Some thoughts on Reagan

[Knox The Hatter]

I was gonna post on the other thread, but for some reason, I can't understand why I would...
It's been almost a week now, since the death of Ronald Reagan. I can understand why he was tremendously popular- he never let anyone see concern or any negativity on his part, only his ability to smile and reassure, as well as his avuncular manner. He was a man whom you'd clamor to have over to the house as a dinner guest, and the warmth would stay around for some time even after he left. Figures like this in American politics clearly do not grow on trees. However, I'm astounded that people (and some of them are here on this board) would attribute super human qualities to him, even swallowing complete myths about him and his Presidency that make me even wonder how it is that I was living in the same country at the same time. I'm not going to sit here and offer up stupid, incendiary shit and even more moronic rebuttals. I'm going to just offer my impressions, and some interesting memories.
***
Anyone here remember David Stockman? He was Reagan's White House budget director. He hung around for awhile, parrying and thrusting with the Administration over budget numbers...he kept claiming that they were dangerously nonsensical. He wrestled with and crunched and published the numbers, and many people agreed. The Ideologues didn't, of course. Eventually, Stockman resigned, and wrote a scathing book saying that the Reagan Administration was a fiscal disaster. Shortly afterward, the President gave a televised address on budgetary matters. I watched the telecast with my Dad. Off screen, while Reagan spoke, one could hear strange noises in the background, and I asked my Dad if he heard them. He turned to me and said, "that's David Stockman, bound and gagged in the corner."
***
Someone here claimed Reagan was the kind of guy who wouldn't back down, he was tough as nails. Something like that. Hmm...
For some incomprehensible reason, we decided to put a military presence in Beirut, at the height of the Lebanese Civil War. This was the same war where Israel got involved in their own version of Vietnam over there. I was there, back in the Winter and Spring of 1983, sitting on a destroyer in the gunfire support area just a mile or so off of Beirut's beautiful beaches. In fact, we were a day's steam away when terrorists bombed the American embassy that April, and we supplied pallbearers for the funeral...this attack was merely a dress rehearsal for the big show that fall. The Administration had stationed several hundred Marines in Beirut, as a show of the flag. There were as many as 15 different groups fighting each other in Beirut. Who were we supporting? Who were we against? Did we really think that Old Glory would make these people think twice about fighting each other? Well, we got our answer. That October, long after the end of my ship's deployment (in fact, we were sitting in the NORSHIPCO Titan, the biggest floating dry dock on the eastern seaboard), a suicide truck bomber went into the Marine barracks, detonated his bomb, and killed 241 Marines in their sleep. Right after that, the President that would never back down, who was tough as nails, turned tail and ran. We closed up shop in Beirut, and that was that.
***
Things got worse in this most tragic of Civil Wars. The combattants there started taking foreign hostages. The Reagan Administration wisely told all the Americans there that their safety couldn't be guaranteed, that they should leave at once. Some didn't. A number of these academics and business people were taken hostage by groups with ties to Teheran. The Administration announced that they would not bargain with terrorists. Soon, planes were being hijacked. The hijackers on one flight found two Navy guys, saw their IDs. One of them, a young boy named Bobby Stetham, was shot in the head and thrown out on the tarmac. I broke down in tears on the commuter bus home from work. They killed the other guy, too, I remember his name. Clinton Suggs.
The President announced from the White House (the man who would not back down, the man who was tough as nails) that he was pounding the walls in frustration, but there was very little he could actually do. This from the man who flayed Jimmy Carter every day for his troubles.
Imagine my surprise to find out that the Administration that would not negotiate with terrorists was indeed negotiating with them, trading arms for hostages. Of course, they never ADMITTED doing such, and some people were really fooled, namely, my Reagan Democrat Dad. "It's just a show of goodwill. We give them a gun, and down the line, they give us a hostage." I rested the back of my hand against his forehead, to see if it was warmer than usual.
***
The guy who was the point man in this tomfoolery was the one and only Lieutenant Colonel Oliver North. He was trading arms for hostages. Funny, but to me, isn't that kind of like buying your watch from the son of a bitch who stole it from you? This from a man who soon was lauded as a never back down, tough as nails American hero himself.
When the shit hit the fan, however, over the Administration's diverting funds from the clandestine sale of overpriced arms to Teheran to the support of counter-insurgent groups in Communist Nicaragua, Reagan's Damage Control team went into action. They made sure that nothing would stick from this on the Teflon President, who claimed ignorance about it all. Personally, while it is hard to believe that he wasn't apprised of what was going on, I believe it. He just didn't want to be bothered with the details. Period.
***
I'm firmly convinced that for most of the second term, Ronald Reagan was pretty much out to lunch. I think that physically, he was really not up to the task of the job, which is a crushing one. I am pretty sure that a lot of the wind was taken out of him by the assasination attempt. Either way, my feelings here are verified by the events surrounding the nomination of Robert Bork to the Supreme Court.
Robert Bork was an E X T R E M E right wing Superior Court judge at the time, with miles of opinions bearing his name. He was really an outsider in Washington circles, to be fair. The Administration put his name in the hopper to fill an opening on the Supreme Court, and the very next day, the Democrats went to war. Most memorable was Ted Kennedy's famous remark (probably uttered in between helpings of Cutty and wattuh) about Robert Bork's confirmation leading to segregated lunch counters again. The farce went on for a good three weeks before it shamefully came to a close, with a chastened and angry Judge Bork feeling that the Administration betrayed him.
Now, I'm totally convinced that Reagan would NEVER have given a thought to considering such a divisive and controversial candidate, certainly not earlier in his career, when the brilliant and savvy politician that Reagan was would've determined that such a person would leave heaps of mud on him personally. Reagan never liked being involved in the fray. He liked being above it, and reaping the political benefits from such a position. Just like Eisenhower.
I'm sure that Edwin Meese talked him into nominating Bork. I think that the President had little inclination to counter Edwin Meese by this time. Meese and Nancy were pretty much running the country in 1987.
It came out in 1988 that the latter was helping to conduct the White House agenda through the help of an astrologer . Well, to me, this was pretty much the punch line for the eight years of Ronald Reagan. My personal opinion, by the way, is that Donald Rumsfeld's been conducting operations in Iraq through a Ouija board, but I digress.
***
Another thing that seems to come up is Reagan's defeat of Communism. Actually a lot more complex than that, but we Yanks would rather trim complexities down to comic book concepts. Now, I ask you, though...can you possibly convince me that we're safer now than we were in 1988, with the Evil Empire still intact? You're gonna tell me that the world is a safer place with the Soviet Union gone, with its nuclear stockpile up for sale to anyone with enough hard cash? If I knew then what we know now, I'd have lobbied back then to keep the old Hammer and Sickle together.
***
Just some impressions, and some memories. I thought the Reagan Administration was more symbolism than actual substance. All the vomit I hear coming through the media has pretty much proven it.

[Roseblossom]

Originally posted by Knox The Hatter
Imagine my surprise to find out that the Administration that would not negotiate with terrorists was indeed negotiating with them, trading arms for hostages.
You kinda get a sick feeling in the pit of your stomach, don't you, when you find out about such high level crimes in your own country that you loved and trusted. :(

~Rose~

Rosie luvs Knoxie

[august spies]

check this out:

I also think the arms for hostages was less of an arms for hostages and more of an arms to terrorize nicaraguan civilians
ZNet | Terror War

The Reagan Era
Excerpted from Deterring Democracy, 1991

by Noam Chomsky; June 11, 2004

With regard to the political system, the Reagan era represents a significant advance in capitalist democracy. For eight years, the U.S. government functioned virtually without a chief executive. That is an important fact. It is quite unfair to assign to Ronald Reagan, the person, much responsibility for the policies enacted in his name. Despite the efforts of the educated classes to invest the proceedings with the required dignity, it was hardly a secret that Reagan had only the vaguest conception of the policies of his administration, and if not properly programmed by his staff, regularly produced statements that would have been an embarrassment, were anyone to have taken them seriously. The question that dominated the Iran-contra hearings -- did Reagan know, or remember, what the policy of his administration had been? -- was hardly a serious one. The pretense to the contrary was simply part of the cover-up operation; and the lack of public interest over revelations that Reagan was engaged in illegal aid to the contras during a period when, he later informed Congress, he knew nothing about it, betrays a certain realism.



