Susan's Place Transgender Resources

Something that Zoe posted in another thread(see my 'Kennedy Assassination' thread) got me thinking.   Zoe's parents are virulently ring-wing - and sorry Zoe but they come across as being almost as pathetic as medieval peasants desperate for the approval of the Lord of the Manor.
Here in GB we have always had a preference for Democrat presidents.   Obama, Clinton, Jimmy Carter and of course JFK were and are all popular here.  Republican presidents in contrast are seen as being either sinister(Nixon), incompetent(Bush I & II), or non-entities(Eisenhower, Gerald Ford).  This leads me to Ronald Reagan.   
Americans seem to think highly of the presidency of Ronald Reagan, in sharp contrast to the British and continental Europeans, who thought that Reagan was a fiscally incompetent, warmongering puppet president who funded terrorism all round the world.   Don't forget it was during the Reagan administrations that American corporations went mad selling of factories, down-sizing the work force and shipping America's manufacturing base to Mexico, and the Philippines.  It was during this time that those lucky enough to still had a job saw their pay go down in real terms and their conditions slowly but surely worsen.  This was the time that people were expected to work harder, for longer and do more with less.  Meanwhile America's millionaires and billionaires were getting as rich as Crosesus all at the expense of the poor and the shrinking middle-class.  This was the time when 'greed was good' and it was perfectly acceptable to bash the poor.   Do you remember the so-called 'welfare Queens' that Reagan said drove in their Cadillacs to collect their dole money and then drove off to the off-licence for a bottle of vodka?    That is why you are flipping burgers and cold-calling people on the telephone when your father and grandfather worked in factories and did something useful to society and the economy.   That is why families need to have mom working full-time and dad holding down two jobs.  Think of all the state-sponsored terrorism that America indulged in during the Reagan years.   The funding of proxy armies in Central America through illicit arms and drug sales for example.   Think of that complete scientific fiasco and gigantic financial black hole known as the 'Star Wars' program.    Ronald Reagan's two terms in office were triumphs of style over substance.  Reagan's folksy manner appealed strongly to the American psyche.   His 'jes plain folks' manner meant that he could sweet-talk the public into accepting anything however ridiculous or costly.   

So next time you go on about Obama just remember that it was that 'All-American Hero' ole Ronnie Raygun that gave the 'Masters of the Universe' carte blanche to decimate the economy, deregulate the media, start wars and fund terrorism abroad, and turn the Stock Market from a means for companies to raise capital into a huge Derivatives powered casino.   Everything that has happened in the last few years is just the sour poisonous fruit of the tree that Reagan planted and watered with your blood sweat and tears.

It is interesting to note that Americans at the time and today admire Margaret Thatcher.   However, Thatcher was and is despised and reviled here in GB.

It should also be noted that while Europeans tend to talk about "Americans" within the country we very and fairly evenly split between more convervative and more liberal views. It's very inaccurate to ascribe these views simply to "Americans".

It should also be noted that Huey Freeman pointed out Ronald Wilson Reagan is three words with six letters each. Six, six, six, the number of the beast. Gotta love "The Boondocks!"

Did you know Al Gore pushed privatization of the prison industry. That has bankrupt many states who sold their prisions to private corporations. Clinton also kept the crack cocaine sentences longer to keep mostly black people in prison. Hellery Clinton also didn't want to make retroactive their sentences reduced when the supreme court said it was wrong. But your right that Ronald reagan was a jerk. Yes the last good and honest president we had was jimmy carter who was set up with the iran hostage crisis so reagan could get in and then 2 days later he got them released. Yes the bush's are also related to their grandfather preston Bush who helped to finance Hitler. They allowed Clinton to become president because he worked with them both when they shipped cocaine across texas air space and the planes landed in arkansas. Clinton was governor in the 80's. He denied any knowledge of it. But the money sent to fight the contras in south america was to help set up cocaine to be sold in the USA and bush senior was director of CIA then.



yes Jimmy Carter was the last good and honest president. But today many people think that a president needs to be evil and dishonest to get things done.

Yes i helped Obama get elected http://my.democrats.org/page/community/post/danielleclarke/CZ9k (http://my.democrats.org/page/community/post/danielleclarke/CZ9k)

but i also hoped it would lead to an independant candidate this time. However, nothing seems to be in the works. It seems the supreme courts ruling allowing corporations to create organizations can spend all they want to attack a candidate.

Yes i never liked margrete thatcher or any british leader.

Spitting Image - Bumbledown: The Life & Times of Ronald Reagan Pt. 1/5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zPiN7ZfhJVc#)

" Spending during Reagan's two terms (FY 1981-88) averaged 22.4% GDP, well above the 20.6% GDP average from 1971 to 2009. In addition, the public debt rose from 26.1% GDP in 1980 to 41.0% GDP by 1988. In dollar terms, the public debt rose from $712 billion in 1980 to $2,052 billion in 1988, a roughly three-fold increase. "

Source:

JANUARY 2011
BUDGET AND ECONOMIC OUTLOOK: HISTORICAL BUDGET DATA
1
Revenues, Outlays, Deficits, Surpluses, and Debt Held by the Public,
1971 to 2010, in Billions of Dollars

THis video clip really shows exactly how Reagan was seen in Europe.

Spitting Image - Bumbledown: The Life & Times of Ronald Reagan Pt. 3/5 (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwD5Twqz38k&feature=related#)

Don't think that what you see via American media, which is a wholly owned subsidiarity of the military-industrial complex, is anything even vaguely resembling an objective view of the American people.

