- Feedback
- 131 (100%)
had to ask, as I saw they were promoting them for release this month
(in case you are wondering who I mean, check his avatar)
(in case you are wondering who I mean, check his avatar)
Has PAD gone to the Post Office to get some stamps of his favorite politician?
- Thread starter CaseyRyback
- Start date
sblymnlcrymnl
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 95 (99%)
MrBadExample
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 1 (100%)
I'm holding out for the Iran-Contra stamps.
E-Z-B
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Pylis']How was Reagan a shithead?[/quote]
And until the current occupant side-stepped into the White House, Reagan was the worst American leader since Herbert Hoover.
It would be impossible in this space to catalogue all the damage Reagan wrought in eight years. The standard line is that he won the cold war, but elsewhere in this issue Jonathan Schell corrects that notion. It is also worth noting that this man who yearned so much for freedom and democracy in Soviet-bloc nations showed limited concern for democracy and human rights in other parts of the globe. After Democrats and Republicans in Congress passed sanctions against the apartheid government of South Africa, Reagan vetoed the measure. His Administration cuddled up with the fascistic and anti-Semitic junta of Argentina and backed militaries in El Salvador and Guatemala that massacred civilians. It moved to normalize relations with Augusto Pinochet, the tyrant of Chile. Reagan sent George Bush the First to the Philippines, where the Vice President toasted dictator Ferdinand Marcos for fostering "democracy." Pursuing a quasi-secret war against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua, the Reagan Administration violated international law and circumvented Congress to support contra rebels engaged in human rights abuses and, according to the CIA's own Inspector General, worked with suspected drug traffickers. Reagan covertly sent arms to the mullahs of Iran and courted Saddam Hussein, even after his use of chemical weapons. He appointed officials who claimed nuclear war was winnable, thus raising the chances that miscalculations by the Soviet Union or the United States would plunge the world into chaos.
On the home front Reagan was almost as divisive and disingenuous as the second Bush, as William Greider recounts on page 5. His deficit-causing supply-side tax cuts (derided by the elder Bush as "voodoo economics") were sold with phony numbers and sleight-of-hand accounting. These "trickle-down" tax cuts--coupled with a tremendous boost in military spending--were designed to bankrupt the government, pressuring it to reduce government spending and thereby justifying draconian cuts in social programs. (Remember ketchup as a vegetable?)
Reagan showed little concern for the deindustrialized workers who suffered during the 1980s, and he was actively hostile to unions, firing PATCO air-traffic controllers en masse after they struck for better pay and working conditions. His Attorney General, Edwin Meese, displayed little regard for civil liberties, noting, "You don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime." His Interior Secretary, James Watt, fancied dead trees over live ones. And no one in the Reagan White House appeared to care about a new pandemic that mainly killed homosexuals. Reagan's inaction and bigotry against gays and drug-users led to tens of thousands of deaths that might have been avoided if he had moved earlier.
Reagan effectively installed a revolving door at the White House through which key advisers passed on their way to lucrative jobs as lobbyists--and subsequent indictments for influence peddling. Despite his Administration's "law and order" language, by the 1990s nearly 200 Reagan-era officials had faced investigation and prosecution. Special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh's conclusion that Reagan had "created the conditions which made possible the crimes committed by others" in the Iran/contra scandal holds true for the more widespread lack of ethical standards. His Administration weakened workplace safety standards. He presided over an S&L scandal that stuck taxpayers with a bill approaching a trillion dollars. He appointed Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court. He tried to gut the Civil Rights Commission, and his Administration waged a relentless series of attacks on affirmative action while trying to grant tax-exempt status to private schools that engaged in racial discrimination.
Reagan once malapropped, "Facts are stupid things." He meant "stubborn," and we hope that they are, and that the facts of Reagan's presidency survive the hagiography now being written. His life, as the cliché-soaked commentators note incessantly, may have been an "American life." But his presidency was no morning in America; it empowered and enabled some of the worst elements of public life in our country: greed, arrogance, neglect and hypocrisy. This Reagan legacy, unfortunately, survives its namesake, and, worse, it has been enhanced by the son of his Vice President (GWB).
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040628&s=editors
And until the current occupant side-stepped into the White House, Reagan was the worst American leader since Herbert Hoover.