Reagan's duty was to smile, to read from the teleprompter in a pleasant voice, tell a few jokes, and keep the audience properly bemused. His only qualification for the presidency was that he knew how to read the lines written for him by the rich folk, who pay well for the service. Reagan had been doing that for years.



He seemed to perform to the satisfaction of the paymasters, and to enjoy the experience. By all accounts, he spent many pleasant days enjoying the pomp and trappings of power and should have a fine time in the retirement quarters that his grateful benefactors have prepared for him. It is not really his business if the bosses left mounds of mutilated corpses in death squad dumping grounds in El Salvador or hundreds of thousands of homeless in the streets. One does not blame an actor for the content of the words that come from his mouth. When we speak of the policies of the Reagan administration, then, we are not referring to the figure set up to front for them by an administration whose major strength was in public relations. The construction of a symbolic figure by the PR industry is a contribution to solving one of the critical problems that must be faced in any society that combines concentrated power with formal mechanisms that in theory allow the general public to take part in running their own affairs, thus posing a threat to privilege.



Not only in the subject domains but at home as well, there are unimportant people who must be taught to submit with due humility, and the crafting of a figure larger than life is a classic device to achieve this end. As far back as Herodotus we can read how people who had struggled to gain their freedom "became once more subject to autocratic government" through the acts of able and ambitious leaders who "introduced for the first time the ceremonial of royalty," distancing the leader from the public while creating a legend that "he was a being of a different order from mere men" who must be shrouded in mystery, and leaving the secrets of government, which are not the affair of the vulgar, to those entitled to manage them. In the early years of the Republic, an absurd George Washington cult was contrived as part of the effort "to cultivate the ideological loyalties of the citizenry" and thus create a sense of "viable nationhood," historian Lawrence Friedman comments. Washington was a "perfect man" of "unparalleled perfection," who was raised "above the level of mankind," and so on. To this day, the Founding Fathers remain "those pure geniuses of detached contemplation," far surpassing ordinary mortals (see p. 00). Such reverence persists, notably in elite intellectual circles, the comedy of Camelot being an example. Sometimes a foreign leader ascends to the same semi-divinity among loyal worshippers, and may be described as "a Promethean figure" with "colossal external strength" and "colossal powers," as in the more ludicrous moments of the Stalin era, or in the accolade to Israeli Prime Minister Golda Meir by New Republic owner-editor Martin Peretz, from which these quotes are taken.



Franklin Delano Roosevelt attained similar heights among large sectors of the population, including many of the poor and working class, who placed their trust in him. The aura of sanctity remains among intellectuals who worship at the shrine. Reviewing a laudatory book on FDR by Joseph Alsop in the New York Review of Books, left-liberal social critic Murray Kempton describes the "majesty" of Roosevelt's smile as "he beamed from those great heights that lie beyond the taking of offense... Those of us who were born to circumstances less assured tend to think of, indeed revere, this demeanor as the aristocratic style... [We are] as homesick as Alsop for a time when America was ruled by gentlemen and ladies." Roosevelt and Lucy Mercer "were persons even grander on the domestic stage than they would end up being on the cosmic one," and met the great crisis in their lives, a secret love affair, "in the grandest style." "That Roosevelt was the democrat that great gentlemen always are in no way abated his grandeur... [His blend of elegance with compassion] adds up to true majesty." He left us with "nostalgia" that is "aching." His "enormous bulk" stands between us "and all prior history...endearingly exalted...splendidly eternal for romance," etc., etc. Roosevelt took such complete command that he "left social inquiry...a wasteland," so much so that "ten years went by before a Commerce Department economist grew curious about the distribution of income and was surprised to discover that its inequality had persisted almost unchanged from Hoover, through Roosevelt and Truman..." But that is only the carping of trivial minds. The important fact is that Roosevelt brought us "comfort...owing to his engraving upon the public consciousness the sense that men were indeed equal," whatever the record of economic reform and civil rights may show. There was one published reaction, by Noel Annan, who praised "the encomium that Murray Kempton justly bestowed on Roosevelt." Try as they might, the spinners of fantasy could not even approach such heights in the Reagan era.



The political and social history of Western democracies records all sorts of efforts to ensure that the formal mechanisms are little more than wheels spinning idly. The goal is to eliminate public meddling in formation of policy. That has been largely achieved in the United States, where there is little in the way of political organizations, functioning unions, media independent of the corporate oligopoly, or other popular structures that might offer people means to gain information, clarify and develop their ideas, put them forth in the political arena, and work to realize them. As long as each individual is facing the TV tube alone, formal freedom poses no threat to privilege.



One major step towards barring the annoying public from serious affairs is to reduce elections to the choice of symbolic figures, like the flag, or the Queen of England -- who, after all, opens Parliament by reading the government's political program, though no one asks whether she believes it, or even understands it. If elections become a matter of selecting the Queen for the next four years, then we will have come a long way towards resolving the tension inherent in a free society in which power over investment and other crucial decisions -- hence the political and ideological systems as well -- is highly concentrated in private hands.



For such measures of deterring democracy to succeed, the indoctrination system must perform its tasks properly, investing the leader with majesty and authority and manufacturing the illusions necessary to keep the public in thrall -- or at least, otherwise occupied. In the modern era, one way to approach the task is to rhapsodize (or wail) over the astonishing popularity of the august figure selected to preside from afar. From the early days of the Reagan period it was repeatedly demonstrated that the tales of Reagan's unprecedented popularity, endlessly retailed by the media, were fraudulent. His popularity scarcely deviated from the norm, ranging from about 1/3 to 2/3, never reaching the levels of Kennedy or Eisenhower and largely predictable, as is standard, from perceptions of the direction of the economy. George Bush was one of the most unpopular candidates ever to assume the presidency, to judge by polls during the campaign; after three weeks in office his personal approval rating was 76 percent, well above the highest rating that Reagan ever achieved. Eighteen months after taking office, Bush's personal popularity remained above the highest point that Reagan achieved. Reagan's quick disappearance once his job was done should surprise no one who attended to the role he was assigned.



It is, nonetheless, important to bear in mind that while the substance of democracy was successfully reduced during the Reagan era, still the public remained substantially out of control, raising serious problems for the exercise of power.

[kis123]

Someone needs to help me out with something.........

Many people on this forum have fond memories of Mr. Reagan. Unfortunately, I didn't experience the same fond warm and fuzzies. I was around during the Reagan years. The things I remember about that era were expensive gowns for Nancy, designer china patterns in the White House Dining Room, the so-called abolishment of Communism and the Cold War.

But the biggest things that stick in my mind were the way he treated his own Government employees, and Reganomics. I don't remember anything he did domestically and certainly people of color did not benefit from his eight years in office. He did nothing for the American people except reduce taxes for the very people who can afford to pay them. He claimed the government couldn't afford to pay its employees, but did he and his Congress cronies get a pay cut? And what about the truckers and air traffic controllers he dumped? Once Mr. Reagan got into office, he screwed the very people who put him there. What were his drug policies prior to his son being exposed as a drug addict? He basically ignored the low income neighborhoods where drugs were being dumped and pumped into everyday. But, when Ron has a drug problem, we get the infamous "just say no" campaigns, and those were from Nancy, not Ronald.

