (9.6 percentage points cumulative loss relative to previous peak versus 2.5 percentage points), so I'm not sure comparing them really tells us much.

Quote from: finehoe on September 13, 2012, 03:09:19 PM

Quote from: NotNow on September 13, 2012, 01:59:02 PM
Interesting read

Somewhat interesting, but by Mitchell's own numbers, the recession Obama inherited was almost four times as deep as the one Reagan caused (9.6 percentage points cumulative loss relative to previous peak versus 2.5 percentage points), so I'm not sure comparing them really tells us much.

LOL.  Noww THAT is some pretty selective reading on your part FH!  But I suppose we all see what we want to see, huh?

I respectfully disagree.  As do most historians.  I would be interested in hearing your theory on this, or where you heard such a thing.  For a more conventional explanation of the fall of the Soviet Union:

http://www.coldwar.org/articles/90s/fall_of_the_soviet_union.asp

Quote from: NotNow on September 13, 2012, 05:08:21 PM
As do most historians. 

I don't think you can back up the statement that "most" historians believe that.

Even the director of Russian studies at the American Enterprise Institute (hardly a 'liberal' organization) states that America was not the catalyzing force that caused the USSR to fall:

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

Thanks, it is an interesting read.  While I certainly appreciate the views of Gorbachev, I'm not sure that you really want to start accepting the views of former world leaders as the end all historical record. 

While the root cause of the fall of the Soviet Union is, of course, the failure of communism, the policies and pressure of the Reagan administration in concert with Gorbachevs liberalization of freedom of expression certainly hastened that fall.  President Reagans policy of unwavering principles and strength gained the respect of the world.  While those who want to see a weak or defunct America might not like it,  they understood what his policy was and they respected it.  An good example would be the release of hostages by Iran immediatly upon President Reagan taking office.

Quote from: NotNow on September 13, 2012, 06:19:30 PM
They understood what his policy was and they respected it.  An good example would be the release of hostages by Iran immediatly upon President Reagan taking office.

:o

God your opinions are warped....yes, opinions, not facts...because whatever you've been saying for the past day or so on this thread has no basis in reality.

I respect most, if not all views, as long as they are informed. Yours...not so much. You strike me as someone who, no matter how many facts are thrown their way, refuses to change their mind/give on any issue.

Interesting.  So Gorby's views are real history to you.  And Mr. Bush's views?  Or do you discount what he says because of his political affiliation?  We all know the answer.  Gorbachev's recollections are important to read, but are just that..Gorbachev's recollections. 

Rewriting history seems to be a favorite pastime of yours StephenDare!  You can write whatever you want on your little blog here, but any serious study of history will point out the same factors that I have.  I know that you were an adult at the time. (Or at least almost)   President Reagan openly stated his intentions prior to taking office.  The hostages were released upon his inauguration.   If you want to believe that the Iranians first cooperated with a candidate not even elected, and then a President elect while holding American diplomatic hostages I can not stop you.  I heard the accusations that came out years (actually right at reelection time) later.  Anyone can say anything, and you can believe whatever you want.  But the real facts speak for themselves.

Your "sources" and thesis also speak for themselves.

Ben says....how old are you?  Were you even an adult in 1980/81?  If you didn't actually live though it, just where did you get your ideas about the failure of communism in the USSR?   Just google up the fall of the USSR and read for God's sake.   This is not a difficult subject.

Quote from: stephendare on September 13, 2012, 09:07:50 PM

Quote from: NotNow on September 13, 2012, 08:07:24 PM
Interesting.  So Gorby's views are real history to you.  And Mr. Bush's views?  Or do you discount what he says because of his political affiliation?  We all know the answer.  Gorbachev's recollections are important to read, but are just that..Gorbachev's recollections. 

Rewriting history seems to be a favorite pastime of yours StephenDare!  You can write whatever you want on your little blog here, but any serious study of history will point out the same factors that I have.  I know that you were an adult at the time. (Or at least almost)   President Reagan openly stated his intentions prior to taking office.  The hostages were released upon his inauguration.   If you want to believe that the Iranians first cooperated with a candidate not even elected, and then a President elect while holding American diplomatic hostages I can not stop you.  I heard the accusations that came out years (actually right at reelection time) later.  Anyone can say anything, and you can believe whatever you want.  But the real facts speak for themselves.

Your "sources" and thesis also speak for themselves.

Ben says....how old are you?  Were you even an adult in 1980/81?  If you didn't actually live though it, just where did you get your ideas about the failure of communism in the USSR?   Just google up the fall of the USSR and read for God's sake.   This is not a difficult subject.

I think that finehoe has pointed out to you that a serious study of history would differ with your take on these events.  And I cannot claim to be any smarter than you on this issue, NN, as I truly believed the same thing for probably the same reasons that you did.

I was very disappointed to find otherwise, as Reagan was a childhood hero of mine and the source of a lot of inspiration.

Im sure that you remember that President Herbert Walker Bush was a spook, in fact he was our fearless leader under Ford who recalled him back from China and appointed him to helm the CIA. ( and hopefully you don't think that the former House Minority Leader pulled his name out of a hat.) And you probably know that George speaks pretty perfect Spanish, but a lot of people don't realize that his arabic is almost flawless and his conversational chinese isnt half bad.

Bush, the guy most likely in charge of the October surprise (although his testimony had just as much 'out of the loop' response as Ronnie's before Congress) has never publicly discussed Iran Contra with any detail, so Im not sure why you were referring to him----or his politics, which I would be very surprised if you knew much about, incidentally.