Quote from: tekla on September 17, 2011, 10:38:09 PM
Don't think that what you see via American media, which is a wholly owned subsidiarity of the military-industrial complex, is anything even vaguely resembling an objective view of the American people.

Very true. You also mainly see what Mr Murdoch wants you to see. You read what he wants you to read. And your opinions are shaped by his. And to make sure he is right he will hack your phone, computer and whatever and then lie straight faced. Just my opinion Mr Murdoch when you read this. Just an Adelaide girl talking about an Adelaide man.

Cindy

Excellent thread and thanks for starting it, Princess.

As the saying goes the US and UK are two countries divided by a common language. Bit like Ecuador and Equatorial Guinea with Spanish... Both sides illude each other that we have a common culture which isn't really the case despite all the US produced films, TV and Music that are ever-present over here.

What is called 'liberal' in the US would most certainly not be considered so in Europe and we simply do not have a religious right either. Please don't think that that by saying that I consider our own Labour Party to be anywhere left of centre either. They aren't.

Both our systems are corrupt and rotten to the core and in practice a mere facade for the interests of the corporations that make the real decisions. Murdoch being a case in point.

However, whatever his politics it's amazing the US elected a mixed race president with Hussein as his middle name. Maximum respect to them for doing so and to him for retaining the name in a political career.  If only he was a great and honest man like who he is named after and prepared to take a similar stand against the corrupt and powerful of this world. A stand against the 'Yazids' of our present world.

Did nobody like the two clips?   I liked the second one, it was so needle sharp and right on target that I experienced a twinge of sympathy for poor ole Ronnie, who don't forget was alive when this was made.

President Regan defeated the Soviet Union. He also restored the USA Defense Industrial base, and more important help America change from an Idustrial society to a creative Society.

Jen61

Quote from: Jen61 on September 18, 2011, 05:17:53 PM
President Regan defeated the Soviet Union.

Jen61

No he didn't! 

Here is a link to a newspaper interview with Reagan's son Ron.


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2014028441_ronreagan25.html (http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2014028441_ronreagan25.html)

Quote from: Jen61 on September 18, 2011, 05:17:53 PM
He also restored the USA Defense Industrial base

I'll buy that one, the other two aren't even close to factual.

Quote from: Jen61 on September 18, 2011, 05:17:53 PM
President Regan defeated the Soviet Union. He also restored the USA Defense Industrial base, and more important help America change from an Idustrial society to a creative Society.

Jen61

He's a drug store truck drivin' man. He's the head of the Ku Klux Klan When summer comes rollin' around. We'll be lucky to get out of town ... He don't like resistance I know. And he said it last night on a big TV show. He's ...

ah politic bashing. Gotta love it.

I'm not a republican by any stretch of the imagination and I am no Reagan fan, but for every "atrocity" Ronald Reagan had come up, I can show you an another atrocity of any political leader from any era from whatever party. Yes, even the Brits.

So...I guess I'm asking....

what's the point of this thread again? Or is it a "let's single out a dead politician and beat the living sh*t out of him" thread? Or what exactly?

Eh,

Quote from: Annah on September 18, 2011, 06:47:19 PM


what's the point of this thread again? Or is it a "let's single out a dead politician and beat the living sh*t out of him" thread? Or what exactly?

My guess would be this is in response to tea baggers putting Regan up on a pedestal as a God to worship?

So many people seem to want Presidents and Prime Ministers to be their 'daddy' and hold their hand and protect them at all times.   People have short memories, I am sure that in America there are many people saying: 'This recession would never'ah happened on the Gibber's watch, no siree.'   'Yeah big Ron was da' man!'   As my post above shows it was the 'great communicator' who gleefully kicked started all the upheaval we are seeing now.

Ladies and gentlemen if there is ONE think that you understand and take to heart it is this:

You mean nothing to the politicians, no really I am serious.   You are livestock, you are sheep on the government's farm.  You are sheep to be shorn for all you are worth.   You agreed to all this when you accepted your SS/SIN/NINO so don't think the law will protect you.  You and the government entered into legal relations you and Washington are partners in a contract.

Once you understand that the politicians own you everything else falls into place.   You will realise why they promise you the earth before an election and renege on their promises afterwards.  They think that you are stupid, in fact they know that you are stupid, their state schools are set up so that you will become stupid and remain stupid the rest of your life.   The politicians find out what you want, promise to deliver in office then say 'oh sorry times and circumstances have changed we can't now do anything that we said we would do.'   The people fall for this trick election after election after election after election.  The people say ' Oh gee that sucks but I guess we just gotta do what the grown ups say.'  'I guess we gotta tighten our belts cause of this recession.  We just gotta work even harder and even longer for less money and a smaller pension at the end of it.'   

Do you know how the government can get you to pay the bankers' debt and accept severe cuts to public services?   Well again you agreed to all this when you accepted your SS/SIN/NINO.   You agreed to act as Surety on government debt.  What 'Surety' means is that you promise to pay if the borrower(The state and Federal government) can't service its debts.   When this happens the creditors will come looking for you and legally demand that you the Sureties are taxed more and have services cut to pay the bankers their money.  Had you lawfully refused to contract with the government then they could not have demanded money from you, or asked you to serve in the military or send you to jail for anything other than theft from, damage to a living soul and their property.
  If you want to keep someone wholly dependent upon you you never give them what they want although you keep promising to do just that but only if they keep on giving you what you want.   This craven dependence and rank stupidity would be shocking enough but now we get people praising the person who wrecked their and their children's future and who also buried them and their great grandchildren as yet unborn up to the eyeballs in debt.