No disrespect to the dead intended. He'll have his day long funeral with all the dignitaries giving him glowing praises. As for me, he was a politician just like all the others, plain and simple. He only saw certain people as important, and others as a means to his end. Nothing special about that.

[Mitchell]

My good friend Knox makes some very good points on Reagan. While he was a president, and it is proper that we observe his passing appropriately, I think the 24-7 media circus of the whole thing, and the painting of him as this infallable idol god is way overdone. He was, simply, a man. His greatest accomplishment in my eyes was his helping to tear down the Iron Curtain. Beyond that, I think he was a fundamentally decent person. However, the substance of his policies had many flaws. I dont know where anyone got the idea that the wealthiest americans should pay the least taxes, a concept introduced by him. I think the whole Iran-contra thing was a mark on his legacy. I believe that in fact, years from now, history may remember Reagan as the beginning of the true right wing faction in politics today. His administration also caused huge budget deficits due to his policies. As a person, he was a likable individual, but Iam in disagreement with many of his policies, the majority of which set the stage for our far right leaning government of today.

Mitch

[Haltickling]

One thing (apart from the Iran-Contra-Affair) about Reagan keeps sticking in my mind: He described AIDS as God's punishments for all "faggots, junkies, whores + niggers", at a time when the Western world should and could have taken action. Instead, he shoveled billions into his "star war" program. Bob Hare at AMT wrote a very intense rant about Reagan in AMT.

May he rest in peace in this world, and may he get what he deserves, wherever he is now... :devil:

[kis123]

Originally posted by Haltickling
One thing (apart from the Iran-Contra-Affair) about Reagan keeps sticking in my mind: He described AIDS as God's punishments for all "faggots, junkies, whores + niggers", at a time when the Western world should and could have taken action. Instead, he shoveled billions into his "star war" program. Bob Hare at AMT wrote a very intense rant about Reagan in AMT.

May he rest in peace in this world, and may he get what he deserves, wherever he is now... :devil:

Yeah, How could I forget about the AIDS rhetoric of his administration? Boy, did he ever find out how wrong he was?

[BOFH666]

The economic side certainly makes interesting reading:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2004/06/08/reaganomics/index.html

Among postwar administrations, who had the best record on economic growth? The answer is Kennedy-Johnson (49 percent over eight years), followed by Clinton (34 percent), followed by Reagan (32 percent). Among postwar two-term presidencies, Reagan beats out only Eisenhower (21 percent) and Nixon-Ford (24 percent).

The unemployment rate stood at 6.6 percent when Kennedy took office and at 3.4 percent when Johnson left it. The average over their eight years was 4.8 percent. When Clinton came in, unemployment was at 7.4 percent; it averaged 5.2 percent during his two terms and fell to 3.9 percent by the end. And for Reagan? Unemployment stood at 7.5 percent at his inauguration, and it averaged that same 7.5 percent during his entire eight years. The jobless rate was 5.4 percent when Reagan left office.

Inflation did come down -- from just over 10 percent in the oil crisis year of 1980 to just over 3 percent in 1983. But at whose expense? Here the correct contrast is with FDR, who controlled inflation while doubling output over four years in World War II. In the process, Roosevelt leveled the pay distribution and created the modern American middle class.

Reagan's disinflation came from unemployment over 10 percent, from his attack on unions, and from high interest rates, which drove up the dollar and cheapened imports. Those measures bankrupted much of the manufacturing belt. They damaged the middle class. And they created a vast trade imbalance and a rising external debt whose consequences haunt us still. Precisely what Roosevelt built, in other words, Reagan did much to destroy.

Savings-and-loan deregulation was another Reagan initiative, spearheaded by a task force led by Vice President George H.W. Bush. What did we get from that? A wave of criminal takeovers, leading to failures that ultimately cost taxpayers over $150 billion and resulted in more than 1,000 felony convictions. Ed Gray, Reagan's appointee to the Federal Home Loan Bank Board, saw what was coming and tried to sound the alarm. But his superiors were deaf or did not care. Gray -- a forgotten hero -- was destroyed.

The New York Times headline at Reagan's death read that he "Fostered Cold War Might." But that too was largely transient. Where is the 600-ship Navy of then Navy Secretary John Lehman's dreams? We couldn't afford it. The MX missile, dubbed the "Peacekeeper"? We didn't need it. The Soviet Union was already decrepit, as its experience in Afghanistan was to prove. Star Wars, Reagan's missile defense system, did frighten the Russians -- they feared, correctly, that it fit into a strategy for "preventive" nuclear war. But Star Wars under Reagan was a costly illusion, a waste of talent and technology on an impossible dream, a diversion then as now from our true security needs.

Eventually, things did get better. Reagan's allies were beaten in the House midterm elections of 1982, and the Republicans and conservatives lost dominance there. Thereafter, Reagan became more pragmatic and economic performance improved.

Monetarism was completely abandoned. Large tax increases in 1982 and 1984 took back much of the 1981 tax cut, over supply-siders' objections. What survived kicked in, in 1983 and 1984, to produce a reasonable expansion. This happened on completely Keynesian principles, and it was better than nothing, even though the benefits were skewed to the rich.

But in the end Reagan's means to recovery largely exhausted the U.S. banking and financial system. The stock market collapse of October 1987 was one sign of the strain. The economy went back into recession in 1990, and banks lay dormant, rebuilding their balance sheets but not lending much to the public until 1994. It was for this reason, perhaps more than any other, that the presidency of Bush I did not survive. So I suppose we can thank Reagan, in part, for the rise of Clinton.

[Knox The Hatter]

My best friend said to me that he was watching an episode of 'The Flintstones' some years back with his young daughter. In this episode Fred looks enough like a local business tycoon to pass for him in a pinch. He was told, "all you have to say at the board meeting is, 'who's idea was that?' and 'sounds good to me!'"
My friend laughed and said, "hey! That's the Reagan Presidency!"

[Knox The Hatter]

Thanks, Augie, for the Chomsky article. Right on the money, and it makes those who so badly want to believe the Reagan myths look like what they are.

[maniactickler]

Originally posted by Haltickling
One thing (apart from the Iran-Contra-Affair) about Reagan keeps sticking in my mind: He described AIDS as God's punishments for all "faggots, junkies, whores + niggers", at a time when the Western world should and could have taken action. Instead, he shoveled billions into his "star war" program. Bob Hare at AMT wrote a very intense rant about Reagan in AMT.

May he rest in peace in this world, and may he get what he deserves, wherever he is now... :devil:

do you think he actually said those things? he'd have been tossed out of office for saying that. he also gave endless abouts of money towards aids research. enough with the distortions.

[BigJim]

Originally posted by maniactickler
do you think he actually said those things? he'd have been tossed out of office for saying that. he also gave endless abouts of money towards aids research. enough with the distortions.

Doesn't it strike you as slightly iffy that three people remember him saying that? Or have we just been brainwashed by the raving, liberal media?

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by maniactickler
do you think he actually said those things? he'd have been tossed out of office for saying that. he also gave endless abouts of money towards aids research. enough with the distortions.