There is a reason why he has worked so tirelessly as a member of the Carlysle Group, after all.

(http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/sociopolitica/atlantean_conspiracy/images/atlant122.jpg)

But havent you ever questioned the timing of the release of the hostages yourself?  It doesnt smack of stage managing to you?

Even retrospecitively?

Is it really easier to believe that the Iranians (who we happened to immediately start selling weapons of mass destruction to) were just so 'respectful' of Reagan's manly swagger that they just panicked, abandoned ship and turned over all the hostages without any previous deals?

Well, dude, I don't know if you know this yet, but the Brooklyn Bridge is finally about to be sold to private investors, and everyone who crosses it is going to have to pay a toll if they want to get to the other side.

The profits raised from the tolls are going to be in the billions of dollars per year, and I happen to have a few hundred shares extra that have been issued prior to the news conference next month.  You seem like a good schmoe.  If youve got cash, Ill share my future billions with you and sell you a few shares in the Brooklyn Bridge LLC.

Are you interested?

Btw, it would be interesting to see your thesis that the failure of the Soviet system was due to a failure of communism.  Most serious people would tell you that it was due to a failure of totalitarianism and an inability to absorb so many ethnic and religious regions into a cohesive empire. 

Russia after the empire fell is certainly healthier without the money absorbing obligations of simultaneous development necessary in a communist state.  After all, there wasnt much going on in the 20th century 'economies' of Uzbekistan, Turkmenistan, Khazakstan and the like, yet their central government was still morally on the hook for developing their infrastructure and educating their medieval societies.

All in all, communism wasnt so bad for regular people in that part of the world.  Literacy, lifespan, public health, and what we would call 'progress' all skyrocketed in a single generation under it.

I think that you might tend to underemphasize the true costs involved with maintaining the infrastructures of modern societies.  Infrastructure is the real reason why the US is in the economic slump its in now, and we havent been communists since the days of the Puritans.

When Gorbachev tells you that the costs of paying for the damages done to Belorussia, Georgia, and the Ukraine were crippling, you can take that to the bank.  You might have noticed how any obligation of the 'Soviet Union' to clean up those three countries disappeared on the collapse of said union and were not transferred to Mother Russia?  Nice trick really (for the Russians---for everyone else, not so much)

A typical StephenDare! post.  Long, full of broad statements and accusations, and totally unsubstantiated. 

Do you REALLY think that Bush the elder would have risked not just his political future but his freedom in a bid to make Ronald Reagan look good?  Really?  That is your belief?  (By the way, Bush the elder does not speak Farsi, the persian language).  I'm not going to address all of the snide statements in your post.  But your totally unsubstantiated premise is laugable on its face.  Your little conspiracy theory lacks any credibility, as will most ideas based on anything Michael Moore says.  Your accusation against President Bush without a shred of evidence is irresponsible and .... well, the usual description of your actions of this type.  This has become laughably common for you.

I would be interested in your source for your claim that we "immediatly began selling weapons of mass destruction" to the Iranians.  That is, of course, a false statement.

I am equally amused at your inferring that the breakup of the Soviet Union was somehow planned or managed.  It obviously surprised the Soviets as much as it surprised us.  THAT is the power that a nations citizens have when they speak with one mind. 

I am not surprised by your statement:"All in all, communism wasnt so bad for regular people in that part of the world.  Literacy, lifespan, public health, and what we would call 'progress' all skyrocketed in a single generation under it." but I am always a little taken aback when you reveal your true colors.   Of course there are hundreds of dissidents who wrote copiously about the terrible toll of communism, most notably Solzhenitsyn and Sakharov.  You might even read Finehoe's reference for a grim description of the Soviet communist system and the sorry society that it created.  Communism has never worked, in any country.  Your usual whining that "communism in its pure form has never been tried" is a red herring, as it has been instituted as well as the true believers could do it.  And it still failed miserably.  This is why your constant claims of some previous life as a Reagan Republican amuses me so much.  You never miss any opportunity to rail against Repulicans (including President Reagan) or an opportunity to take up for communism. 

I stand by my statements which were actually confirmed by Finehoe's reference and my own.  Or, as I have suggested to others, just google "fall of the USSR".  Again, in the mainstream, this is not a difficult subject.  Your conspiracy theory on the other hand....

You are the one making the claim that the Iranian hostage release was a "staged event" set up by Bush the elder.  But you can't prove it.   Even your own reference says that Bush was not involved!  All of the extra rhetoric is just that.  You cling to Gorbachev's statements and refuse to acknowledge the common knowledge of the fall of the Soviet Union.  Read a history book. 

Of course you can't source your claim for the sales of "weapons of mass destruction" to Iran because it is not true.

I see you stand by your statement :"All in all, communism wasnt so bad for regular people in that part of the world.  Literacy, lifespan, public health, and what we would call 'progress' all skyrocketed in a single generation under it."   Obviously, this is contested by the statements of literally thousands of the citizens that lived under the system.  Did you read Finehoe's reference?  Of course you didn't.  YOUR statement is the one that is laughable.  Anyone with sense and even a mediocre knowledge of the old USSR knows that statement is communist party line bullshit.  Would you mind listing the "pure communistic societies that have existed for centuries in the church"?  It appears that Marx missed that as well.

The conventional history of the Reagan administration is quite clear.  Your warped and made up version of the Iranian hostage crisis is just another internet exercise in imagination.  For a guy that likes to talk down to people you sure don't seem to know the difference between facts and beliefs.