I don't know.

I guess what i'm saying is this thread feels more like an Anarchist Recruiting propaganda thread than a thread of someone who doesn't like a dead President.

I'm assuming by Princess of Hearts' posting in this thread, she is a die hard anarchist.

Am I right?

When it comes to politics, religion, activism, etc, one can become so infatuated by being against fundamentalist ideals that they inevitably create a philosophical circle in which they become fundamentalist themselves.

For example, I seen it in religion where people go so left they go right. Ive seen Pagans (as I am Pagan myself) become to adamantly against, say, Christianity or another religion that they begin to emulate the same hostility towards them that they (Pagans) fought so hard to become independent from.

I seen political left leaders who become so much against the right wing, that in variably begin to share almost the same ideological view points of their "enemies" but in different contexts.

And I seen activists, say transsexual activists for example, where they slip into a form of fundamentalist activism and begin to label or box other trans people into their own spheres and thus doing the same thing those who speak against trans people out in the general public share.

When one person goes so far the other way, they always end up circling on the other side. The terms, ideas, or definitions will be polar attitudes, but the attitudes and ideologies merge into one.

Well Ladies and gentlemen time now for me to step down from my soapbox and put it away for another time.   I hope that you have learned something and that I have made you think.   Regardless of what you make of my writings here I thank you for your patience and indulgence.

I've learned something, all right.

Quote from: Princess of Hearts on September 18, 2011, 08:54:42 PM
So many people seem to want Presidents and Prime Ministers to be their 'daddy' and hold their hand and protect them at all times.   People have short memories, I am sure that in America there are many people saying: 'This recession would never'ah happened on the Gibber's watch, no siree.'   'Yeah big Ron was da' man!'   As my post above shows it was the 'great communicator' who gleefully kicked started all the upheaval we are seeing now.

Ladies and gentlemen if there is ONE think that you understand and take to heart it is this:

You mean nothing to the politicians, no really I am serious.   You are livestock, you are sheep on the government's farm.  You are sheep to be shorn for all you are worth.   You agreed to all this when you accepted your SS/SIN/NINO so don't think the law will protect you.  You and the government entered into legal relations you and Washington are partners in a contract.

Once you understand that the politicians own you everything else falls into place.   You will realise why they promise you the earth before an election and renege on their promises afterwards.  They think that you are stupid, in fact they know that you are stupid, their state schools are set up so that you will become stupid and remain stupid the rest of your life.   The politicians find out what you want, promise to deliver in office then say 'oh sorry times and circumstances have changed we can't now do anything that we said we would do.'   The people fall for this trick election after election after election after election.  The people say ' Oh gee that sucks but I guess we just gotta do what the grown ups say.'  'I guess we gotta tighten our belts cause of this recession.  We just gotta work even harder and even longer for less money and a smaller pension at the end of it.'   

Do you know how the government can get you to pay the bankers' debt and accept severe cuts to public services?   Well again you agreed to all this when you accepted your SS/SIN/NINO.   You agreed to act as Surety on government debt.  What 'Surety' means is that you promise to pay if the borrower(The state and Federal government) can't service its debts.   When this happens the creditors will come looking for you and legally demand that you the Sureties are taxed more and have services cut to pay the bankers their money.  Had you lawfully refused to contract with the government then they could not have demanded money from you, or asked you to serve in the military or send you to jail for anything other than theft from, damage to a living soul and their property.
  If you want to keep someone wholly dependent upon you you never give them what they want although you keep promising to do just that but only if they keep on giving you what you want.   This craven dependence and rank stupidity would be shocking enough but now we get people praising the person who wrecked their and their children's future and who also buried them and their great grandchildren as yet unborn up to the eyeballs in debt.

Mankind lost all their rights when they left the farm and moved to cities. The only way to get as free as possible is to be less dependent on the corporations and their factories and stuff they sell in cities. I bought my 6 acre farm and have basically only bought old used items that can help me survive here. I have my gardens and canned much food and have my root cellar and am trying to show others what we need to do to break away from corporate rule.
Most People in cities all want their luxuries and that will kill them in the end. In the future mass people won't be needed as robots will be doing most of the work for the wealthy. Its already happening with our computer age. I do believe they will leave alone those who are self sufficient and allow them like me and the many amish, mennonites , hutterites, twelve tribes, etc etc to continue surviving off the land. They / we will be seen as a special group worth allowing to live and get their support. Thats a worse case senario. So get back to working in the garden because unless your super rich and powerful to be able to afford robots to do all your work you will have your kind made to feel that life isn't worth living and so you will downsize yourself and your families. Yes this may be the long term ideology to come and it will take time for it to come about but as they say if you can think about it it's bound to happen. I know i have been telling people for 2 decades that america will get poorer as other countries will get richer to come to a balance so that future wars won't be about the haves and have nots of one country to another but will be about just slowly make all poor and middle class families go out of existence.

 I thought Maggie was alright until she went mad. :laugh: :laugh:  -Jeremy Clarkson, Top Gear

This is an excellent thread could it pleased be pinned made a sticky?

I do believe they will leave alone those who are self sufficient and allow them like me and the many amish, mennonites , hutterites, twelve tribes, etc etc to continue surviving off the land

If there is industrial collapsible ain't nothing going to save you, because what will come out of the city and invade you, you ain't going to be able to stop.

Roanld Reagan packaged the 1950s mentality into the 1980s format. Translation: those who voted for him wanted the so called 'good old days'. My question: How was life for African-Americans living in the Jim Crow south? How was life for GLBT people? Were women even considered equal with men? Conclusion: same old white patriarchal crap.