Oh please. Look, I don't mind you objecting to statements that are questionable (Hal mate, do you have a source for that quote, I've had a quick look and can't find it?) but, to paraphrase your words, enough with the revisionist history. The simple fact is that the Reagan administration refused to take this disease seriously. Researchers tried to warn the Reagan Administration that there was a mass epidemic working its way through the United States, but despite their numbers and graphs, funding for AIDS research and education was never what it needed to be. Often, funding was so low as to be useless, cut from year to year, or distributed unevenly. Researchers had to resort to political blackmail, threats, borrowing from other programs and bucking the system entirely in order to get the funding they needed. And the true slap in the face was that throughout the crisis, the Reagan Administration called AIDS its "Number One Health Priority." From 1981 to 1985, thousands of people died of AIDS, and Reagan hadn't even said the name of the syndrome in public.

http://www.thebody.com/encyclo/presidency.html

Presidents frequently maintain a low profile with newly identified public health hazards. They often perceive that such concerns offer little political gain and many risks. Gerald Ford's 1976 announcement of the swine flu program was an exception. The response of Presidents Ronald Reagan and George Bush to AIDS fits the more general pattern of presidential caution in addressing public health concerns.

For Reagan, AIDS presented a number of potentially serious political risks. As a presidential candidate, Reagan promised to eliminate the role of the federal government in the limited American welfare state, as well as to raise questions of morality and family in social policy. When AIDS was first reported in 1981, Reagan had recently assumed office and had begun to address the conservative agenda by slashing social programs and cutting taxes and by embracing conservative moral principles. As a result, Reagan never mentioned AIDS publicly until 1987. Most observers contend that AIDS research and public education were not funded adequately in the early years of the epidemic, at a time when research and public education could have saved lives.

In the early 1980s, senior officials from the Department of Health and Human Services pleaded for additional funding behind the scenes while they maintained publicly, for political reasons, that they had enough resources. The Reagan administration treated AIDS as a series of state and local problems rather than as a national problem. This helped to fragment the limited governmental response early in the AIDS epidemic.

AIDS could not have struck at a worse time politically. With the election of Reagan in 1980, the "New Right" in American politics ascended. Many of those who assumed power embraced political and personal beliefs hostile to gay men and lesbians. Health officials, failing to educate about transmission and risk behavior, undermined any chance of an accurate public understanding of AIDS. The new conservatism also engendered hostility toward those with AIDS. People with AIDS (PWAs) were scapegoated and stigmatized. It was widely reported, as well, that New Right groups, such as the Moral Majority, successfully prevented funding for AIDS education programs and counseling services for PWAs. At various points in the epidemic, conservatives called for the quarantining and tattooing of PWAs. Jerry Falwell, the leader of the Moral Majority, was quoted as stating: "AIDS is the wrath of God upon homosexuals."

This larger conservative climate enabled the Reagan administration's indifference toward AIDS. The administration undercut federal efforts to confront AIDS in a meaningful way by refusing to spend the money Congress allocated for AIDS research. In the critical years of 1984 and 1985, according to his White House physician, Reagan thought of AIDS as though "it was measles and it would go away." Reagan's biographer Lou Cannon claims that the president's response to AIDS was "halting and ineffective." It took Rock Hudson's death from AIDS in 1985 to prompt Reagan to change his personal views, although members of his administration were still openly hostile to more aggressive government funding of research and public education. Six years after the onset of the epidemic, Reagan finally mentioned the word "AIDS" publicly at the Third International AIDS Conference held in Washington, D.C. Reagan's only concrete proposal at this time was widespread routine testing.

Reagan and his close political advisers also successfully prevented his surgeon general, C. Everett Koop, from discussing AIDS publicly until Reagan's second term. Congress mandates that the surgeon general's chief responsibility is to promote the health of the American people and to inform the public about the prevention of disease. In the Reagan administration, however, the surgeon general's central role was to promote the administration's conservative social agenda, especially pro-life and family issues.

At a time when the surgeon general could have played an invaluable role in public health education, Koop was prevented from even addressing AIDS publicly. Then, in February 1986, Reagan asked Koop to write a report on the AIDS epidemic. Koop had come to the attention of conservatives in the Reagan administration because of his leading role in the anti-abortion movement. Reagan administration officials fully expected Koop to embrace conservative principles in his report on AIDS.

When the Surgeon General's Report on Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome was released to the public on October 22, 1986, it was a call for federal action in response to AIDS, and it underscored the importance of a comprehensive AIDS education strategy, beginning in grade school. Koop advocated the widespread distribution of condoms and concluded that mandatory identification of people with HIV or any form of quarantine would be useless in addressing AIDS. As part of Koop's broad federal education strategy, the Public Health Service sent AIDS mailers to 107 million American households. Koop's actions brought him into direct conflict with William Bennett, Reagan's secretary of education. Bennett opposed Koop's recommendations and called for compulsory HIV testing of foreigners applying for immigration visas, for marriage license applicants, for all hospital patients, and for prison inmates.

The Reagan administration did little to prohibit HIV/AIDS discrimination. The administration placed responsibility for addressing AIDS discrimination issues with the states rather than with the federal government. In the face of federal inaction, some states and localities passed laws that prohibited HIV/AIDS discrimination. It took the Supreme Court, in its 1987 School Board of Nassau County, Fla. v. Arline decision, to issue a broad ruling that was widely interpreted as protecting those with HIV or AIDS from discrimination in federal executive agencies, in federally assisted programs or activities, or by businesses with federal contracts.

Reagan did appoint the Presidential Commission on the Human Immunodeficiency Virus Epidemic in the summer of 1987; it was later renamed the Watkins Commission, after its chair. With the appointment of this commission, Reagan was able to appease those who demanded a more sustained federal response to AIDS. He also answered the concerns of the New Right by appointing an AIDS commission that included few scientists who had participated in AIDS research and few physicians who had actually treated PWAs. In addition, the commission included outspoken opponents of AIDS education.

In retrospect, it is clear that the commission was created to deflect attention from the administration's own inept policy response to AIDS. The Watkins Commission's final report did recommend a more sustained federal commitment to address AIDS, but this recommendation was largely ignored by both the Reagan and Bush administrations. None of the commissions studying AIDS over the years has recommended a massive federal effort to confront AIDS at all levels of society.

[Haltickling]

Originally posted by maniactickler
do you think he actually said those things? he'd have been tossed out of office for saying that.
I don't know whether Reagan actually said those words. The quotation marks referred to Bob Hare's AMT rant, not to an official source.

Even if he didn't use those words, his actions spoke them, as BOFH rightly says. Isn't it sad that a president could get tossed out of office for his words, but not for an equivalent action?
:devil:

[BigJim]

Kis knows the source I believe.

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Haltickling

Even if he didn't use those words, his actions spoke them, as BOFH rightly says. Isn't it sad that a president could get tossed out of office for his words, but not for an equivalent action?
:devil:

Unless of course the words are "I did not have sex with that woman" and then he's the devil incarnate :rolleyes:. I've never been able to figure that out, Clinton was considered the scum of the earth for using a non-standard cigar holder, Reagan get's away clean with supplying a terrorist organisation (Tron, don't bother, you've failed to argue that the Contra's weren't a terrorist organisation by your own definition on the other thread, unless you can PROVE otherwise don't bother posting please) and of course Bush the Second gets away with "Iraq has WMD" (well, amongst other things, but let's go with the really BIG lie first shall we?).

[maniactickler]

Originally posted by BigJim
Doesn't it strike you as slightly iffy that three people remember him saying that? Or have we just been brainwashed by the raving, liberal media?

i couldnt have put it any better myself. i absolutely believe you liberals get a good dose of brainwashing by the left wing mainstream media. thanks!

[Haltickling]

Oh yeah, the stereotype myth of the "liberal media"! :rolleyes:

According to that myth, every media output which hasn't been dictated by government propaganda gets branded "liberal".