Quote from: NotNow on September 14, 2012, 05:40:12 AM
You are the one making the claim that the Iranian hostage release was a "staged event" set up by Bush the elder.  But you can't prove it.   Even your own reference says that Bush was not involved!  All of the extra rhetoric is just that.  You cling to Gorbachev's statements and refuse to acknowledge the common knowledge of the fall of the Soviet Union.  Read a history book. 

Of course you can't source your claim for the sales of "weapons of mass destruction" to Iran because it is not true.

I see you stand by your statement :"All in all, communism wasnt so bad for regular people in that part of the world.  Literacy, lifespan, public health, and what we would call 'progress' all skyrocketed in a single generation under it."   Obviously, this is contested by the statements of literally thousands of the citizens that lived under the system.  Did you read Finehoe's reference?  Of course you didn't.  YOUR statement is the one that is laughable.  Anyone with sense and even a mediocre knowledge of the old USSR knows that statement is communist party line bullshit.  Would you mind listing the "pure communistic societies that have existed for centuries in the church"?  It appears that Marx missed that as well.

The conventional history of the Reagan administration is quite clear.  Your warped and made up version of the Iranian hostage crisis is just another internet exercise in imagination.  For a guy that likes to talk down to people you sure don't seem to know the difference between facts and beliefs.

I think the most difficult part of analyzing the success or failure of Communism in the USSR is that it's not a simple thing - one of my old professors (a right-winger, no less) used to refer to the 'twin peaks' of Stalinism: the great progress made that brought Russia (and the USSR) from being a backward, agrarian, feudal nation into the modern world and the massive human (and environmental) cost in doing so.

I think the USSR had a lot of promise, in theory, but it never achieved it - which is little surprise, if you see how the same lot have gone about their approach to "democracy" in the post-Communist world. They may have had nearly universal employment, education and healthcare. But they also had a repressive police state with long queues for basic necessities and an entrenched Nomenklatura, which essentially mirrored the ruling class of the capitalist Western world.

Many socialists reject the notion that the USSR and its clients were socialist societies at all. The term "state capitalist" has been around for as long as the USSR was in existence (the term, I think predates the USSR, but was increasingly applied to the Soviet experiment), though it seems that these dissenting views have often been drowned out by the might and sheer numbers of Marxist-Leninist parties and their adherents.

I think no one really has one clear idea or answer for why the USSR crumbled. I don't think there is one simple reason. I do reject the notion that it was simply because of Reagan's arms race: that has been essentially debunked as a sole cause, though I think most historians would consider it to be a significant contributing factor. Similarly, I wouldn't have thought the Chernobyl disaster could ever be considered the sole reason for the dissolution of the USSR and I've never seen that reason proffered by a reputable historian. It certainly has could be considered a contributing factor on the list of woes that the USSR was experiencing in the late 80s that helped hasten its decline, though.

If I was Gorbachev... I would certainly blame the fall of my government on a nuclear meltdown... as opposed to a political meltdown...

Gorbachev was out manuvered, outwitted, out politiced, etc, etc, etc...

Yep... nuclear meltdown... sure... ok... lol.  ;)

Quote from: NotNow on September 13, 2012, 06:19:30 PM
President Reagans policy of unwavering principles and strength gained the respect of the world.  While those who want to see a weak or defunct America might not like it,  they understood what his policy was and they respected it. 

Like when he "unwaveringly" cut and ran from Lebanon?   In 1982, President Reagan ordered American Marines into Lebanon as part of a "multinational peacekeeping force." In 1983, there were several bombings targeting Americans in Lebanon, including the well-known Marine barracks bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines.  Reagan insisted that the U.S. would keep military forces in Lebanon. But then he abruptly changed course and ordered a complete troop withdrawal.  Many historians trace our troubles with al-Qaeda back to that instance.  Even the 9/11 Commission Report specifically mentions the emboldening of Osama Bin Laden by the "fleeing" of the American Military from Lebanon. Bin Laden viewed it as weakness and believed he could attack us on our soil without repercussions.

Quote from: finehoe on September 14, 2012, 09:31:04 AM

Quote from: NotNow on September 13, 2012, 06:19:30 PM
President Reagans policy of unwavering principles and strength gained the respect of the world.  While those who want to see a weak or defunct America might not like it,  they understood what his policy was and they respected it. 

Like when he "unwaveringly" cut and ran from Lebanon?   In 1982, President Reagan ordered American Marines into Lebanon as part of a "multinational peacekeeping force." In 1983, there were several bombings targeting Americans in Lebanon, including the well-known Marine barracks bombing that killed 241 U.S. Marines.  Reagan insisted that the U.S. would keep military forces in Lebanon. But then he abruptly changed course and ordered a complete troop withdrawal.  Many historians trace our troubles with al-Qaeda back to that instance.  Even the 9/11 Commission Report specifically mentions the emboldening of Osama Bin Laden by the "fleeing" of the American Military from Lebanon. Bin Laden viewed it as weakness and believed he could attack us on our soil without repercussions.

Agreed.  Bad decision.  Bad outcome.  No justice for fine Marines lost.  I will not argue with this.

Quote from: Adam W on September 14, 2012, 06:04:00 AM
I do reject the notion that it was simply because of Reagan's arms race: that has been essentially debunked as a sole cause, though I think most historians would consider it to be a significant contributing factor.

Except the facts don't back that up.

(http://dept.lamar.edu/polisci/TRUE/Fig1.gif)

The above graph comes from http://dept.lamar.edu/polisci/TRUE/True_art_tlp.html

Things to note:

This graph measures spending in comparative dollars. Since the US had a larger economy than the Soviets, we can assume that if a 1:1 comparison between the two was made in terms of percentage of GDP, the Soviet Union would have a higher result. If you compare 1985 levels, for example, the US is probably spending around 6-7% of GDP on defence while the Soviets were spending around 13-14% of GDP.

