Fog Creek Software
Discussion Board




What will they come up with next?

Now they have a Ronald Reagan tribute screensaver
http://download.com.com/3000-2390-10295451.html?tag=tid_s
How fantastic, why inflate a man in his death, when he was terrible in his life?. I know I was taught never to speak ill of the dead, but it doesn't mean I have to lie.
It just scares me what they will say about George W. Bush when his time comes. gulp.

Mr Evil Empire
Sunday, June 13, 2004

I think all the Loony Tune characters and disney ones will be at Georges funeral. Hey who knows, if Gorbachav can be at Reagans funeral, Osama might be at Georges one. :)

Republicans are damn evil
Sunday, June 13, 2004

I think it might be that seeing GW, Reagan starts to look pretty good.

Eric Debois
Sunday, June 13, 2004

Just for the record, not *everyone* hated Reagan and his policies.

I might also point out that even when he was alive, many people of all political persuasions respected him, even if they didn't agree with his policies. One famous quote was Reagan saying to Tip O'Neill "It's after six, are we allowed to be friends now?" which they were.

In fact, it's been a while since this nation has really seen any political figure that was so widely respected as Reagan was.

And I doubt Bush (Sr. or Jr.) will command this kind of response when they pass. Carter might, mostly because of his post-Presidential activities and because he's the only thing close to Reagan the Democrats have. (Clinton might, depending on how he spends the next thirty years)

Philo

Philo
Sunday, June 13, 2004

> Just for the record, not *everyone* hated Reagan and his policies.

Yes, somehow he was elected twice. And the first election was a landslide: http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/november/4/newsid_3192000/3192279.stm

Must have been pretty well liked at the time.

Matthew Lock
Sunday, June 13, 2004

The reason we liked Reagan so much was in part due to the contrast of his predecessors:  Nixon and Carter.

Nixon left this country in ruins, and Carter did nothing to build it back up.  Reagan connected with people, told them they cound do it, and we belived him.  Its as simple as that.

As for bringing down the evil empire, what we know now is that his administration, along with Carter's Afghan war (which Reagan continued) did precisely that.  There is little disputing this now as many leaders inside the former USSR point to Reagan as the architect of the fall of the empire.  In contrast to today's ugly foreign policy fiascos, there was no major conflict.  400 million people in Eastern Europe are now free from the Iron Curtain.

Finally, there are those who point to failed policies in South America as Reagan's black spot in history - which I'm sure there is some truth to.  Unfortunately, they consistently undermine their message by interviewing and quoting the likes of Daniel Ortega and Fidel Castro, who are unbelievable at best.

Something tells me this "convesation" will go just about nowhere, Enjoy your screen saver.

hoser
Sunday, June 13, 2004

Clinton deserves a tremendous amount of respect, which he may never receive. 

He paid down the $400 billion dollar deficit, which was left over from the S&L scandal.

He was huge in opening foreign markets to US goods, through the extraordinary work of Micky Cantor: opening Mexico & Latin America, China, and Japan, among others, to US products.

He transformed the Democratic Party into an effective mainstream party rather than the socialist backwater it had become.

And yet it will likely be forgotten.

hoser
Sunday, June 13, 2004

Oh hell, one final thought:

Being as this is a democracy, and you're free to do nearly any fool thing you please.  Perhaps in the interest of intellectual freedom and the need to balance out the "Reagan Romance", the OP might enjoy writing a Hillary Rodham Clinton text to voice interpreter.

Oh my ..., how would you like to go home to that every night?

hoser
Sunday, June 13, 2004

Well, Reagan in effect immersed the U.S. with Saddam and trained Osama. I think attributing the fall of the soviet union to Reagan is a bit premature, as it was Brezhnevs stagflation economy that sowed the seeds of its own destruction, Reagan might have speeded up its demise, but certainly cannot be completely credited with the innevitable

Jazzy
Sunday, June 13, 2004

> There is little disputing this now as many leaders inside the former USSR point to Reagan as the architect of the fall of the empire

What's puzzling, is that experts on the Soviet Union (and any diplomat or secret agent living in that part of the world knew that firsthand) that the country was not going anywhere, and was having a harder and harder time maintaining its huge military spendings while not even providing basis necessities to its population. North Korea is dealing with the same issue today.