In 1981, American was the world's greatest creditor. When Reagan left office in 1989, American was the world's greatest debtors. His administration busted unions, continued shipping jobs overseas, and created Star Wars. Clinto, the Bushes, and Obama have It's continues that happen today.

The best comment I heard about Reagan was when he was elected governor of California. Jerry Brown, the man he defeated was asked what was reagan legacy, he replied "Things didn't get any worse, but they didn't get any better either. Sad thing is since his presidency things HAVE gotten worse, much worse.     

Quote from: Stephe on September 18, 2011, 06:22:33 PM
I'll buy that one, the other two aren't even close to factual.

What happens during any given presidency, good or bad, is bestowed by history in the President. What happend during President Regan's years at the white house is his legacy, the good, the bad, the ugly.

In any case, please do enlight me on my wrong facts?

Jen61

Most of the people I know or hear from who think Reagan was the bomb point out low unemployment and a seemingly great economy while he was in office.  History tells he went to the US checking account and drained it, then took out the credit cards and maxed them all out.  Sure was great living on what our kids will pay for dearly!

Reagan busted the Air Traffic Controllers union and that led to the decline of labor throughout the country.  Jobs were sent overseas and soon we found ourselves manufacturing a fraction of what we used to.  It's like trying to win a football game with only pass plays.  You have to have a ground game to be a consistent winner.

Reagan also ushered in the "ME, ME, ME" generation which included corporate raiders and the like.  His administration also had its fair share of raiding government funds like Social Security through "borrowing".  Just look at it now.

No, Dutch wasn't such a great president.  But he will forever be famous and will one day be infamous.  Instead of "The Great Communicator" he will one day be known as "The Great Spender" who sold out this country to the rich.  And that set the stage for all future Republicans.  Just look at them now.

Leaving out the fact that he defeated the Soviets, he by design or by serendipity move us from an "Industrial Society" to a "Creative Society."  Like all changes, it has brought pain and missery to some riches to others.

As for the borrowing and the "our children will pay." Sometiimes you have to borrow in order to retool, and the children of any generation  always pay for the sins of their parents.

Jen61

At the time, I thought it couldn't get any worse than how it was during the 8 years of Reagan. Sad to say I was proved wrong when GWB took office, it got much worse during his 8 years. So much of what we're dealing with now, extreme inequity between the very rich and everyone else, etc., was put in motion during Reagan's presidency.

Z

Quote from: Princess of Hearts on September 17, 2011, 05:22:54 PM
Something that Zoe posted in another thread(see my 'Kennedy Assassination' thread) got me thinking. 

Princess, Princess...

...drove through Dealy Plaza early this week and by the Grassy Knoll (really!)

Ahh the "Gipper", I warned my friends if Ronnie was elected they would resurrect all of his awful movies (except the Knute Rockne Story and The Gipper), and I was right! When I was in the Navy I discovered whenever we meet some of our fellow service members from the UK, that someone would always (a Brit) bring up Ronnie, even the NZ'rs would chime in! They absolutely hated him, all of Europe was afraid that Ronnie would start WWIII (interesting that the height of Cold War Apocalypse fear and fiction reached its apex during his Presidency). So what if Ronnie's administration attempted to ignore the emergence of HIV/AIDS, his only error there was he had a REAL MD as Surgeon General, good ole Dr Koop! Oh well, nobody's perfect.

Even Doonesbury had Ronnie in its sights, and heaven forbid...even Beetle Bailey remarked that after Ronnie was elected Prez, that all of his dreams were like "B" grade movies! :laugh:

Now Ronnie did exercise some control of the "Nuclear Trigger", and unlike Tricky Dick, did not on a depressive whim (or Alzheimer's bing) change DEFCON conditions almost starting WWIII and scaring Pat Robertson into thinking God had shut him out of the Loop!

Trickle down theory, and you now what else rolls down hill too! :laugh:

Quote from: Zythyra on September 24, 2011, 03:02:04 PM
At the time, I thought it couldn't get any worse than how it was during the 8 years of Reagan. Sad to say I was proved wrong when GWB took office, it got much worse during his 8 years. So much of what we're dealing with now, extreme inequity between the very rich and everyone else, etc., was put in motion during Reagan's presidency.

Z

Oooooo...I still don't like that guy and the President he served under...Dick Channey! :laugh:

Quote from: Annah on September 18, 2011, 09:04:18 PM
I don't know.

I guess what i'm saying is this thread feels more like an Anarchist Recruiting propaganda thread than a thread of someone who doesn't like a dead President.

I'm assuming by Princess of Hearts' posting in this thread, she is a die hard anarchist.

Am I right?

Of course you are Annah! That's why I love both of you, and interestingly enough...you're both VIRGO's!

Now about "Dead Presidents"...what "bill" do you think they'll put Ronnie's mug on? :laugh:

Quote from: Julie Marie on September 24, 2011, 02:45:52 PM
Most of the people I know or hear from who think Reagan was the bomb point out low unemployment and a seemingly great economy while he was in office.  History tells he went to the US checking account and drained it, then took out the credit cards and maxed them all out.  Sure was great living on what our kids will pay for dearly!

Reagan busted the Air Traffic Controllers union and that led to the decline of labor throughout the country.  Jobs were sent overseas and soon we found ourselves manufacturing a fraction of what we used to.  It's like trying to win a football game with only pass plays.  You have to have a ground game to be a consistent winner.