It would be impossible in this space to catalogue all the damage Reagan wrought in eight years. The standard line is that he won the cold war, but elsewhere in this issue Jonathan Schell corrects that notion. It is also worth noting that this man who yearned so much for freedom and democracy in Soviet-bloc nations showed limited concern for democracy and human rights in other parts of the globe. After Democrats and Republicans in Congress passed sanctions against the apartheid government of South Africa, Reagan vetoed the measure. His Administration cuddled up with the fascistic and anti-Semitic junta of Argentina and backed militaries in El Salvador and Guatemala that massacred civilians. It moved to normalize relations with Augusto Pinochet, the tyrant of Chile. Reagan sent George Bush the First to the Philippines, where the Vice President toasted dictator Ferdinand Marcos for fostering "democracy." Pursuing a quasi-secret war against the Sandinista government in Nicaragua, the Reagan Administration violated international law and circumvented Congress to support contra rebels engaged in human rights abuses and, according to the CIA's own Inspector General, worked with suspected drug traffickers. Reagan covertly sent arms to the mullahs of Iran and courted Saddam Hussein, even after his use of chemical weapons. He appointed officials who claimed nuclear war was winnable, thus raising the chances that miscalculations by the Soviet Union or the United States would plunge the world into chaos.
On the home front Reagan was almost as divisive and disingenuous as the second Bush, as William Greider recounts on page 5. His deficit-causing supply-side tax cuts (derided by the elder Bush as "voodoo economics") were sold with phony numbers and sleight-of-hand accounting. These "trickle-down" tax cuts--coupled with a tremendous boost in military spending--were designed to bankrupt the government, pressuring it to reduce government spending and thereby justifying draconian cuts in social programs. (Remember ketchup as a vegetable?)
Reagan showed little concern for the deindustrialized workers who suffered during the 1980s, and he was actively hostile to unions, firing PATCO air-traffic controllers en masse after they struck for better pay and working conditions. His Attorney General, Edwin Meese, displayed little regard for civil liberties, noting, "You don't have many suspects who are innocent of a crime." His Interior Secretary, James Watt, fancied dead trees over live ones. And no one in the Reagan White House appeared to care about a new pandemic that mainly killed homosexuals. Reagan's inaction and bigotry against gays and drug-users led to tens of thousands of deaths that might have been avoided if he had moved earlier.
Reagan effectively installed a revolving door at the White House through which key advisers passed on their way to lucrative jobs as lobbyists--and subsequent indictments for influence peddling. Despite his Administration's "law and order" language, by the 1990s nearly 200 Reagan-era officials had faced investigation and prosecution. Special prosecutor Lawrence Walsh's conclusion that Reagan had "created the conditions which made possible the crimes committed by others" in the Iran/contra scandal holds true for the more widespread lack of ethical standards. His Administration weakened workplace safety standards. He presided over an S&L scandal that stuck taxpayers with a bill approaching a trillion dollars. He appointed Antonin Scalia to the Supreme Court. He tried to gut the Civil Rights Commission, and his Administration waged a relentless series of attacks on affirmative action while trying to grant tax-exempt status to private schools that engaged in racial discrimination.
Reagan once malapropped, "Facts are stupid things." He meant "stubborn," and we hope that they are, and that the facts of Reagan's presidency survive the hagiography now being written. His life, as the cliché-soaked commentators note incessantly, may have been an "American life." But his presidency was no morning in America; it empowered and enabled some of the worst elements of public life in our country: greed, arrogance, neglect and hypocrisy. This Reagan legacy, unfortunately, survives its namesake, and, worse, it has been enhanced by the son of his Vice President (GWB).
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20040628&s=editors
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
EZB, go look back at the parade of millions that gathered along the funeral procession of Ronald Reagan. Regardless of what you and the minority elitiste ilk have said, this country loved him overwhelmingly. Take a look at the 1980 and 1984 electoral college results if you choose not to believe me. Look at what history has pretty much said about him, he won the cold war without firing a shot.
I'm not going to get into a Reagan debate with someone that points to Lawrence Walsh as a person of creedence just like you wouldn't debate the Clinton Presidency with me based on statements issued by Kenneth Starr.
Last but not least you know NOTHING, as in very little, about how supply side economics work. Why? Because they work and liberals only understand theory, not reality.
BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, Nissan and Honda have all built factories in this country. Now, take a quick look at where it is they settled on. Did they move into high tax, high regulation, highly unionized states like New York, Massachusetts or California? Or did they move into more business friendly environments/states. That pretty much sums up what works... supply side economics or Keneysian economics.
Oh, BTW. Ever notice how we don't hear liberal pundints decry that we're outsourcing all of these high paying manufacturing jobs from Japan and Germany???
I'm not going to get into a Reagan debate with someone that points to Lawrence Walsh as a person of creedence just like you wouldn't debate the Clinton Presidency with me based on statements issued by Kenneth Starr.
Last but not least you know NOTHING, as in very little, about how supply side economics work. Why? Because they work and liberals only understand theory, not reality.
BMW, Mercedes, Toyota, Nissan and Honda have all built factories in this country. Now, take a quick look at where it is they settled on. Did they move into high tax, high regulation, highly unionized states like New York, Massachusetts or California? Or did they move into more business friendly environments/states. That pretty much sums up what works... supply side economics or Keneysian economics.
Oh, BTW. Ever notice how we don't hear liberal pundints decry that we're outsourcing all of these high paying manufacturing jobs from Japan and Germany???
PittsburghAfterDark
CAGiversary!
[quote name='Drocket']Corporations prefer workers they can work to death for very little money. Who would have thought it? All you've really show in that corporations are evil and need to be heavily reigned in, but most of us already knew that.[/quote]
Again, you're completely misinformed.... color me shocked.
Every auto maker that has established U.S. manufacturing operations; BMW, Mercedes, Honda, Nissan, Toyota and if I'm not mistaken Porsche has paid at or above UAW pay scales. Is that an evil deed? Is that the act of companies that need to be reigned in?
Why is it these companies would pay better than union wages to keep their employees from wanting to form a union?
This is a Socratic exercise, I'm not answering that question.
Again, you're completely misinformed.... color me shocked.
Every auto maker that has established U.S. manufacturing operations; BMW, Mercedes, Honda, Nissan, Toyota and if I'm not mistaken Porsche has paid at or above UAW pay scales. Is that an evil deed? Is that the act of companies that need to be reigned in?
Why is it these companies would pay better than union wages to keep their employees from wanting to form a union?
This is a Socratic exercise, I'm not answering that question.
alonzomourning23
CAGiversary!
- Feedback
- 26 (100%)
[quote name='PittsburghAfterDark'][quote name='Drocket']Corporations prefer workers they can work to death for very little money. Who would have thought it? All you've really show in that corporations are evil and need to be heavily reigned in, but most of us already knew that.[/quote]
Again, you're completely misinformed.... color me shocked.
Every auto maker that has established U.S. manufacturing operations; BMW, Mercedes, Honda, Nissan, Toyota and if I'm not mistaken Porsche has paid at or above UAW pay scales. Is that an evil deed? Is that the act of companies that need to be reigned in?
Why is it these companies would pay better than union wages to keep their employees from wanting to form a union?[/quote]
Why don't you ask henry ford? A worker who is paid more can buy more, if the workers aren't paid no one can afford your product. Also, if your competitors pay more then you better offer similar pay, or you will get the worst workers. Employees aren't paid more out of the goodness of their heart.
]
Again, you're completely misinformed.... color me shocked.
Every auto maker that has established U.S. manufacturing operations; BMW, Mercedes, Honda, Nissan, Toyota and if I'm not mistaken Porsche has paid at or above UAW pay scales. Is that an evil deed? Is that the act of companies that need to be reigned in?
Why is it these companies would pay better than union wages to keep their employees from wanting to form a union?[/quote]
Why don't you ask henry ford? A worker who is paid more can buy more, if the workers aren't paid no one can afford your product. Also, if your competitors pay more then you better offer similar pay, or you will get the worst workers. Employees aren't paid more out of the goodness of their heart.
]
Drocket
CAGiversary!
Somebody may want to tell McDonalds that. Or Walmart. Or KMart. Or Target. Or pretty much any industry outside of a few that have long history of unionization, back when the government was willing to help unions instead of fighting them tooth-and-nail because they were paid off by corporations (admittedly a short period mostly brought about by the 'evil' socialist agenda of communists like FDR.)
bread's done