Jump to content


Getting an "Insecure Connection" warning for Exisle? No worry

Details in this thread

Senator's Comments Draw Fire

John Kerry Iraq

  • Please log in to reply
132 replies to this topic

#101 Banapis

Banapis

    Tilting at Shadow Depositories

  • Islander
  • 2,222 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 09:34 AM

Javert Rovinski, on Apr 5 2003, 05:47 AM, said:

Even suggesting there's any sort of equivalance between the two is dubious. At best.
That's the problem.  Just look at the plain language of what Kerry said:

"What we need now is not just a regime change in Saddam Hussein and Iraq, but we need a regime change in the United States." Where does he suggest the Bush regime is actually like Saddam's?

The only comparison he makes is that of "change."  Just as we're changing the people in power in country x, he thinks it's a good idea to change the people in power at home.  You have to be willing to take considerable liberties in reading in one's own prejudices into the statement in order to conclude he was equating the Hussein regime to the Bush regime in terms of actual conduct or policies.  And quite frankly, the phrase "presidential regime" (and even "Bush regime") was in common use long before the Iraq conflict was a blip on the radar screen.

Also, from my 1992 edition of "The New Webster's Dictionary and Roget's Thesaurus":

Quote

Regime: n. Style or tenure of rule or management; administration; an ordered mode of dieting.

I think it's entirely appropriate for a Presidential Challenger to say we need a new "style of rule," or a new "tenure of rule," or new "management" of the country, or a new "administration."

And he can go on all the diets he wants to, as far as I'm concerned.  ;) :D

Banapis

#102 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 09:37 AM

Banapis-- I apologize for not being clear.

I have no problem with Kerry's comments.

None.

Micheal's comments in this thread I take exception with, and I feel he drew an unfair comparison between Iraq and the US that just isn't justified. :). Again, all IMO.
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#103 Banapis

Banapis

    Tilting at Shadow Depositories

  • Islander
  • 2,222 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 09:42 AM

^ Er... oops? :blush:

Sorry, Rov.  Leaving thread now.

Banapis

#104 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 09:48 AM

No need to leave Banapis, just a simple misunderstanding. It's my fault for posting while not under the influence of sleep....
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#105 MichaelHinman

MichaelHinman

    www.SyFyPortal.com

  • Islander
  • 172 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 07:17 PM

the'Hawk, on Apr 5 2003, 01:10 AM, said:

MichaelHinman, on Apr 5 2003, 01:06 AM, said:

Do you know how ludicrous you sound?
Aww, that's cute. I was just gonna say that to you.

You're seeing the Christian right conspiracy behind every bush there, pal.

And with all due respect to your mighty viewpoint, you've really got to bring it down a notch.

You know why? Because I'm not an American, that's why. I'm here for discussion. Not for campaign issues.

You want to get someone else elected, go door to door with a petition.

You want to have a discussion without getting pissy, you come back and find me. We'll pick up where we left off.

Until then you're not worth my time.

But by all means, have a super day.

:cool:
Let me tell you something, Hawk.

I didn't say ANYTHING about you personally, only what you were saying. You respond to that with personal attacks, calling me paranoid of some "Christian" conspiracy or the like.

I do not have the time or patience to talk to people like you who cannot be respectful of people. If you want to attack what I say, or my actions, that's one thing. But when you get personal, that's when I have to say buh-bye.

And your condescending "super day" doesn't score you a lot of further points either.
Michael Hinman
www.SyFyPortal.com

#106 MichaelHinman

MichaelHinman

    www.SyFyPortal.com

  • Islander
  • 172 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 07:19 PM

Javert Rovinski, on Apr 5 2003, 01:11 AM, said:

MichaelHinman, on Apr 4 2003, 11:04 PM, said:

Quote

I hear about how no one in Iraq is allowed to have an opinion .. if they DARE say something bad about Saddam, what happens to them, Javert? Are they invited to dinner at Saddam's presidential palace?

No.

They are tortured, they are outcast ... sometimes, they are killed.

Correct.

Quote

War and Bush supporters want you to ONLY speak your opinion if it's in line with Bush's opinion. You have to support him, or shut the hell up. You are ostracized, you are called unAmerican, and in fact, some people label your words as TREASONOUS.