Reagan also ushered in the "ME, ME, ME" generation which included corporate raiders and the like.  His administration also had its fair share of raiding government funds like Social Security through "borrowing".  Just look at it now.

No, Dutch wasn't such a great president.  But he will forever be famous and will one day be infamous.  Instead of "The Great Communicator" he will one day be known as "The Great Spender" who sold out this country to the rich.  And that set the stage for all future Republicans.  Just look at them now.

I remember when the air traffic controllers union was busted. That was a pretty hot issue.

I can see where people outside of the US see Reagan as somehow 'more than president' but it's not so much that here.  They loved him in DC, no doubt about that, and they named all sorts of stuff after him (what they could, federal buildings and National Airport), but we all HATE DC, and if you get outside of there you don't find a lot of stuff named after him at all.  He kinda gets a pass on some stuff because it's not a huge leap of understanding to think of him as our Queen of England.  A figurehead.  The job of president is that of CEO of the US - the Chief Executive, and he was never that, that was George Bush I. 

Calling poor Princess a 'die hard anarchist' and then someone mentioning that RR 'defeated the Soviets' in one thread, this is the thread that just keeps on giving!

The collapse of the Soviet Union wasn't brought about by US policy but by internal political errors that had initiated more than 50 years earlier.  Instead of holding fast to the ideas of the revolution, Internationalism and true Socialism Stalin mistakenly went down the Socialism in one country road enforcing it with brutality betraying the revolution, and his comrades. We ended up with State Capitalism and the premature deaths of two leaders who would have ensured a very different outcome; Lenin and Trotsky.

Those of us who believed and who still believe have not lost hope however. Marx was correct in his economic analysis and the bubble is bursting, the USSR was not the solution and never could be, the solution was and remains a socialist future on an international scale and it's arrival is as inevitable as tomorrow's sunrise.

Gennee is correct in saying it's the same old white patriarchal crap, your leaders are puppets for cartels that lie beyond politics and whose intentions are most certainly not your welfare. They own, as they always have, the means of production although the naturally down the years the nature of that has changed. No longer old style factories but service industries in many cases. You are the proletariat slaving on their 'machinery' to augment their personal capital while being fed the minimum possible crumbs from the table to prevent you deciding you have nothing more to lose by rising up and telling them where to shove it.

This ring a bell? "Capitalism according to Marxist theory can no longer sustain the living standards of the population due to its need to compensate for falling rates of profit by driving down wages, cutting social benefits and pursuing military aggression." It's happening all around us, denial isn't going to make it go away.

Socialism is of course merely a stepping stone on the way to better things but it's the only one that's available to us right now.

Btw, are ex Communist Party members still banned from entry to the US?

Instead of holding fast to the ideas of the revolution, Internationalism and true Socialism Stalin mistakenly went down the Socialism in one country road enforcing it with brutality betraying the revolution, and his comrades.

That's a good one.  Oh wait, you're serious?  RR gets credit for that whole 'collapse of the USSR' deal, because completely unrelated to the reasons we were doing it, the weapons race heated up so hot that it proved to be the straw that broke the camels back in terms of a system/regime that was never all that good or stong in the first place.  Who knows?  Had WWII not happened in that way it might be different - but there is no way a nation can go through what Russia did, pay that kind of price on it's own soil, and eventually win, and not come out of it fundamentally different.

There would have been no World War 2 if the German Revolution and Spartacist uprising had not been brutally suppressed by the the Weimar Republic using hard line nationalist militias (Freikorps). That would changed world history, saved tens of millions of lives and the Soviet Union would certainly have had a more progressive outcome. Of course the failure also resulted in the assassinations of Karl Liebknecht and Rosa Luxemburg and the subsequent hatred between the SPD and German Communist Party which enabled Hitler's rise to power. Internationalism never truly recovered imho.

Is that taught in the USA?

There is a huge Aircraft carrier named after Reagan.   I think that it cost about $1,000,000,000 to build and it cost $1,000,000 per day to run!

I saw a programme about this ship a while ago.  It was rather interesting the film crew were allowed on board and the spoke to everyone from the captain to the lowliest crew member.   Everyone seemed really nice.  We viewers got to see the pilots being briefed and the jets taking off and landing and the amount of training and discipline the flightdeck crew had to go through.

Like he's the "only" one?

Let's see...Lincoln, Washington, both Roosevelt's, Truman, Bush 41, JFK (non Nuclear), Ike, even Gerald R. Ford (ooouuu...wouldn't wanna be stationed on that one, fall down a ladder :laugh:).

http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/names-presidents.htm (http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/ship/names-presidents.htm)

Quote from: mimpi on September 26, 2011, 06:48:29 PM
Is that taught in the USA?

Unfortunately, a majority of Americans don't read books, so if it can't be taught using a 10 second sound byte on Faux News, they probably aren't aware of it...

Z (an American who has read Marx, etc)

Quote from: Zythyra on September 26, 2011, 07:45:33 PM
Unfortunately, a majority of Americans don't read books, so if it can't be taught using a 10 second sound byte on Faux News, they probably aren't aware of it...

Z (an American who has read Marx, etc)

That's one thing my Brother-In-Law and I can agree on...ooooouuu don't like "Faux"News!

This thread is so loaded. I won't have a complete run of verbal diarrhea hopefully. I was never a fan of Reagan in the least or the Republicans but in some respects what Reagan did was a product of what we can now increasingly see as a dysfunctional international trade and monetary system that basically gave him the opportunity. 2 things spring to my mind and aren't exactly without controversy...