-   The Soviets passed the United States in the early 70s and peaked  around 1982.
-   The US increased spending dramatically under Reagan, with a peak around 1985 and greater than the USSR.
-   Soviet defence spending plateaued between 1981 and 1988.
-   Soviet defence spending collapsed from 1989 onwards.

(If you want to complain about the standard of Soviet data, remember that experts have been dealing with this for decades. In short, if your argument against my position involves attacking the reliability of the statistics in question, please complain to the thousands of experts over the past few decades who have made it their business to work out reliable stats.)

The graph clearly shows that, in real terms, the Soviets did not increase military spending much in response to Reagan. In fact the opposite appears to be the case: Reagan was responding to the Soviets. Soviet defence spending in the 1970s was pretty big and Reagan obviously did spend up big in response. But did the Soviets respond to Reagan's spending by increased spending? No they didn't.

I think that's a very simplistic way to look at it. And it's also a very literal way to read my post. My point was that the arms race (regardless of who started the arms race) was a contributing factor, but not the sole factor. Sorry if it appeared to give one side more credit than deserved.

Quote from: Adam W on September 14, 2012, 10:14:34 AM
I think that's a very simplistic way to look at it. And it's also a very literal way to read my post. My point was that the arms race (regardless of who started the arms race) was a contributing factor, but not the sole factor. Sorry if it appeared to give one side more credit that deserved.

I understand your point.  But my point is that (as shown by the chart above) is that not only was the Reagan arms buildup NOT the sole factor, it's stretching it to even say it contributed.  And you're right, those who worship at the alter of St. Raygun are being very simplistic in their view that Reagan caused the USSR to go broke. 

Quote from: finehoe on September 14, 2012, 10:21:11 AM

Quote from: Adam W on September 14, 2012, 10:14:34 AM
I think that's a very simplistic way to look at it. And it's also a very literal way to read my post. My point was that the arms race (regardless of who started the arms race) was a contributing factor, but not the sole factor. Sorry if it appeared to give one side more credit that deserved.

I understand your point.  But my point is that (as shown by the chart above) is that not only was the Reagan arms buildup NOT the sole factor, it's stretching it to even say it contributed.  And you're right, those who worship at the alter of St. Raygun are being very simplistic in their view that Reagan caused the USSR to go broke.

Finehoe - my understanding has always been that increased American spending (coupled with sabre-rattling, etc) forced the Soviets to maintain their unrealistic spending levels when they might've been able to ease off (as opposed to the USA spending more on defense and the USSR then spending more in a vain attempt to catch up). The problem I have with your interpretation of the graph is the assumption that the Soviet defense spending would've remained constant without the US buildup. It's not that simple, as it's entirely possible they would've decreased defense spending (as necessary) in response to other economic pressures had the US not appeared to be arming and up for a fight.

It's also worth noting that their adventures in Afghanistan didn't help. We share part of the blame there, though I suspect the Afghans would've handled them okay on their own (it might've just taken longer).

It's all academic. As I said before, there appear to be myriad reasons for the collapse of the USSR. I think Reagan or the USA (Reagan probably gets far too much credit, when many in the Defense and Intelligence services deserve much more) at least provided pressure.

Edit: I'd like to add one thing - I don't think that Reagan or any of those guys actually really though they were going to bankrupt the USSR. I think they were just psychos who were spoiling for a fight and were trying to win a war. Who knows.

OK, first off Adam is right when he says that there were a myriad of factors which led to the fall of the USSR.  He is wrong when he refers to the Reagan administration as "a Bunch of psychos".   The Reagan administration had some impressive successes and as I previously stated President Reagan is one of the most revered recent presidents by MOST Americans.  I did not agree with every decision, especially with the gift of hindsight.  But I don't agree with every decision of ANY president. 

As for Dare! and his most excellent adventure into make believe;

I appreciate your research into religious monasteries.  I am not sure how the existence of these religious institutions equates to "successful communism".   The occupants of these religious institutions are bound by their religion to shun property and to help others for a number of reasons.  Is it your intent to compare this to state communism?  Really?  I would say that the religious institutions that you are referencing survive not because of communal living conditions, but the religious faith of their occupants.  What you have made is a strong argument for faith and what it can accomplish.  I appreciate that, but your post conveys no legitimacy to the communist system. 

"Communism" in whatever form tried in any country had been an abject failure in every experiment for the peoples of that country.  Can we agree on that?  If not, what communist country would you posit as successful in improving the lives and living conditions of the common people?   I can think of several that have been put forward in the past, but in every case the general dissatisfaction of the people with their lack of freedom inherent in such a system along with other factors easily challenge the argument.  This is the same argument that I would pose to your statement about "communism was good for Eastern Europeans and Russians."   Those populations were always dissatisfied with their lack of freedoms, and despite any improvements in lifestyle, were always outpaced by the Democratized nations.  This only added to the frustrations and eventually this was one of the major factors leading to the dissolution of the Soviet empire.  Of course the corruption and government incompetence added to the dissatisfactions.   So "communism" has never worked as a state system.  I don't think that it can for a number of reasons but we don't have the room here to go into this subject in depth. 
Of course, my argument leaves open the question "What system DOES work then?".  There are a number of ways to run a state, and there are infinite ways of hybridising systems.  As our technology progresses, especially our instant communications, I believe that we will be challenged to make our governmental systems continue to satisfactorily meet the needs of the citizens.  Also a subject that can not be covered here because of length.  Bottom line for all of my wordiness:

Communism is a defunct system.  Let's move on.