I generally prefer non-government-edited news, even if you call that "brainwashing", thank you very much! I saw the so-called "news" on US media during the Iraq war. Who did the "brainwashing" then? :rolleyes:

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Haltickling
Oh yeah, the stereotype myth of the "liberal media"! :rolleyes:

According to that myth, every media output which hasn't been dictated by government propaganda gets branded "liberal".

I generally prefer non-government-edited news, even if you call that "brainwashing", thank you very much! I saw the so-called "news" on US media during the Iraq war. Who did the "brainwashing" then? :rolleyes:

Uh, Hal mate, word to the wise, I believe Maniac's been neglecting his dried frogs pills recently and seems to be in a fun happy place of liberal plots and commie invasions right about now. We've already done the whole liberal thing with him and.... well, you can probably guess the rest. The usual lack of facts, data and evidence in replies, just undirected spittle. Just so you know ;)

Of course the fact is that while there IS a "liberal media" it is far smaller than the conservative media and virtually all US news stations are right of centre thanks to the need to attract advertising revenues. More importantly the liberal media myth relies on individual journalists being able to influence the news that gets reported. This, quite simply, is cow excrement, as the agenda is set by those running the stations and they are, by and large, NOT left-leaning. Those with the real power on opinions are the talk show hosts and most of those are on the right, not the left. But as I said, been there done that on this subject with Maniac and got the usual abuse back. If you want the facts and figures let me know, I think I've got 'em hanging around here somewhere.

[BigJim]

Originally posted by maniactickler
i couldnt have put it any better myself. i absolutely believe you liberals get a good dose of brainwashing by the left wing mainstream media. thanks!

Don't knock it mate. At least WE need brainwashing before we believe a load of bollocks. :D

[Haltickling]

Thanks, BOFH and Jim. My opinion entirely!

Actually the whole "liberal media" myth reminds me of the "Jewish-controlled media" propaganda during the Nazi regime. Every media opinion which goes astray off the official government line must obviously be controlled by some "state enemy" and "unpatriotic circles". Does that sound familiar or what?

[BigJim]

No, never heard of that before. :D

[august spies]

hal, its the same principe "liberal media" really means jew run media to these people. the main source of the liberal media myth are the right wing christian identity wack jobs who are anti semetic.

For one of the best criticisms of mainstream media for being government lapdogs ive seen from here on earth is noam chomsky's manufacturing consent.

[venray]

Originally posted by august spies
hal, its the same principe "liberal media" really means jew run media to these people. the main source of the liberal media myth are the right wing christian identity wack jobs who are anti semetic.

For one of the best criticisms of mainstream media for being government lapdogs ive seen from here on earth is noam chomsky's manufacturing consent.

Do you ever actually read what you post or does all of this stuff come right off the top of your head..now conservatives are anti semetic whack jobs??

You really know how to make people disregard anything you say by posting that kind of drivel August.....:rolleyes:

[Strider]

Wow,all this time I was under the impression I believed there was a liberal media bias because,well,virtually every poll I've ever seen shows journalists regarding themselves as liberal.And also the fact that when I read the LA Times it's blindingly obvious.

Now I find out it's because I don't like Jews and believe they're running things.I never realized this.This is really odd seeing as I happen to be Jewish myself and I don't recall being invited to the Evil Secret Zionist Conspiracy(tm)meetings to discuss controlling the media.But I guess you're a mind reader August,and you know my reasons for thinking what I do better than I do myself.

[august spies]

i said right wing christian identists are wack jobs, maybe you should actually read what i write before attacking my post. There is lots of research that ties the christian right to anti semitism, and not just the identity movement either.

my argument with the media has nothing to do with liberal or conservative bias, whatever those terms are supposed to mean. It has to do with them being lapdogs for power.

[venray]

Originally posted by august spies
i said right wing christian identists are wack jobs, maybe you should actually read what i write before attacking my post. There is lots of research that ties the christian right to anti semitism, and not just the identity movement either.

my argument with the media has nothing to do with liberal or conservative bias, whatever those terms are supposed to mean. It has to do with them being lapdogs for power.

I did..and it was easy to figure out what you meant.;) Your cute little phrases and anarchistic quotes hold very little substance.

Lapdogs of power comes up on all kinds of anarchy sites on the web, but nowhere else. Funny how the sites also mention the non existant liberal controlled media and the tricks the conservatives play to confuse people. It's all the same stuff over and over, and like a good little parrot you have learned the phrases well, but do not really know the meaning.

"Gee, I guess the liberal news media aren't sounding so liberal after all, are they? In fact, they sound more like the lapdogs of power and money than anything else. Liberals are sneaky like that. They will trick you by uniformly, unfailingly taking the side of big business and other powerful interests. "

http://www.crankymediaguy.com/backissues/2000/w041800.html


As for your "right wing Christian Identists"...what you are saying is that the whole concept of the "liberal media" has been concocted by the KKK and other extremist groups?

Oh..PLEASE back that one up with a reliable source..(and by reliable I do not mean Noam or his cohorts)

[maniactickler]

im not christian nor am i anti semetic, but im still sane enough to know the majority of mainstream news is liberal. bofh and his pack of liberal friends can come up with all the dribble you want to say its not. you libs are masters of manipulation. i for one will never fall for it.

[ShiningIce]

you libs are masters of manipulation. i for one will never fall for it.


Holy shit this guys on to us!! Crap, well that damn goody goody's foiled are vile scheme again guys. Lets go hug some trees or something :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

[MrMacphisto]

I'm gonna go out on a limb and agree with the conservatives in this thread in one respect...

The media is very socially liberal (not including Fox News or talk radio, of course). In general, most journalists actually do proscribe to liberal social views, like being very politically correct. On the other hand, most journalists have been shown to be conservative economically. The most extreme examples of this are the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Post. Many newspapers, magazines, radio stations, internet news sources, and TV stations tend to support more conservative, free market economics viewpoints. The ironic thing is, free market economics, which are often labeled as laissez-faire economic policies, are referred to as Classically Liberal in economic terms. Liberal in economic terms is when the government is less invasive and generally lets the market run itself. To understand this viewpoint better, you could label Democrats as being socially liberal but economically conservative, due to their support for more government regulation. By contrast, Republicans could be labelled as socially conservative but economically liberal, because they prefer the government to be less involved in the market. Libertarians are actually liberal both ways, in that they want the government to stay out of both social and economic issues.

In conclusion, if you really want to be technical about media bias, the media tends to be economically liberal and socially liberal, which means that it favors Democrats socially and Republicans economically, while it favors Libertarians on both areas. The last irony of this situation is that, despite this Libertarian bias, very few people regard themselves as Libertarians.....

[BOFH666]

Mac - The problem is, that while what you say is true and well documented, it isn't what people like Maniac mean when they say "liberal media". They're using it to attack anything that's said against the current (and now past) presidents and administrations because they feel that the media is biased towards a particular political party. As you rightly say, where they are biased it is towards views on individual issues. From this Brit's perspective, every time I look at a news channel in the states, especially if it's a story on Iraq, I can't help but be shocked at how RIGHT wing everything is, down to the graphics used to introduce the story.

It should also be pointed out that in the areas that really matter, the Jery Springer type of "political talk show" (the O'Reily Factor for example, or good ol' Rush) that attract large audiences of people willing to be "convinced" by the "fair and balanced" perspective portrayed the majority of these presenters ARE "conservative media" in the sense that Maniac means when he says Liberal meida. In other words they want BushCo back in the whitehouse for another four years and sink to trully disgusting levels to get it.