(1) The military industrial complex or what I consider a distinctively American version of Military Keynesianism has a long long history in the US (both Republican and Democrat) and well before Reagan. In a way, American military spending by the right in the US was one of the few places that they could get away with focusing on the state on research and development, propping up American corps through exempt subsidies that would never have been accepted under GATT if it had been done outside the rubric of national defence and even better from Reagan's perspective was all consistent with his ideology which he could portray as pro-market and against big government yet in a way nothing could be further from the truth in my opinion (yet still be consistent with breaking strikers for instance e.g. Air Traffic controllers).

(2) Reagan from turning US from greatest creditor to biggest debtor... This one is smoking... It is true on one side but basically the US breaking its commitments through the Nixon shocks in 1971 without the rest of the world being willing to challenge its lead currency status (damn near everything pegged to the American dollar) which started the ball rolling because to avoid a liquidity crisis the complete breaking with the gold standard allowed the US to basically print money or else the global economy would have tightened a great deal more than what was certainly on the table and American spending was critical at this time. This opening that Nixon created was then exploited by Reagan to not only allow for running large deficits without the international monetary order batting an eyelid and also allowed his administration to force multiple currency revaluations on a number of countries (e.g. Japan being one of the best cases with pressure to increase the value of the yen) meant that the US was effectively forcing economic adjustment on other economies even though it appeared that the American dollar relative to gold appeared somewhat consistent. Great optical illusion.

So, the seeds of Reagans policies were present elsewhere and earlier but maybe not in such a stark form and told with such clear ideological fervour. The ultimate consequences are coming to roost. Deregulated financial markets, oversized debts, distrust in the ability of the US to sidestep the international trading system through defence spending, and questions about the ability of the US to maintain its status as a lead currency forever...

Quote from: grrl1nside on September 26, 2011, 08:59:21 PM

So, the seeds of Reagans policies were present elsewhere and earlier but maybe not in such a stark form and told with such clear ideological fervour. The ultimate consequences are coming to roost. Deregulated financial markets, oversized debts, distrust in the ability of the US to sidestep the international trading system through defence spending, and questions about the ability of the US to maintain its status as a lead currency forever...

Clap, Clap! But we can't blame Reagan from nixing the Glass-Steagall Act, that a Republican Congress accomplished under Clinton.

As to "Military-Industrial Complex", I was surprised when I discovered where that phrase came from...

A vital element in keeping the peace is our military establishment. Our arms must be mighty, ready for instant action, so that no potential aggressor may be tempted to risk his own destruction.

Our military organization today bears little relation to that known by any of my predecessors in peacetime, or indeed by the fighting men of World War II or Korea.

Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could, with time and as required, make swords as well. But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments industry of vast proportions. Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.

This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government. We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the very structure of our society.

In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought, by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.

We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.

Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

- President Dwight D. Eisenhower, January 17, 1961

A tree's a tree. How many more do you need to look at?
Ronald Reagan


All the waste in a year from a nuclear power plant can be stored under a desk.
Ronald Reagan


Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement.
Ronald Reagan

I favor the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and it must be enforced at gunpoint if necessary.
Ronald Reagan


:laugh:

Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement.
Ronald Reagan

I always liked that one.

You know this thread is distracting attention from other parts of the forum.    It has also ran its course so I am locking it.

Ha Ha! You're just going to stir things up somewhere else by starting another contentious thread Princess! And besides...you don't have the ability to lock the thread :laugh: Good try though.

Quote from: Amazon D on September 17, 2011, 06:27:54 PM

yes Jimmy Carter was the last good and honest president. But today many people think that a president needs to be evil and dishonest to get things done.

Yes i helped Obama get elected http://my.democrats.org/page/community/post/danielleclarke/CZ9k (http://my.democrats.org/page/community/post/danielleclarke/CZ9k)

Jimmy Carter may have been honest, but he was FAR FAR from being a good POTUS, he was the worst POTUS in American History and Barack Obama is coming in a close second.

great Reagan quote " They are spending like drunken sailors, but that is unfair to the drunken sailors because at least they are spending their own money!"

Quote from: tscarrie42 on November 07, 2011, 10:07:43 PM
Jimmy Carter may have been honest, but he was FAR FAR from being a good POTUS, he was the worst POTUS in American History and Barack Obama is coming in a close second.

Okay, you've stated an opinion.  But what are the facts you have to back that up?  Just curious.

Quote from: Julie Marie on November 08, 2011, 07:59:17 AM
Okay, you've stated an opinion.  But what are the facts you have to back that up?  Just curious.

Ditto because we all know reagan got elected due to the iran hostages release which was a scam that made Carter look bad and the drug store truck driver glad.

Quote from: Amazon D on September 18, 2011, 06:25:33 PM
He's a drug store truck drivin' man. He's the head of the Ku Klux Klan When summer comes rollin' around. We'll be lucky to get out of town ... He don't like resistance I know. And he said it last night on a big TV show. He's ...

The Byrds!  You are a hippie.

Remember this one ...

"Oh mommy
I ain't no commie
I'm just doing what I can to live the good all American way
It says right there in the constitution
It's really A-ok to have a revolution
When the leaders that you choose
Really don't fit the shoes"

That was "Oh Mommy, I ain't no Commie" by Brewer and Shipley (the flip side to the "One Toke over the Line" single 45rpm - not that any of the children here would know what a 45 was)

Quote from: Julie Marie on November 08, 2011, 07:59:17 AM
Okay, you've stated an opinion.  But what are the facts you have to back that up?  Just curious.

Do you remember the "Misery Index"?  I do.