The difference:

It's not the government doing that. It's conservative commentators, it's some people at large, and it's just tolk.

Quote

Do you know the actual penalty for treason during wartime, Javert? Look it up.

Yes, I do. It can be death.

How many people have been charged with treason in the US in the past year?  How many have been charged with treason in connection with Iraq, ever?

Most of the peace protestors who violate the law are taken in, pay a fine, and are out within a few hours.

The equivalance just isn't there. YMMV.
Javert ... you have some good points. And when I get into any deep discussion, I don't do it just to keep pounding my closed-minded points home. I do it to listen to what others have to say, and many times, I change my mind based on what they say.

And I definitely see your point on that, so I concede there.  :cool:
Michael Hinman
www.SyFyPortal.com

#107 Rov Judicata

Rov Judicata

    Crassly Irresponsible and Indifferent

  • Islander
  • 15,720 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 07:21 PM

^

:cool: :cool: :cool:

:). :ninja:
St. Louis must be destroyed!

Me: "I have a job and five credit cards and am looking into signing a two year lease.  THAT MAKES ME OLD."
Josh: "I don't have a job, I have ONE credit card, I'm stuck in a lease and I'm 28! My mom's basement IS ONE BAD DECISION AWAY!"
~~ Josh, winning the argument.

"Congress . . . shall include every idiot, lunatic, insane person, and person non compos mentis[.]" ~1 U.S.C. § 1, selectively quoted for accuracy.

#108 AnneZo

AnneZo
  • Islander
  • 688 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 07:41 PM

tennyson, on Apr 5 2003, 05:51 AM, said:

Annezo, I believe you meant NAFTA(North American Free Trade Agreement) not NATO(North Atlantic Treaty Organization), since NATO is not nor has it ever been an economic treaty, only a military allience for the defence of Europe and North America.
I did, and thankyou for the correction. I shouldn't post when I'm tired. :)

#109 AnneZo

AnneZo
  • Islander
  • 688 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 07:49 PM

Uncle Sid, on Apr 5 2003, 06:15 AM, said:

The timing is irrelevant since for the most part, as the practices that caused the recession: ie. dot-com overheating, financial mismanagement and dishonest reporting problems, occurred throughout the Clinton administration.  Certainly any action that Bush could have taken, Clinton could have taken earlier and probably with better results.  And don't tell me that they couldn't have predicted it, I predicted the meltdown about a year before it happened, and corporate ethics is a constant topic of discussion.  You'd think that a Democrat administration might have taken interest, wouldn't you?  After all, they aren't the evil coroprate-loving Republicans, right?
Not that I'm expecting us all to be fair and completely impartial, but you might at least mention the attempts that Clinton made to institute things like corporate reform before the outrage by contributors and the outrage in Congress put a stop to them, okay?

I find it just a teensy bit annoying :) to read a post written as though the idea of reforms never occurred during the Clinton Administration.

Drat.  Have to go, can't read the rest of the posts, probably won't get back on-line until tomorrow.

Y'all have a good day and stay civil.  :D

#110 the 'Hawk

the 'Hawk
  • Islander
  • 5,281 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 08:22 PM

Yeah, lovely.

Look, if you don't have a point, I would suggest we just leave it as it were and walk away, if but out of courtesy to people who aren't us.

That work for you? Great.

And, really, I mean it. Have yourself one super day.

:cool:
“Now is the hour, Riders of Rohan, oaths you have taken! Now, fulfil them all! To lord and land!”  
~ Eomer, LotR:RotK

#111 Ro-Astarte

Ro-Astarte

    goddess of love and blowing things up

  • Islander
  • 3,842 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 08:32 PM

Politics is always a heated subject to discuss. Please keep the heat for the topic, not the "loyal opposition" who have an opinion different than yours.

Moderately yours,

Ro

#112 MuseZack

MuseZack

    132nd S.O.C.

  • Demigod
  • 5,432 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 09:00 PM

Amen, Ro.  


In the interests of remaining friends with all the good folks in the topic-- and that's what I consider each and every one of you-- I'm gonna bow out of this thread for now.