Maniac's right about one thing though, the media are masters of manipulation. Look at the New York Times, a source I often see quoted as a liberal haven of lies by Maniac and his ilk. Those liberal whack jobs had to publish an apology. Why? Well.....

After months of criticism of The New York Times' coverage of weapons of mass destruction in Iraq – mainly directed at star reporter Judith Miller – the paper's editors, in an extraordinary note to readers this morning, finally tackled the subject, acknowledging it was "past time" they do so. Following the sudden fall last week of Ahmad Chalabi, Miller's most famous source, they probably had no choice.

"In some cases, information that was controversial then, and seems questionable now, was insufficiently qualified or allowed to stand unchallenged," the editors' note said. "Looking back, we wish we had been more aggressive in re-examining the claims as new evidence emerged — or failed to emerge."

While it does not, in some ways, go nearly far enough, and is buried on Page A10, this low-key but scathing self-rebuke is nothing less than a primer on how not to do journalism, particularly if you are an enormously influential newspaper with a costly invasion of another nation at stake.

So this 'Liberal' media outlet has had to apologise for decieving the American people with information that turned out to be not only wrong but that came from the man who was basically motivating the entire invasion. And of course local newspapers often take their stories from the Times, with estimates that up to 300 newspapers around the country may have carried the questionable stories. But of course, it's all a huge liberal conspiracy, right? :rolleyes:

[kis123]

Originally posted by BOFH666
So this 'Liberal' media outlet has had to apologise for decieving the American people with information that turned out to be not only wrong but that came from the man who was basically motivating the entire invasion. And of course local newspapers often take their stories from the Times, with estimates that up to 300 newspapers around the country may have carried the questionable stories. But of course, it's all a huge liberal conspiracy, right? :rolleyes:

So the media had to publish an apology for misinformation, huh? I'm just wondering if my President or his administration ever apologized or even acknowledged it's WMD blunder or it's flat-out lying about the alleged relationship between BinLaden and Hussein? Just curious, I guess:confused:

It's funny how we're held to standards our government doesn't have to follow. It's a blatant example of a "Do as I say, not as I do" philosophy. How much debt is the US in right now? Multitrillion, did you say? If we're more than .01 cents short in our bank account, we'd have our account closed, prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law, and possibly jailed. And let's not forget the restitution that would have to be paid. If it's good enough for US citizens, shouldn't it be good enough for our government and leaders?

:disgust: :ignite: :ranty:

[BigJim]

Okaaaaaaaaayyy.....


I'm one or two tenths Jewish, with the rest being WASP. I consider myself a centre conservative, but am considered by others to be a commie or at best, a limp-wristed liberal.

That means I hate just about every part of myself.


Shit, now I'm REALLY confused!

[maniactickler]

Originally posted by ShiningIce
Holy shit this guys on to us!! Crap, well that damn goody goody's foiled are vile scheme again guys. Lets go hug some trees or something :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

good idea! you might as well hug some trees. you libs put trees on the same level as human beings anyway. so go hug a human, oops, i meant a tree!

[BigJim]

Ice my friend, please take some advice from me and don't try to match intellect with maniac. He's just two razor sharp of mind and rapier-like of wit. You wouldn't stand a chance. :dogpile:

[Knox The Hatter]

On the subject of trees, in my back yard, I have a baby oak. When we bought the house three years ago, my wife noticed it growing right in the middle of a shrub. It was only three feet tall back then, a tiny, scrawny little thing. We've since gotten rid of the shrub, and now she stands a good five and a half feet tall or so, and can withstand all kinds of weather. This beautiful young tree will outlive us all. One thing's for certain, this tree will not start an argument with me about the pros of Supply Side Economics, or complain about the bias against Christians in this country, or bitch about some Hollywood star standing up for what he or she believes is right, or drone on endlessly and mindlessly about the mythical, stupid "Liberal Media". The tree will grow, as surely as we shall overcome Idiocy in this country.
I love it so much that I think I'll hug it :D

[BigJim]

So long as you don't shag it mate. ;)

[ticklebutton]

Originally posted by kis123
So the media had to publish an apology for misinformation, huh?

I'm just wondering if my President or his administration ever apologized or even acknowledged ...
Kis, only Colin Powell did. I posted about that here: [http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?threadid=44077]

Powell has said his presentation to the U.N.
“was based on...the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community. But it turns out that the information was inaccurate and wrong and, in some cases, deliberately misleading. It appears not to be the case that it was that solid,” he said.

[http://www.why-war.com/news/2003/05/12/selectiv.html]

The "false source" was given a salary of $350,000 a month, and was backed by an array of powerful neo-conservatives including names from the Reagan Administration - Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle,

and Caspar Weinberger - remember him? Reagan's Defense Secretary who was scheduled to be tried for his involvement in Iran-Contra until Bush Sr. pardoned him? [http://www.fas.org/news/iran/1992/921224-260039.htm]

In fact several of the men involved in "irregular" activities in the Reagan Administration have not only been pardoned, but now hold positions in the current Bush Jr. administration.

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...anguage=printer][http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/25/09/allen2509.html]

NONE of whom has ever uttered a peep of explanation or apology.

If you're a friend of Reagan/Bush/Bush et al, you're above the law.

Button

[ticklebutton]

Knox, I love this story of your relationship with your little tree!

And if you choose to pursue an alternate lifestyle with your sweet tree, I will support your right to do so!

Button :cool:

[Cosmo_ac]

Buttion...after reading so many of your posts...i wish you'd come back to the chat more often! :D Love you hun ;)

[maniactickler]

Originally posted by Knox The Hatter
On the subject of trees, in my back yard, I have a baby oak. When we bought the house three years ago, my wife noticed it growing right in the middle of a shrub. It was only three feet tall back then, a tiny, scrawny little thing. We've since gotten rid of the shrub, and now she stands a good five and a half feet tall or so, and can withstand all kinds of weather. This beautiful young tree will outlive us all. One thing's for certain, this tree will not start an argument with me about the pros of Supply Side Economics, or complain about the bias against Christians in this country, or bitch about some Hollywood star standing up for what he or she believes is right, or drone on endlessly and mindlessly about the mythical, stupid "Liberal Media". The tree will grow, as surely as we shall overcome Idiocy in this country.
I love it so much that I think I'll hug it :D

If i were you, id chop that tree down for some firewood. or maybe make a baseball bat. if you let it grow, eventually the roots will affect your foundation. consider it cutting down a piece of liberalism. so youll be helping out society. just a helpful suggestion.

[kis123]

Originally posted by ticklebutton
Kis, only Colin Powell did. I posted about that here: [http://www.ticklingforum.com/showthread.php?threadid=44077]

Powell has said his presentation to the U.N.
“was based on...the collective judgment, the sound judgment of the intelligence community. But it turns out that the information was inaccurate and wrong and, in some cases, deliberately misleading. It appears not to be the case that it was that solid,” he said.

[http://www.why-war.com/news/2003/05/12/selectiv.html]

The "false source" was given a salary of $350,000 a month, and was backed by an array of powerful neo-conservatives including names from the Reagan Administration - Donald Rumsfeld, Paul Wolfowitz, Richard Perle,

and Caspar Weinberger - remember him? Reagan's Defense Secretary who was scheduled to be tried for his involvement in Iran-Contra until Bush Sr. pardoned him? [http://www.fas.org/news/iran/1992/921224-260039.htm]

In fact several of the men involved in "irregular" activities in the Reagan Administration have not only been pardoned, but now hold positions in the current Bush Jr. administration.

[http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/w...anguage=printer][http://www.inthesetimes.com/issue/25/09/allen2509.html]

NONE of whom has ever uttered a peep of explanation or apology.

If you're a friend of Reagan/Bush/Bush et al, you're above the law.