Carter = "malaise" "one term" "historic blowout election"

The people spoke in 1980 with their ballots.

Quote from: Amazon D on November 08, 2011, 05:45:07 PM
Ditto because we all know reagan got elected due to the iran hostages release which was a scam that made Carter look bad and the drug store truck driver glad.

As I recall, the hostages in Iran were released on the day of Reagan's first inauguration - about two and a half months after the election.

As I recall, the hostages in Iran were released on the day of Reagan's first inauguration - about two and a half months after the election.
Yeah, they didn't trust our system anymore than the Republican's did when they traded - as they said they would never do - arms for hostages.  They waited until that day, because only once Reagan became President could he authorize the release of the weapons.

Quote from: Jamie D on December 04, 2011, 12:14:28 AM
Do you remember the "Misery Index"?  I do.

Carter = "malaise" "one term" "historic blowout election"

The people spoke in 1980 with their ballots.

Again, lines 1 & 2 are opinion, whether yours or someone else.  The third is about the masses, who are often sheep.  Most of them could never articulate why they voted for this candidate or that.  They just repeat what they hear.  I just was curious why YOU believe what you do about Carter and Obama.  That's all.

Carter = "malaise" "one term" "historic blowout election

Speaking strictly as a historian - albeit not a political one, but one who's PhD is in 20th Century American history - I always thought (going back to the night he gave it) that that "Malaise" speach was just about the most powerful bit of plain, speaking truth that any President ever dished out.  And really, just using that term shows you're a tool being fed propaganda, the official and formal title of the speech was "The Crisis of Confidence."  He never used the word 'malaise' once in it.

The heart - the thesis if you will - of that address was the growing dependence on foreign energy (but hey, that was a non-issue wasn't it?  we sure nipped that problem in the bud with the 'Pubs that followed eh what?) but there was a much deeper message too, the one that got the 'malaise' tag tossed on to it.  And they did that, pick that silly word - a word not used in the speech - because the commercial powers which were just getting used to being able to control  hated - HATED - what he really said which was: the growing doubt about the meaning of our own lives and in the loss of a unity of purpose for our Nation.  He correctly labeled it a threat to the very foundations of the Republic, and I think he was not only right, but prescient.  And like most people who have to be prophets, he's hated in his own land, and in his own time.

The erosion of our confidence in the future is threatening to destroy the social and the political fabric of America.
And look at what happened (and it's largely a creation of the right) to the political discourse when Rush et. all. came on board.  Lowest common demonotor does not even begin to cover the willfull ignorgance and pure hate that flooded the American political system in the time since Carter warned about it.

there is a growing disrespect for government and for churches and for schools, the news media, and other institutions. This is not a message of happiness or reassurance, but it is the truth and it is a warning.
But we never took it that way - or the media did not sell it that way, and all of that has come to pass.

We are at a turning point in our history. There are two paths to choose. One is a path I've warned about tonight, the path that leads to fragmentation and self-interest. Down that road lies a mistaken idea of freedom, the right to grasp for ourselves some advantage over others. That path would be one of constant conflict between narrow interests ending in chaos and immobility. It is a certain route to failure.
"Self-interest"?  Wasn't this followed by the 'Greed is Good' Reagan years?  It's a certain road to Occupy for sure.  We are on that road, and even some of the blinder members can see the failure laying ahead.  People now accept a casual downward mobility for most and an intensified social stratification that would have been unimaginable in the Carter years.

Oh, and the speech - far from what you think in your revisionism - was awesomely well received, it was the firing of the Cabinet a few weeks later that started the tailspin, but don't let the facts get in the way of your political options.


And, don't believe me, read the speech and see for yourself how far off the mark he was.
http://www2.volstate.edu/geades/finaldocs/1970s&beyond/malaise.htm (http://www2.volstate.edu/geades/finaldocs/1970s&beyond/malaise.htm)

Quote from: Jamie D on December 04, 2011, 12:14:28 AM
Do you remember the "Misery Index"?  I do.

Carter = "malaise" "one term" "historic blowout election"

The people spoke in 1980 with their ballots.

They had most of the population stoned on cocaine and it screwed up the elections by favoring the right while cheap drugs flowed all over the USA and across texas airspace and into arkansas where they fake democratic president later balanced the budget on the backs of welfare reform and at first it seemed like the savings from privitization of prisons was a good thing until yrs later the second bush had so many people in jails for crack that the taxes sucked up much of the local state goverments savings due to the high cost of incarceration of mostly poor black people for crack while white people got shorter senteces for snortable coke.. Yea white people didn't complain because it was the blacks who suffered but now it has gone round to where the middle class is paying too much in taxes to keep poor blacks in jail for crack. Even hillary didn't want to make the release of black coke heads retroactive because too much money was being made in the stock markets from that pain. Finally the supreme court did reverse it..
but today we have the cradle to prison pipeline for mostly poor blacks 
http://bushclintonhurtchildren.blogspot.com/ (http://bushclintonhurtchildren.blogspot.com/)
Yea clinton wasn't the black president because he played the sax he was really the white devil who made sure many blacks spent their lives in prisons for profit.


Carter was the best president bt he had gotten set up by the powers to be with the iran hostages and soon then reagan got in and pushed even more coke basically which was started by bush senior when he was CIA chief and we had the contra's and ollie north making sure coke got thru

Heck carter wanted to stop the flow of oil from the middle-east but the oil dealers didn't want that so they set up carter and soon reagan was in and oil flowed again like water.. Now they had the left addicted to coke and the right to oil..