Now that we have established that there is no proof for your claims that President GHW Bush was involved in any way, let's establish other "facts".  For the benefit of all, the "Iranian Hostage Crisis" was the mob assault on the US Embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979.  The "students", actually a group that called themselves "Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line" took hostage 66 American citizens.  Some women, african-Americans, and a sick man were released over the following months but 52 of the hostages were not released until January 20th, 1981, just minutes after President Reagan was sworn into office.  Some reasons for the timing of the release should also include the death of the former Shah and the start of the Iran-Iraq war.   The release was negotiated in the "Algiers Accords".  The US and Iran agreed essentially to a civil agreement over money and the US agreed not to "interfere" in Iran or press claims related to the Embassy takeover or hostage taking.

The "Iran-Contra Affair" or "Arms for Hostages" actually began in 1985, more than four years after the Iran Hostage Crisis and into President Reagan's second term.  After some years of war Iran was interested in American weapons, most notably anti tank systems and anti air systems.  A "deal" was negotiated in which Israel would ship TOW anti tank weapons and HAWK anti air weapons to Iran and Israel would be reimbursed.  The stated purpose was to reach out to "moderate" Iranians and obtain their influence with hostage takers in Lebanon to release their American hostages. The US had already covertly aided both countries with non US weapons in an effort to keep the combatants at each other.  The plan later morphed into adding a percentage onto the sales that was diverted to the "Contras" fighting in Nicaragua.  Not surprisingly, the sales and diversion of funds was discovered and publicized.  President Reagan admitted authorizing the Iranian arms sales in order to make contacts with moderate Iranians, but disavowed trading arms for hostages or knowledge of the diversion of profits from the Iranian arms sales to the contras.  Several persons in his administration were fired and/or indicted.

It is disingenuous to conflate the two incidents.  There is no evidence of any sales of "weapons of mass destruction" to Iran, even if StephenDare! wishes to make up his own definition of what weapons of mass destruction are. 

President Carter's mishandling of the Iranian Hostage Crises is a lesson in how not to lead.  He took the wrong actions leading up to the crisis, mishandled the response, and perhaps most damaging, made concession after concession to several Iranian offers only to be stood up by the Iranian Ayatolah.  The deal to release the hostages was finally reached by an Iran which had a war on its hands, no Shah to object to, and desperately in need of hard currency.  MY OPINION, and the opinion of most historians, is that Iran realized that after more than a year of immobilizing the US Government, and publicly humiliating President Carter several times, the same tactics would be ineffective with an increasingly impatient American public and a new President who had campaigned on a platform of "Peace through Strength". 

I am not "accusing" you of anything StephenDare!.  I am simply pointing out that despite your constant reference to being a "Reagan Republican" in your youth, in the seven or eight years that I have observed your posts you take every opportunity to knock capitalism and Republicans and have defended communism at every turn.  I am glad that you now claim to prefer capitalism and I take you at your word.  I hope that we can agree that "capitalism" in some form is the only system that will work as a state system in the modern world.  By "work" I mean meet the needs of the citizens.

Quote from: NotNow on September 15, 2012, 11:49:01 AM
OK, first off Adam is right when he says that there were a myriad of factors which led to the fall of the USSR.  He is wrong when he refers to the Reagan administration as "a buch of psychos".   The Reagan admiinistration had some impressive successes and as I previously stated President Reagan is one of the most revered recent presidents by MOST Americans.  I did not agree with every decision, especially with the gift of hindsight.  But I don't agree with every decision of ANY president. 

As for Dare! and his most excellent adventure into make believe;

I appreciate your research into religious monastaries.  I am not sure how the existience of these religious institutions equates to "successful communism".   The occupants of these religious institutions are bound by their religion to shun property and to help others for a number of reasons.  Is it your intent to compare this to state communism?  Really?  I would say that the religious institutions that you are referencing survive not because of communal living conditions, but the religious faith of their occupants.  What you have made is a strong argument for faith and what it can accomplish.  I appreciate that, but your post conveys no legitimacy to the communist system. 

"Communism" in whatever form tried in any country had been an abject failure in every experiment for the peoples of that country.  Can we agree on that?  If not, what communist country would you posit as successful in improving the lives and living conditions of the common people?   I can think of several that have been put forward in the past, but in every case the general dissatisfaction of the people with their lack of freedom inherent in such a system along with other factors easily challenge the argument.  This is the same argument that I would pose to your statement about "communism was good for Eastern Europeans and Russians."   Those populations were always dissatisfied with their lack of freedoms, and despite any improvements in lifestyle, were always outpaced by the Democratized nations.  This only added to the frustrations and eventually this was one of the major factors leading to the dissolution of the Soviet empire.  Of course the corruption and government incompetence added to the dissatisfactions.   So "communism" has never worked as a state system.  I don't think that it can for a number of reasons but we don't have the room here to go into this subject in depth. 
Of course, my argument leaves open the question "What system DOES work then?".  There are a number of ways to run a state, and there are infinite ways of hybriding systems.  As our technology progresses, especially our instant communications, I believe that we will be challenged to make our governmental systems continue to satisfactorily meet the needs of the citizens.  Also a subject that can not be covered here because of length.  Bottom line for all of my wordiness:

Communism is a defunct system.  Let's move on.