Z
"Some day, after we have mastered the wind, the waves, the tides, and gravity,
We shall harness for God the energies of Love.
Then, for the second time in the history of the world,
we will have discovered fire."
--Father Pierre Teilhard de Chardin

#113 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 09:07 PM

Cardie, on Apr 4 2003, 09:12 PM, said:

Hey, I would vote for Powell, too! I wish he would run so we could see if it is possible for a great consensus candidate who happens to be African-American to be elected president of this country. I'm afraid I'm pessimistic about the possibility, but I'd love to be proven wrong. I may just have lived too long in South Carolina--and believe me, Strom Thurmond may have abandoned his racist practices for political expediency, but I can guarantee you that he never regretted them one bit, or changed his core prejudices.

Cardie
I suspect he has way too much integrity to be President. You have to give away too much of your credibility and honor to achieve any elected office (and IMO the higher the office the more your morals go down the tubes, party allegiences being irrelevant to this process). It's the nature of the beast.

I would have voted for him too.

Strom Thurmond was an unregenerate racisist - that's pretty much the kindest thing I can say about him.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#114 StarDust

StarDust
  • Islander
  • 1,155 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 09:09 PM

With regards to comments on France, Germany and Russia.

I was going to let it drop, but you really need to understand the economic circumstances to understand their Political positions the last several years. It in no way has anything to do with what they think is 'right or wrong'.

'Hugely rich' is 'hugely relative'.

http://www.sfgate.co...15/BU238251.DTL

Quote

California economy surpasses France   Friday, June 15, 2001
Wasn't this during the same time frame that California's economy began suffering from the dot.com crashes and their huge energy crisis?  

http://news.bbc.co.u...ess/2492339.stm

Quote

Tuesday, 19 November, 2002, 14:40 GMT
Budget sanctions hit Germany and France
The European Commission has said it will initiate sanctions procedures against Germany and France because their budget deficits are rising too fast.

http://news.bbc.co.u...ess/2498285.stm

Quote

Germany's economic outlook depends heavily on what happens in the US economy

While it may be tempting to blame Germany's economic problems on the recession, their problems where way before that.
http://more.abcnews....wall991108.html

Quote

Nov 15, 1999
     Reunification cost West Germans far more than they ever anticipated. Every year, $55 billion is poured into the East to fund its redevelopment and social security system
     Germany’s national debt has jumped 50 percent since 1994 to fund reunification. Each German pays a 5½ percent solidarity tax on top of income tax.
     East Germans, who dreamt of Western-style prosperity, are also disappointed. Ten years after unification, the East still has lower wages, lower living standards and 18 percent unemployment.
Some are even becoming nostalgic for the old Soviet days of guaranteed employment (see slideshow).
     Unprepared for the expectations and competition in free markets, many Eastern businesses and factories shut down after reunification. Some Easterners blame capitalists, charging they destroyed the Eastern economy by buying up companies and closing them down to wipe out competition.
     In last month’s election, East Berliners voted overwhelmingly for the old communist party.
...
     “They want to have jobs but they can’t get jobs, and the economic development in the East is very bad,” says Volker Kahne, Berlin’s deputy mayor, a Christian Democrat.
     On top of the economic divide, envy, resentment and distrust are splitting East and West.
     “The West thinks they give too much money to the East,” said Gudrun Six, a wealthy West German who said she’s been startled by the anger from some of her friends. Easterners feel they are treated like second-class citizens.
     “Some in the East think the West are arrogant, that they think we can’t take care of ourselves,” said Juliane Kertzscher, a student from the East.


As far as Russia and oil, under the Soviets they exported 12 million bbl/d, now they export 5.4 million bbl/d. We all know that you keep prices up by exporting less. Their largest customer is themselves, internally oil costs half of what it does exported. They had a huge glut that was severly affecting things internally. They exported more, cheaper, to get rid of the oil, but actually made more money than if they'd kept it internally.
There was also a problem of an oil glut on the Black Sea because of pipeline problems and problems with Turkish Tariffs.
http://abcnews.go.co...tfor000811.html (2000)
No where have I ever heard that Russia was in any way doing us a favor, although it may have been some people's assumptions.
http://www.eia.doe.g...abs/rusexp.html (nov2002)