Quote from: Julie Marie on December 04, 2011, 08:31:39 AM
Again, lines 1 & 2 are opinion, whether yours or someone else.  The third is about the masses, who are often sheep.  Most of them could never articulate why they voted for this candidate or that.  They just repeat what they hear.  I just was curious why YOU believe what you do about Carter and Obama.  That's all.

I beg to differ.  Lines 1 and 2 of my post are not "opinion."

The "Misery Index" was an economic barometer.  Carter cited it in his 1976 campaign against Gerald Ford, when it was about 14%.  When Carter was defeated, the Index has risen to about 22%.  As it it based on commonly measured criteria, the Index is more objective than not.

"Malaise" (as poster Tekla points out) came from a(n) (in)famous television speech given by Carter in July 1979.  The underlying issue behind the speech was the energy crisis of 1979 (I also remember gasoline lines and "odd-even rationing") - which was widely interpreted as a fumble on the part of the Carter Administration.

"One term" and "historic blowout election" are facts.

Quote from: tekla on December 04, 2011, 08:01:14 AM
As I recall, the hostages in Iran were released on the day of Reagan's first inauguration - about two and a half months after the election.
Yeah, they didn't trust our system anymore than the Republican's did when they traded - as they said they would never do - arms for hostages.  They waited until that day, because only once Reagan became President could he authorize the release of the weapons.

Are you conflating the release of the hostages taken from the US Embassy in Tehran, with the "Iran-Contra Affair"?

Quote from: Jen61 on December 04, 2011, 11:28:04 AM
This is absolutely the best post, LMFAO !

Until recently I did have the power to lock my own threads.

...for some added perspective...

(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Flatimesblogs.latimes.com%2F.a%2F6a00d8341c630a53ef0147e2375628970b-320wi&hash=75c5a6520ba1af07525b733d0f66d745c7c96b19)  (https://encrypted-tbn3.google.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSX26W_6GecR8v3T9kOpZ9UgwdYkbZ6HLfFC1SS9mGCJ3M8bnVHCw)


(https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffreegotham.com%2Fwp-content%2Fuploads%2F2011%2F01%2Freagan.jpg&hash=17686acd5a0a6d76de9f32eb5773921e156192e4)  (https://www.susans.org/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2F3.bp.blogspot.com%2F_lm2JI7sGwYI%2FTU4YumfLz-I%2FAAAAAAAAMGs%2FU-CMXnb-7Eg%2Fs400%2Fronald-reagan1.jpg&hash=4fb48d2293111f793d87e65d9d58baf93b33aa8b) 

"He's the president, who's vice president, Jerry Lewis?"

...No, but Arnold Schwarzenegger was governor of California.

Arnold Schwarzenegger was governor by default (which is about as good as it gets - you might come from a dysfunctional family, in California we come from a dysfunctional state) in an election that should never have happened.  Bad government taking it's marching orders from their wallet which is full of corporate cash.  (using 'corrupt' before corporate as many do is really redundant).  Saying the state government of California 'sucks' is an insult to all the governments everywhere else that only suck.

We're just happy to have Florida and Texas out there who seems to exist only to make Cali look good in comparison.


there is whole group of wealthy people who through media manipulation^* sell fiction to the masses so that both of their candidates get nominated, that way they always get their guy elected. These groups of wealthy people are the ones who have been choosing a path for America since the Constitutional Convention^** at least.

But, there is a saving grace.  That is wealthy people distrust each other, and almost never agree.  So sure it works that way, its' possible to see it.  But there is more going on, starting with the fact that for about (at least) 30-35 years now (going back to Carter, this is what he was really dealing with) the systems have become so complex, so unwieldy and so vast that they are no longer manageable.  And by that I mean that the tools of management: planning, logistics, modeling, forecasting and all that, no longer seem to work.  They have not been working for a while now and it's really showing.  It's showing here, and in Europe and just about everywhere else but China (but we don't care about those places so we don't notice.)

There is no doubt in my mind that people (high ranking people who actually pay attention to this stuff) are very afraid

* Carter was really the first to really get kicked out due to it.  That's when the hate, smears and lies of right wing talk radio came on line.  Just look at what was posted - and frequently is - I also remember gasoline lines and "odd-even rationing" - which was widely interpreted as a fumble on the part of the Carter Administration - fumble how?  I remember that it was a hella lot better than no system and waiting in line for over 15 hours for gas when Nixon was President.  That go round was much worse, much more mismanaged, but somehow gas lines and oil crisis are all Carter.

** - The first real seminal 'history' book by an American Academic historian (as opposed to old rich white guys who did it as a hobby) is considered to be Charles and Mary Beard, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution in 1913.

Quote from: tekla on December 05, 2011, 11:12:09 PM
Arnold Schwarzenegger was governor by default (which is about as good as it gets - you might come from a dysfunctional family, in California we come from a dysfunctional state) in an election that should never have happened.  to be Charles and Mary Beard, An Economic Interpretation of the Constitution in 1913.

You might remember that Schwarzenegger was first elected in a recall of the sitting governor, Democrat Gray Davis.  If the vote to recall Davis was successful (and it was with 55% of the popular vote - predominately the San Francisco Bay area and central coast voting to retain him), then the candidate for governor with the plurality of vote would win office.  There were over 100 candidates on the ballot, as I recall, Schwarzenegger gathered close to 50%.  Democrat Lt. Gov. Cruz Bustamante got sbouot 30% of the vote.

A friend of mine was on the ballot.  I voted for State Senator Tom McClintock instead.