Now that we have established that there is no proof for your claims that President GHW Bush was involved in any way, let's establish another "fact".  For the benefit of all, the "Iranian Hostage Crisis" was the mob assault on the US Embassy in Tehran on November 4, 1979.  The "students", actually a group that called themselves "Muslim Student Followers of the Imam's Line" took hostage 66 American citizens.  Some women, african-Americans, and a sick man were released over the following months but 52 of the hostages were not released until January 20th, 1981, just minutes after President Reagan was sworn into office.  Some reasons for the timing of the release should also include the death of the former Shah and the start of the Iran-Iraq war.   The release was negotiated in the "Algiers Accords".  The US and Iran agreed essentially to a civil agreement over money and the US agreed not to "interfere" in Iran or press claims related to the Embasy takeover or hostage taking.

The "Iran-Contra Affair" or "Arms for Hostages" actually began in 1985, more than four years after the Iran Hostage Crisis and into President Reagan's second term.  After some years of war Iran was interested in American weapons, most notably anti tank systems and anti air systems.  A "deal" was negotiated in which Israel would ship TOW anti tank weapons and HAWK anti air weapons to Iran and israel would be reimbursed.  The stated purpose was to reach out to "moderate" Iranians and obtain their influence with hostage takers in Lebanon to release their American hostages. The US had already covertly aided both countries with non US weapons in an effort to keep the combatants at each other.  The plan later motphed into adding a percentage onto the sales that was diverted to the "Contras" fighting in Nicaragua.  Not surprisingly, the sales and diversion of funds was discovered and publicized.  President Reagan admitted authorizing the Iranian arms sales in order to make contacts with moderate Iranians, but disavowed trading arms for hostages or knowledge of the diversion of profits from the Iranian arms sales to the contras.  Several persons in his administration were fired and/or indicted.

It is disingenuous to conflate the two incidents.  There is no evidence of any sales of "weapons of mass destruction" to Iran, even if StephenDare! wishes to make up his own definition of what weapons of mass destruction are. 

I am not "accusing" you of anything StephenDare!.  I am simply pointing out that despite your constant reference to being a "Reagan Republican" in your youth, in the seven or eight years that I have observed your posts you take every opportunity to knock capitalism and Republicans and have defended communism at every turn.  I am glad that you now claim to prefer capitalism and I take you at your word.  I hope that we can agree that "capitalism" in some form is the only system that will work as a state system in the modern world.  By "work" I mean meet the needs of the citizens.

I only accept that communism is a failure if by "communism" you mean Marxism-Leninism.

I mean "communism", as a state system.  Where has it been successful? 

People often get this confused...

Marxism-Leninism is a farce. There is only Leninism, then Stalinism, etc. Marxism is a whole different beast.

If you read Marx, one quickly finds out that Marx never said "you should do this" or "you should do that"....there is no "blueprint", so to speak, of what Communism should look like or how to attain it.

Marx, especially Capital I-III, is an ANALYSIS of contemporary economics. That's it...it's an economics book. Seriously people, read it. It in no way/shape/form proscribes what the world should look like under "Communism"

Ergo, whatever form "Communism" took in Soviet Russia had little if any relationship to what Marx was talking about in Capital and the Economic Manuscripts...

I'd be shocked if anyone on this forum, or anyone in general, read Capital and didn't say "holy shit, this is exactly what's going on right now!!!" It's prophetic to say the least.

I just wish people would stop intermingling Marx's name with that of 20th century politicians acting under the guise of "Marxism"...nowhere in Marx is there a mention of gulags, mass murder, political oppression, etc...

So, alas, when people talk about the failures of Russia in the 20th century, let's be clear...20th century Soviet Russia was NOT a Marxism state. It was a Communist state. A Communist state that had little if any bearing to what Marx said or did.

PS--it's too easy to say "X" caused the downfall of the USSR....anyone who thinks its that simple has not done their due diligence.

Quote from: NotNow on September 15, 2012, 12:10:21 PM
I mean "communism", as a state system.  Where has it been successful? 

OK, I'll bite...

I think if you take away the past 50 years of US's harassment of Cuba, it's embargoes, it's propaganda, it's trade barriers...Cuba has done a fine job in the face of Western imperialism. Yeah, it could be better, but so could the US. Cuba never had a fair shot...if it did, I bet they'd be a fully realized, successful nationstate. Don't forget: they have more PhDs per capita and one of the best health systems in the world. Their people don't go hungry. They have ZERO environmental degradation. Etc etc...

Also don't forget, no matter what mutant form they've taken, China is still, technically, a Communist country...as is Vietnam..etc

What's our poverty level at again? 1 in 6? Healthcare? Education????

Without our harassment, embargoes, propaganda, trade barriers, the Castro brothers and their whole government would be long gone.  WE have kept them in power with our stupid policies.

This discussion had reminded me of the lessons learned that relate to the current problems our country faces.  While it is no secret that I am not an Obama supporter, like any President he has had successes and failures and he has been effective in some areas and ineffective in others.  He would be well advised to heed the lessons learned in the Iranian Hostage Crisis.  It is not enough to be a powerful nation.  It is the the wise use of that power that is the measure of a President.  Today, as American embassies, consulates, and business are besieged in various countries across the world by radical Islamist, President Obama's response to these insults to American life, property, and pride will have great effect not only on the election, but his legacy as well.  While I hope for the defeat of Obama in this upcoming election, for the sake of our country I hope he successfully engages the forces that currently besiege our peoples.  His performance thus far does not give me great confidence.