Button

Thank you button for that very interesting piece of info. Didn't Condoleeza Rice take the heat for the 9-11 fiasco? Now you say Colin Powell apologized for something he wasn't directly a part of. He has a habit of being a figurehead for Republicans doesn't he? Let's not forget his important role in the Gulf War, if you think figurehead is an important role. How much say-so did he really have? But he was always there on the front lines of he media wasn't he? It's starting to look like our administration likes to hide behind the skirts or pantlegs of people of color. I wouldn't want to be a person of color working in his administration.

[Cosmo_ac]

I don't think it's so much hiding behind a man of color Kis. Simply put, Colin powel is one of the most respected american figureheads around. I admit, i've not done a tone of research on him, but from what i've seen he handles himself with a perfect combination of pride, and humility. The bush team is lucky they have him, or they would have never gotten this far. On, the other side though, Colin Powel is unlucky he got stuck with the Bush team ;)

[Haltickling]

Colin Powell is the most respected politician of the Bush administration, in the view of the rest of the world. IMO, he's the only one who shows real style. Make him your president, and the world will respect America again, instead of just fearing it. Pity that his resume is already tainted with a Bush administration history... ;)

[Bulldogge]

Originally posted by Haltickling
Colin Powell is the most respected politician of the Bush administration, in the view of the rest of the world. IMO, he's the only one who shows real style. Make him your president, and the world will respect America again, instead of just fearing it. Pity that his resume is already tainted with a Bush administration history... ;)

His record is tainted beyond the Bush administration:

"How many people know that Donald Rumsfeld gave Saddam Hussein golden spurs back in 1983? A little of that has begun to leak out, but how many people know that Colin Powell, the present administration moderate, was the National Security Advisor at the time of Halabja massacre, when the Reagan administration, responded by simply increasing aid to Saddam Hussein, as did the first Bush administration later.

They knew that this aid was used for chemical and biological warfare, and for developing missiles and nuclear weapons. But they did not care so the aid continued.

Nowadays, Powell moans about the graves in Halabja, but he didn't care at the time. They now claim this was because of the war with Iran, but it had nothing to do with the war in Iran. The war in Iran was over. They provided aid to their friend Saddam Hussein because of their duty to support US exporters, as they said on public record.

When Saddam Hussein was massacring the Kurds, he was also wiping out agricultural areas. They needed agricultural aid and US agro-business was delighted to have the US taxpayer pay them to send agricultural aid to Iraq. Ronald Reagan, George Bush, Colin Powell and Dick Cheney thought that was just fine."
-Noam Chomsky

That bothers me more than his role in the current administration. A lot more. To me, a person with true moral integrity would have resigned in protest. And just so you know, I refused to vote for Al Gore on the same grounds, since he was part of an administration which refused to acknowledge or prevent the genocide in Rawanda.

To be a world leader a person has to do more than look good as a moderate in a time when extreme political views dominate the landscape. He has to be a true man of conscience.

[ticklebutton]

Originally posted by cosmo_ac
Simply put, Colin Powell is one of the most respected american figureheads around.
And has been for a long time. Colin Powell is a brilliant PR guy. He's the man that the past three presidents have trotted out when things got sticky.

His latest assignment (and you know he will choose to accept it) is damage control over the U.S. State Department report that incorrectly showed a decline last year in terrorism worldwide.

The false conclusion that terrorism is on the decline was used to boost one of U.S. President George W. Bush's chief foreign policy claims - success in countering terror.

In fact, terrorism has increased.

That was a "big mistake," Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday. "Very embarrassing. I am not a happy camper over this. We were wrong," the secretary told NBC's "Meet the Press."

[http://english.peopledaily.com.cn/200406/15/eng20040615_146345.html]

In the Reagan administration he was the senior military advisor to Secretary of Defense Casper Weinberger, whom he assisted during the invasion of Grenada and the raid on Libya.

Powell was called upon to testify before Congress in private session about the covert shipment of American arms to Iran; he was one of only five persons in the Pentagon who knew about the operation.

In 1987 Reagan appointed him National Security Advisor.

In the Bush Sr administration he was the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, (the highest military position in the Department of Defense) overseeing the Gulf War along with Secretary of Defense Dick Cheney.

So don't feel too sorry for him because he's the designated apologist mouthpiece of the current Bush Administration - he's chosen his career & has performed it well over decades.

Here're some links if you want to read about him.
[http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&q=colin+powell+bush+reagan]

Button :bubble:

[ticklebutton]

Originally posted by cosmo_ac
Button...after reading so many of your posts...i wish you'd come back to the chat more often! :D Love you hun ;)
:justlips: What a sweet note, thank you angel!

Check your PMs, I'll see you soon.

Button :smilelove

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by ticklebutton

His latest assignment (and you know he will choose to accept it) is damage control over the U.S. State Department report that incorrectly showed a decline last year in terrorism worldwide.

The false conclusion that terrorism is on the decline was used to boost one of U.S. President George W. Bush's chief foreign policy claims - success in countering terror.

In fact, terrorism has increased.

That was a "big mistake," Secretary of State Colin Powell said Sunday. "Very embarrassing. I am not a happy camper over this. We were wrong," the secretary told NBC's "Meet the Press."



And isn't it funny how that 'mistake' played right into Bush's agenda during an election year and not only omited incidents but didn't even add up the data it DID present correctly? :rolleyes: The worst part is the "liberal" media will relagate the story to page 10 when the revised report comes out and the outright lie that 'it's all good' will continue.

[BigJim]

Is it my imagination, or are there Mods who can't tell the difference between satiracal humour and flaming?

[Knox The Hatter]

Originally posted by maniactickler
If i were you, id chop that tree down for some firewood. or maybe make a baseball bat. if you let it grow, eventually the roots will affect your foundation. consider it cutting down a piece of liberalism. so youll be helping out society. just a helpful suggestion.

Hmm...a baseball bat...
nah...the tree already has a higher intelligence quotient than most of the right wingers I've ever met in my life combined. Nah. Let it grow.

[kis123]

Originally posted by Haltickling
Colin Powell is the most respected politician of the Bush administration, in the view of the rest of the world. IMO, he's the only one who shows real style. Make him your president, and the world will respect America again, instead of just fearing it. Pity that his resume is already tainted with a Bush administration history... ;)

Let me know when this country allows a black man to enter the White House as President and I'll be the first to work on Colin Powell's campaign. Although I have my own opinions about him being no more than White House window dressing, I think he's an articulate and eloquent speaker. I also think he's a great politician by knowing just where he fits in and how far he is allowed to go. But he is always available to take the heat along with Ms. Rice.

I've already experienced how many members of the TMF view racism. Many people have their own viewpoint, and I feel they're wrong. I don't have a problem thinking Bush uses Powell as a whipping post when things go wrong. How about the way Condoleeza Rice was hung to dry for the 9-11 disaster? How about the real players with decision-making authority going before commissions explaining what happened in 9-11?

[kis123]

Originally posted by BigJim
Is it my imagination, or are there Mods who can't tell the difference between satiracal humour and flaming?

Been asking the same question myself. This thread has gotten way beyond it's original spirit, and I have a hand in swaying it as well as many others. But, political views aside, we can state our opinions and facts without resulting to throwing insults when the wisdom and wit doesn't work.