Quote

into a number of vertically-integrated, private oil companies, the country's oil production and exports began to increase again. In 2001, Russia's net oil exports rose for the seventh consecutive year, reaching 4.91 million bbl/d in net crude oil and oil product exports. Russia is now the world's second largest oil exporter, behind only Saudi Arabia. Russia's net oil exports are projected to increase again in 2002, to 5.17 million bbl/d, and then to 5.4 million bbl/d in 2003. Russia Net Oil Exports, 1992-2003* graph. Having problems, call our National Energy Information Center on 202-586-8800 for help.
.....
Despite the Russian government's pledged oil output cut, Russian oil exports actually increased in the first quarter of 2002. Government-imposed export tariffs caused a glut of crude on the Russian market, causing a price collapse and leading to calls from Russian oil companies to lift the export ceiling. Russian oil companies then sent their crude to Russian refineries, which led to an increase in oil product exports and a surplus of refined products on the market. In order to reduce the amount of crude on the market, some Russian officials called for the creation of a strategic Russian oil reserve.

In March 2002, over the opposition of domestic oil companies, the Russian government announced that the country would continue to reduce its oil exports by 150,000 bbl/d. Regardless, Russian oil companies increased their crude oil exports as world oil prices climbed, and Russia formally abandoned its stated export cuts as of July 1, 2002.
...
The majority of Russian oil exports are sent to countries in Western Europe, such as the United Kingdom, France, Italy, Germany, and Spain. The share of net exports to countries outside the former Soviet Union rose from 53% in 1992 to 86% in 2001 as the share of net exports to former Eastern Bloc and Soviet Union countries decreased. Russia's net exports outside the CIS totaled approximately 4.23 million bbl/d in 2001, while only about 680,000 bbl/d was exported to CIS countries.

An October 2000 energy summit between the European Union (EU) and Russia, whereby the EU agreed to help Russia develop its oil and natural gas reserves in return for a long-term energy supply commitment, promises to boost Russia's oil exports. With pipeline projects such as the Baltic Pipeline System, Russia hopes to increase oil exports to Europe to over 5 million bbl/d in the future.

As far as tactics, and why, it was the same 6 years ago in the 1997 Iraq crisis:
http://more.abcnews....ssiafrance.html

Quote

Franco-Russian Realpolitik
France and Russia Have More Than Regional Peace in Mind
Nov. 20, 1997 — As the United States waves its big stick in Saddam Hussein’s face, Russia and France are fighting for a peaceful resolution to the Iraqi crisis. But their motives are less than altruistic and boil down to two issues—prestige and petroleum.
...
Iraq owes cash-strapped Russia $7 billion and France another $5 billion—debts it cannot possibly repay until the sanctions are lifted.
....
Besides a desire for francs and rubles, the French and Russians have something else in common: a deep-seated desire to recapture some of their former clout in the Middle East.

http://abcnews.go.co...ker_000208.html
http://abcnews.go.co...ship000206.html

Quote

OK, Maybe It’s Iraqi Oil Russian Tanker
Russia Softens Stance on Detained Tanker
Russia caught smuggling oil for Iraq in Feb 2000

France's Game March 17, 2003

Schroeder ventures into 'unknown' east Germany August 22, 2000

Ex-East Germans nostalgic for communism's simpler life 1999

Too many rules hurting Germany? 9/20/02

Quote

Analysts largely agree that the fall of the Berlin Wall, as celebrated as it was, was the beginning of Germany's economic problems.
...
A European Commission report traces two-thirds of Germany's economic problems to reunification. The other third is traced back to the inflexibility of business, unions and government -- which doesn't help to tear down the structures that still divide the German economy.

To not make this post any longer than it already is, anyone can go look. There are is a ton of info out there. It was widely acknowledged that the 'failure' of Bush's diplomacy with these nations was that he "didn't offer them enough". The old "what's in it for me" approach.

Adding: Of course Clinton had the same failure. He just did nothing about it but maintain the status quo and drop some bombs.

Edited by StarDust, 05 April 2003 - 09:27 PM.