Ben says,

I agree with your assessment of Marx and his studies.  It is not the "Communism" as a state system we see today.  I hope that we can agree that the idea that a central state control of all means of production, with a centrally mandated system of reward and privilege, can never work.  Especially in to days world.  I have never claimed that any single thing caused the fall of the USSR.  I simply pointed out that the policies and activities of the Reagan administration contributed to it.

Let's look at Cuba.  Yes, the US has maintained a trade embargo, but it is open to the rest of the world, is it not?  Are you saying that only trade with the United States is holding back this bastion of economic activity?  Of course not, that is silly.  So why did the island nation only survive on Soviet handouts for years?  And "modify" its communist economic system once that support disappeared?  More Phd's per capita does not directly serve the needs and wants of the public.  "One of the best health care systems in the world"?  Really?  Does Michael Moore travel to Cuba for his health care?  Danny Glover?  Sean Penn?  I won't argue that Cuba has not established a credible health care system.  But it is not, by far, one of the best in the world.  I have never been to Cuba (other than Gitmo).  But I have several friends who have been there on humanitarian trips.  They describe a very different Cuba than you do.  Serious poverty, shortages of many products including food.  And polluted ground and water.  As a matter of fact, pure water production was the purpose of at least one of those trips.  I can't help but point out the constant stream of refugees that risk life to cross to the US.  Why do you think they do that?  Please read the loooonnnggg list of writings by Cuban refugees.  Their description of life in Cuba far outstrips anything that I could say.  It is indeed a beautiful country, and a wonderful people.  But I don't believe that the Cuban people have been well served by communism.

By the way, Fidel is a self described 'Marxist-Leninist".

China, Vietnam.  Would you state that the people of those countries are "better off" than if they were living in a capitalist system?  The Hong Kong experiment would argue against such an idea.  Hong Kong remained capitalist for almost one hundred years and its economy and living standards FAR outstripped that of mainland China.  Taiwan, despite it's own embargos and foreign relations challenges, also has outperformed its mainland cousin by a large margin.  Vietnam, a more recent member of the club, has adopted a very capitalistic view of communism.  I will stick to my theory that communism can not thrive in this case as well though.  As a system, the central control of production and reward limits the freedoms, hopes, and dreams of its citizens.  Because of this, even without the human constants of corruption and greed, the system will not work.  People will always want to make their own choices in life.  Where to live, what profession, family decisions, and all of the choices that we in America can make for ourselves (so far). 

Of course it is complicated.  And the system we use here in the US is constantly changing and it is not perfect either.  But I stand by my assertion that capitalism in some form is the best in the modern world for meeting the needs of it citizens.  The United States system and its government is another discussion altogether.

Quote from: ben says on September 15, 2012, 12:16:27 PM
People often get this confused...

Marxism-Leninism is a farce. There is only Leninism, then Stalinism, etc. Marxism is a whole different beast.

If you read Marx, one quickly finds out that Marx never said "you should do this" or "you should do that"....there is no "blueprint", so to speak, of what Communism should look like or how to attain it.

Ben -

Marxism-Leninism = Leninism. And by extension, one could argue Trotskyism and Stalinism. I appreciate how an orthodox Marxist (or any student of Marx who didn't prescribe to Leninism or its various offshoots) may take exception to the use of Marxism in the term Marxism-Leninism. But the Leninism was not an original theory - it was a "refinement" of Marxist theory and certainly not possible without the work of Marx and Engels.

I'm not a fan of Lenin's approach. And I reject the notion that what existed in the USSR was socialism or communism.

I don't think it's fair to say communism can't or won't work. Who knows. I don't think the failure of one particular, very flawed approach is proof positive. Most people who make claims like that really don't know what they're talking about, because they haven't really studied the subject much at all.

That's not to say I think a communist society is necessarily possible.

Quote from: Adam W on September 15, 2012, 01:12:01 PM

Quote from: ben says on September 15, 2012, 12:16:27 PM
People often get this confused...

Marxism-Leninism is a farce. There is only Leninism, then Stalinism, etc. Marxism is a whole different beast.

If you read Marx, one quickly finds out that Marx never said "you should do this" or "you should do that"....there is no "blueprint", so to speak, of what Communism should look like or how to attain it.

Ben -

Marxism-Leninism = Leninism. And by extension, one could argue Trotskyism and Stalinism. I appreciate how an orthodox Marxist (or any student of Marx who didn't prescribe to Leninism or its various offshoots) may take exception to the use of Marxism in the term Marxism-Leninism. But the Leninism was not an original theory - it was a "refinement" of Marxist theory and certainly not possible without the work of Marx and Engels.

I'm not a fan of Lenin's approach. And I reject the notion that what existed in the USSR was socialism or communism.

I don't think it's fair to say communism can't or won't work. Who knows. I don't think the failure of one particular, very flawed approach is proof positive. Most people who make claims like that really don't know what they're talking about, because they haven't really studied the subject much at all.

That's not to say I think a communist society is necessarily possible.

K, I guess we're on the same page. I agree w/ your assessment.....albeit I'm not sure how "refined" Leninism was over orthodox Marxism ;)

I'll concede that I am not a student of communism or Marx.  I'm just a schmuck in Jacksonville.  But I can see.  It hasn't worked (in my mind) anywhere.  Discussing the finer points of Marxism doesn't change life for the average Chinese citizen.  We are free to disagree.  It just seems obvious to me that if you control the production and livelyhood of another you have created a totalitarian environment.  Which will never be accepted in the long run.