Agree to disagree and behave like adults! :mad:

[BigJim]

Certainly yeah, but I meant my post that did an impersonation of The Rock doing a promo. I nicked his comment about going to the learning tree with The Undertaker and breaking off a branch, shining it up etc. I did it in response to other posters seeming to be on a similar level of intellectual argument, meaning to show by my warped humour just what I thought of their variant of "reasoning". Sadly it seems to have been deleted, so I assume someone thought I was literally flaming. :(

[BigJim]

Originally posted by kis123
Let me know when this country allows a black man to enter the White House as President and I'll be the first to work on Colin Powell's campaign. Although I have my own opinions about him being no more than White House window dressing, I think he's an articulate and eloquent speaker.

From what I hear he was ready to run some time ago, and would probably have won because of his history of long service to the country. I think it would havebeen distracting during his innauguration speech to be dodging from left to right of the stage though.

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by BigJim
Certainly yeah, but I meant my post that did an impersonation of The Rock doing a promo. I nicked his comment about going to the learning tree with The Undertaker and breaking off a branch, shining it up etc. I did it in response to other posters seeming to be on a similar level of intellectual argument, meaning to show by my warped humour just what I thought of their variant of "reasoning". Sadly it seems to have been deleted, so I assume someone thought I was literally flaming. :(

You have got to be kidding me!

*Re-reads thread*

You're not kidding me!

So let me get this straight, Jim 'borrowing' (okay, ripping off) one of the most famous sayings of the last decade in response to some fairly innane waffle is considered offensive enough to be banned (the post, not Jim) whereas:


bofh and his pack of liberal friends can come up with all the dribble you want to say its not. you libs are masters of manipulation. i for one will never fall for it.


Gets to stay? Did Rock sue for royalties or something? Neither have got any real purpose as far as debate goes but at least Jim's was funny! :D And, for that matter, non-offensive. :sowrong:

Shenanigans! Shenanigans!

[Bulldogge]

Originally posted by BOFH666
Shenanigans! Shenanigans!

I'll have to run home and get my broom!:D

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Bulldogge
I'll have to run home and get my broom!:D

*Breaks open big box o' brooms*

Here you go. we got regular, large, super size or doublewide, take your pick :D

[Bulldogge]

Originally posted by BOFH666
*Breaks open big box o' brooms*

Here you go. we got regular, large, super size or doublewide, take your pick :D

Doublewide, of course!

[BOFH666]

Originally posted by Bulldogge
Doublewide, of course!

Here you go, brush in good health and may your bristles never fray.

Anyone else want one while I've got the box open?

[Ghost2004]

Gimme a broom emblazoned with the Canadian flag si vous plait! ;)

Totally off topic but remember curling is a big sport in Canada, not only do we know how to use our STICKS but also our brooms as well( See the film "Men with Brooms") .

Cleanin the White House, sweepin away Bush in 2004

Ghostie

[Roseblossom]

Originally posted by BOFH666
Here you go, brush in good health and may your bristles never fray.
Anyone else want one while I've got the box open?
Thank you, darlin', but I'll just fly over on my own broom. :p

~Rosewitch~

[Knox The Hatter]

The Rose Rules, folks. Never forget that...:)

[leafstk]

Originally posted by Ghost2004
Gimme a broom emblazoned with the Canadian flag si vous plait! ;)

Totally off topic but remember curling is a big sport in Canada, not only do we know how to use our STICKS but also our brooms as well( See the film "Men with Brooms") .

Ghostie

Not all of us play with brooms, hon, LOL! :p :D And who ever said curling was a sport anyway? :rolleyes:

[leafstk]

Back on topic (I think, lol), I was watching a very interesting interview with former Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev. It was featured on CBC's the Passionate Eye. I was very impressed with the way he carried himself, having once been Reagan's greatest rival. He spoke with the utmost respect for President Reagan, yet wasn't afraid to pull any punches or ask serious questions. I wish I had the transcript in front of me, it was that good an interview. What I found most intriguing was the way he pointed out how Reagan demonized Communism, something Gorbechev believed in passionately at the time. He made the interesting comment that the U.S.S.R. perceived communism to be the true and right way, the same way as the U.S. and most of the western world perceive democracy today. After watching the walls of communism come down, he wondered how long it would be until democracy suffers the same fate in lands that can't and never have conceived of it. The point he was getting at, is that the Soviet Union pushed and preached the ways of Communism as the only true and right way, the same as the U.S. wishes to democratize the third world today. It's like mixing oil and water, it just won't work. Simple food for thought.

[Roseblossom]

Originally posted by leafstk
...Mikhail Gorbachev. wasn't afraid to pull any punches or ask serious questions. I wish I had the transcript in front of me, it was that good an interview.
What I found most intriguing was the way he pointed out how Reagan demonized Communism, something Gorbechev believed in passionately at the time. He made the interesting comment that the U.S.S.R. perceived communism to be the true and right way, the same way as the U.S. and most of the western world perceive democracy today. After watching the walls of communism come down, he wondered how long it would be until democracy suffers the same fate in lands that can't and never have conceived of it.
I see him as the man who ended the Cold War. He seems like such an upright man; I wonder if he ever, for political expediency, committed acts of dishonesty and told untruths which, had they been uncovered by a free press, would have had his people in outrage.

Wish I'd seen that interview, thanks Leaf.

~Rose~

[maniactickler]

looks like we have people siding with the soviet union here. but id expect that from conservatism haters.

[BigJim]

There's a bloke like you in a play called The Crucible maniac. :D

[maniactickler]

Originally posted by BigJim
There's a bloke like you in a play called The Crucible maniac. :D

Bloke? isnt that the middle part of an egg? :rolleyes:

[BigJim]

Something like that. :D

[Haltickling]

Originally posted by maniactickler
Bloke? isnt that the middle part of an egg? :rolleyes:
No, that's the thing around the oxens' neck when pulling a plough. Not to be confused with a yoke, which is the yellow part of the egg! :rolleyes: :p

[Knox The Hatter]

Anyone who actually believes in the mentally retarded concept of successfully planting Democracy in Iraq or anywhere else in the middle east is a complete, total, unadulterated, polyunsaturated idiot. Believing in the tooth fairy is a far more plausible option. To many people in the middle east, Democracy is tying a leash around a naked, hooded man and dragging him around a cell, with a woman laughing and giving thumbs up with her fingers at a camera. Democracy is spending months and months without water or electricity. Democracy is the inability to control the more fractious elements in your midst, thus making the mere day to day life a complete nightmare.

Let the truly gullible believe this fecal matter about instituting Democracy in the middle east. They'd do anything rather than accept the truth.

[leafstk]

Exactly Gorby's point, Knox. But not as pointed, lol ;)

[Knox The Hatter]

Waiting for next year can be frustrating...

Many years ago, I met Max Bentley down in Florida, at some club. Not an official appearance, by any means, just him sitting around a table, telling the old war stories. I met him through someone I knew. He said that way back when, the Leafs only won when they got serious. I'm reasonably certain that Canadians would get a slight inkling of what he was talking about, but for the rest of you, try to imagine what 'serious' meant to a man who, in his youth, played with chicken wire in place of the plexiglas, who never wore a helmet, and slapped pucks at goalies who didn't wear masks.

One more thing: the Toronto Maple Leafs took home somewhere between eight and ten Stanley Cups between VE Day and the first expansion, in 1967. Serious.

[leafstk]

You don't have to remind me of that, lol :p ;) Waiting for them just to reach the FINALS since 1967 has been a frustrating task for the legions of Maple Leafs fans :ranty: They've come damn close in recent years, but yes, today's NHL is much different than in the golden years. Not just the equipment, but the size of these guys, 30 teams instead of 6 and host of other factors. The Stanley Cup has gotta be the toughest trophy in sports to attain - which makes the ride getting there all the more special and exciting :D Now if only they would get "serious" about it, LOL! :D That must have been cool to chat with Max Bentley. Thanks for sharing, Knox :)