#115 Rhea

Rhea

  • Islander
  • 16,433 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 09:10 PM

the'Hawk, on Apr 4 2003, 10:03 PM, said:

MichaelHinman, on Apr 5 2003, 12:57 AM, said:

During his campaign, Bush said that he would NEVER touch Social Security. Now he dips into it as if it's candy and uses 9-11 as an excuse.

But would you like to know when Bush first said he was going to break that particular campaign promise, that was so important in all the debates?

Sept. 9 ... 2001. All the criticism and downturn in polls ended just two days later.

Lucky him, eh?
Lucky?

How can you consider that to be lucky?

Because terrorists cast a spectre over the United States and every one of its citizens across the world?

Oh yeah! Lucky George!

That's just too much for me, bud.

:sarcasm:
Because 9/11 made Bush's incompetence a moot point. All any President would have had to do after 9/11 to get good marks is exactly what Bush did - look grave and sympathetic and make halfway decent speeches. And his REAL job performance has never again come under the scrutiny it should have because everyone stopped paying attention to anything BUT 9/11.
The future is better than the past. Despite the crepehangers, romanticists, and anti-intellectuals, the world steadily grows better because the human mind, applying itself to environment, makes it better. With hands...with tools...with horse sense and science and engineering.
- Robert A. Heinlein

When I don’t understand, I have an unbearable itch to know why. - RAH


Everything is theoretically impossible, until it is done. One could write a history of science in reverse by assembling the solemn pronouncements of highest authority about what could not be done and could never happen.  - RAH

#116 Drew

Drew

    Josef K.

  • Islander
  • 12,191 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 11:31 PM

MichaelHinman, on Apr 4 2003, 11:59 PM, said:

We didn't officially head into a recession until December 2001. A year after Bush took office.
By whose reckoning? Most economists I've read place the start of the downturn in Spring of 2000. The economy is like a huge seagoing vessel. It doesn't turn on a dime. It takes many, many months for the effects of yanking on the tiller to be felt.
"Someone must have slandered Josef K., for one morning, without having done anything wrong, he was arrested."

#117 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 05 April 2003 - 11:42 PM

Quote

MichaelHinman: War and Bush supporters want you to ONLY speak your opinion if it's in line with Bush's opinion. You have to support him, or shut the hell up. You are ostracized, you are called unAmerican, and in fact, some people label your words as TREASONOUS.

So how is that all that different from some liberals that are trying to call people who support the war mongers, baby killers, or neofacists?  Along with a few dozen other shock catch phrases that peace protestors seem to like to toss around to get attention.  That wasn't aimed at anyone here.  


Quote

MichaelHinman: I could care less what Voltaire said.

Funny considering a lot of the framework for this country was drawn from his concepts and ideas by the founding fathers.  

Quote

MichaelHinman: We didn't officially head into a recession until December 2001. A year after Bush took office.

That was a recession that was obviously coming and could be seen way back during the Clinton Administration.  Of course Clinton with all his miracle ways of handling the economy could did nothing to stop it.   Maybe that was because Clinton was simply a two bit caretaker of the economic success that the Reagan Administration placed in effect.  I think if anything Bush realizes that success came from Reagan unlike most liberals and now he is trying to apply another brand of Reaganomics to it.      


Quote

Banapis: I think it's entirely appropriate for a Presidential Challenger to say we need a new "style of rule," or a new "tenure of rule," or new "management" of the country, or a new "administration."

Being a public figure and one running for election elements the public has every right to tell him they think his viewpoint isn’t theirs and they don’t want to elect him.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#118 MichaelHinman

MichaelHinman

    www.SyFyPortal.com

  • Islander
  • 172 posts

Posted 06 April 2003 - 03:43 AM

CJ AEGIS, on Apr 5 2003, 03:31 PM, said:

Quote

MichaelHinman: War and Bush supporters want you to ONLY speak your opinion if it's in line with Bush's opinion. You have to support him, or shut the hell up. You are ostracized, you are called unAmerican, and in fact, some people label your words as TREASONOUS.

So how is that all that different from some liberals that are trying to call people who support the war mongers, baby killers, or neofacists?  Along with a few dozen other shock catch phrases that peace protestors seem to like to toss around to get attention.  That wasn't aimed at anyone here.  


Quote

MichaelHinman: I could care less what Voltaire said.