Quote from: NotNow on September 15, 2012, 01:50:44 PM
I'll concede that I am not a student of communism or Marx.  I'm just a schmuck in Jacksonville.  But I can see.  It hasn't worked (in my mind) anywhere.  Discussing the finer points of Marxism doesn't change life for the average Chinese citizen.  We are free to disagree.  It just seems obvious to me that if you control the production and livelyhood of another you have created a totalitarian environment.  Which will never be accepted in the long run.

NotNow - I wasn't necessarily referring to you. I personally get the impression that you're quite well-read or whatever. Probably moreso than I, to be honest.

Thanks Adam.  I enjoy a reasonble discussion and I always seem to learn something.  Keep me honest, I appreciate it.

LOL, you ARE a funny guy StephenDare!  Have you read the thread at all?  I don't have to "prove" anything.  The facts are on my side.  Any observation of the time line results in an obvious conclusion.  The negotiations to release the hostages persisted throughout 1980.  The idea that the Iranians brokered a "deal" with a non-elected candidate (not to mention the logistical issues; how and where they met, etc.) is ludicris. And what did the Iranians get in return?  Why would they do such a thing?  It is a stupid idea.  Bani-Sadr has never released any documents that he said he had.  If this had actually happened, don't you think the Iranians would have publicized it at their convenience?  Even now, if there was proof of such activity, why would the Iranians sit on evidence of it?   This has been investigated and refuted many times by different government and non-government entities.  If you wish to believe and forward this conspiracy theory that is your decision.  Don't expect the rest of us to buy into unsubstatiated crap. 

And yes, we really went to the moon too.

Religious monasteries do not communism make...please feel free to use them as an argument that "communism works".  You will continue to just get a chuckle out of me.  (I don't admit that "the communist lifestyle seems to work" for them.  At all.  It is not "communism" at all.)

I have answered the question about China, Cuba, and any other "examples" of "communism works" that you wish to bring forth.  I think that the proposition is laughable, but you are welcome to believe what you want to.  I don't see the communist faithful flocking to these countries though, do you?  There is no "Native American Society" that claims to be using a communist system that I know of, which ones are you referring to?

And yes StephenDare!, the United States government is, in fact, a "republic", more correctly a "Constitutional Republic" although there are many actively working to change that.

How's them "factual facts"?

Dare!,

Your starting to sound  nuttier than usual.  When I say the facts are on my side, I mean recorded history.  The Carter administration negotiated the Algiers Accords.  The timetable was based on many things, but largely a transfer of gold.  I know you were young at the time, but you weren't that young.  The American public had a belly full of appeasement from Carter.  Reagan's forceful campaigning had made it clear that his policies would be completely different, and much more forceful.  The Iranians had milked the thing and were ready to settle it as they had other problems...like a war for survival.  The Algerian negotiations began before the 1980 Presidential election.   You have no evidence of any weapons transfers as a result of this.  As I pointed out in a previous post, your statement that Iran-Contra was 11 months after this was completely wrong...it was over 4 years and into President Reagan's second term.  Over a completely different situation at a completely different time.  As for Bani-Sadr, he made no "sworn" statement.  He wrote a book in 1991.  He had been impeached in Iran and failed in his political activities in Paris.  He was broke and needed money.  Who wanted to buy a book about an 11 year old incident from a minor player?  Suddenly, Bani-Sadr "knew of" your conspiracy.  The documents he claimed to have never appeared.  He disappeared.  Until StephenDare! decided that his word is the key to the conspiracy!  No, Dare!, he is just another loser that had to sell a book. 

Government investigations and media investigations have all agreed with my point of view.  Hmmm...Media with a chance to embarrass Reagan?  And yet....

And why have the Iranians not released any record of this?  They have looked to embarrass the US for years and yet only YOU seem to believe it.  Sorry, but it's just another nutty conspiracy theory that doesn't stand the light of day. 

Ok, StephenDare!, I have done the best I can.  You have offered up two versions of history:

The fall of the Soviet Union was due to Chernobel because Gorbachev says so.

President Reagan engineered a "hostage for arms" deal as a Presidential candidate and as President-Elect because Bani-Sadr says so.  (I did forget to mention that Bani-Sadr's claim was in his 1991 book.)

I have spent pages and pages going over various factors that led to the fall of the USSR and the Iranians release of the hostages.  I posit that Reagan's policy and leadership was a factor in both.  That is what recorded history says.  I have listed much more information.  It is obvious that YOU are convinced.  Doesn't take a lot of "awesomeness" on my part to see a silly conspiracy theory here, but...um...ok, you believe what you want and I will believe what I want.  Have a good evening.

Quote from: stephendare on September 15, 2012, 06:29:42 PM
Yes.  This is the list of actual events that you listed about the timing of the hostage release.  Doesnt sound like even you are crediting Ronald Reagan with the accomplishment.

QuoteThe Carter administration negotiated the Algiers Accords. 

The timetable was based on many things, but largely a transfer of gold. 

The Iranians had milked the thing and were ready to settle it as they had other problems...like a war for survival. 

The Algerian negotiations began before the 1980 Presidential election.

More selective reading Dare!.  I have stated my case clearly and in great detail.  Just pulling isolated quotes and making misleading statements (a usual Dare! tactic) won't change a thing.  You have made your bed with Bani-Sadr and the rest of the conspiracy gang.  Lay in it.

I find your lack of perception in this matter a bit bizarre as well.  While we don't agree on much, I have no doubt that you are an intelligent person.  I am a bit stunned that you haven't thought this through, or if you have, that you don't see the holes in it.   I'm kind of disappointed in you.  I am usually amused by your arrogance,  but this is kind of weird.