Funny considering a lot of the framework for this country was drawn from his concepts and ideas by the founding fathers.  

Quote

MichaelHinman: We didn't officially head into a recession until December 2001. A year after Bush took office.

That was a recession that was obviously coming and could be seen way back during the Clinton Administration.  Of course Clinton with all his miracle ways of handling the economy could did nothing to stop it.   Maybe that was because Clinton was simply a two bit caretaker of the economic success that the Reagan Administration placed in effect.  I think if anything Bush realizes that success came from Reagan unlike most liberals and now he is trying to apply another brand of Reaganomics to it.      


Quote

Banapis: I think it's entirely appropriate for a Presidential Challenger to say we need a new "style of rule," or a new "tenure of rule," or new "management" of the country, or a new "administration."

Being a public figure and one running for election elements the public has every right to tell him they think his viewpoint isn’t theirs and they don’t want to elect him.
I agree, CJ, catch phrases are stupid .. from both sides.

However, Reagan's economic policies being successful is incorrect. Reagan had a great foreign policy. And that was about it.
Michael Hinman
www.SyFyPortal.com

#119 CJ AEGIS

CJ AEGIS

    Warship Guru!

  • Islander
  • 6,847 posts

Posted 06 April 2003 - 05:48 AM

Quote

However, Reagan's economic policies being successful is incorrect.

Here I have to disagree.  I also think I could get a fair amount of economists to agree with many assuming they had the brains to set the political rhetoric aside.  Deficit spending and trickle down economics works to get the economy back on track and strong.  

A few simple facts that one can easily dig up and verify that I pulled out of stuff I have around.
- Inflation averaged at 12.5 percent when Reagan entered office and it was reduced to 4.4 percent when he left.
- During his administration Interest rates fell six points.
- Eight million new jobs were created as unemployment fell during his administration.  When he took office the unemployment rate was 7.6 percent and was down to 5.5 when he left office..
- An eight percent growth in private wealth occurred during it.
- In none of the years following the tax cuts that were made did revenue to the Federal Government decline. The actual budgets did grow larger but the military budget was smaller than during the administrations of Johnson and JFK.
- The average annual growth rate of real GDP from 1981 to 89 was 3.2 percent per year.  This is compared with 2.8 percent from 1974 to 81 and 2.1 percent from 1989 to 95.
- The real median family income rose from $34,200 in 1980 up to $37,000 in 1988 and in fact has fallen off by $1,000 in the post Reagan years leading to now.  Prior to Reagan there was no growth in this area.  

In addition prior to the election that brought Clinton into power the economy was on the recovery if you look back at the information.  Reaganomics was one of the great successes that pulled the economy out of a recession; you just have to swallow the pill (debt), have patience for the effects to show in the long term, and then things will settle out.

Quote

MichaelHinman:Reagan had a great foreign policy.

Agreed.  Excellent foreign policy and true to his nickname as a great communicator.  

Reagan I think long term in the history books will go down as a great president that most everyone the time looked over.  Not quite the same level as an Lincoln or Teddy Roosevelt and not the level of an Eisenhower.  More as a guy who was in the office and actually knew what he was doing there.
"History has proven too often and too recently that the nation which relaxes its defenses invites attack."
        -Fleet Admiral Nimitz
"Their sailors say they should have flight pay and sub pay both -- they're in the air half the time, under the water the other half""
        - Ernie Pyle: Aboard a DE

#120 DWF

DWF

    Dr. Who 1963-89, 1996, 2005-

  • Islander
  • 48,287 posts

Posted 06 April 2003 - 06:46 AM

^^^Reagan also doubled the national debt, and had the largest government in US history, both of which has continued to cause numerous problems, that can't and won't be solved, by continually spending money on war, rather than education, and urban renewal programs.
The longest-running science fiction series: decadent, degenerate and rotten to the core. Power-mad conspirators, Daleks, Sontarans... Cybermen! They're still in the nursery compared to us. Fifty years of absolute fandom. That's what it takes to be really critical.

"Don't mistake a few fans bitching on the Internet for any kind of trend." - Keith R.A. DeCandido



Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: John Kerry, Iraq

0 user(s) are browsing this forum

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users