Hence, it can be said that the Reagan administration increased the national debt and deficit needlessly, instead of using that money for useful purposes such as education or providing national health coverage. This is ironic coming from so-called conservatives (conserving what, I do not know) who keep telling us that government spending is a no-no. I guess it's useless when it doesn't serve those financing their campaigns :-)

Fred
Sunday, June 13, 2004

Right.  And Kennedy should have stood down while the Soviets put ICBM's in Cuba, since they would have never been used and communism will eventually fall under its own weight.

Keep going...

hoser
Sunday, June 13, 2004

Just for the record... even if you wish to attribute the accelerated disintegration of the Soviets to Reagan's military spending spree -- which incidentally also lined a number of silk pockets with a debt we'll pass to our children -- you couldn't possibly make the argument that Reagan was the "architect" of that scheme, except to perhaps people ignorant of Senator Henry "Scoop" Jackson's fixation on that very idea.  One could easily argue that had Jackson beaten McGovern for the presidential nomination in '72, or Carter in '76, he might have enacted his plan years earlier himself, instead of through Reagan, whom he was very instrumental in putting into the White House.

What you also don't hear in all such parroting of the television version of history is why anyone in the US should care that the Soviet system crumbled.  Quite a few people actually believe it was somehow important for their personal safety, without actually questioning that sales pitch.

Sal
Sunday, June 13, 2004

For the record, the icbms were put in cuba because the U.S. had put jupitar missiles in Turkey, Kruschevs aim was also to protect cuba following the bay of pigs fiasco. 

Jazzy
Sunday, June 13, 2004

"Hence, it can be said that the Reagan administration increased the national debt and deficit needlessly, instead of using that money for useful purposes such as education or providing national health coverage. This is ironic coming from so-called conservatives (conserving what, I do not know) who keep telling us that government spending is a no-no. I guess it's useless when it doesn't serve those financing their campaigns"

Uh, Fred - with all due respect, you misunderstand conservatism.

In general, conservatism is about only getting the government involved where necessary, and then only at the lowest level necessary. So - schools should be run by counties, with state oversight. Medical care should be run by counties, with states socializing the benefits. Welfare should be run by the states. Policing belongs at the local level, with some minor state oversight/coordination, and federal involvement only when necessary (coordinating interstate investigations, international issues, etc)

Now the military has to be run by the federal government for two reasons: 1) it's a national/international issue. 2) the Constitution says so.

So - military spending will always be at the federal level, even for conservatives.

(Well, those are my politics, anyway)

Philo

Philo
Sunday, June 13, 2004

Oops - when I said "Medical care" I meant medical welfare, not the care itself.

Philo

Philo
Sunday, June 13, 2004

"Clinton deserves a tremendous amount of respect, which he may never receive"

He may never receive it because he didn't really do anything to deserve it. He inherited a booming economy from the Reagan years and rode it. He ignored foreign policy while major problems developed.

He'll probably be remembered best for putting his cigar into an intern young enough to be his daughter.

Anony Coward
Sunday, June 13, 2004

"What's puzzling, is that experts on the Soviet Union (and any diplomat or secret agent living in that part of the world knew that firsthand) that the country was not going anywhere, and was having a harder and harder time maintaining its huge military spendings ... Hence, it can be said that the Reagan administration increased the national debt and deficit needlessly"

Fred -

Read what you just wrote. Forcing the Soviet Union to spend more than they could afford was the whole point. We bankrupted them. It was a brilliant strategy and it worked perfectly.

Tom H
Sunday, June 13, 2004

America the Good. Slayer of Evil. Maker of Life. Congratulations. Thank you. God bless you.

Enough?

Nazi, Hitler, Semitism, Anti-Semitism, Outsourcing American Jobs, Salad Cream.

.
Sunday, June 13, 2004

Anony Coward -

You do realize, of course, that when Clinton defeated GHWB in '92, the economy was in a recession? Hence the campaign slogan, "It's the economy, stupid."

Devil's Advocate
Sunday, June 13, 2004

>Clinton ... paid down the $400 billion dollar deficit, which was left over from the S&L scandal.<

Actually, no, he didn't - we taxpayers did, and we were able to to do so in large part because of massive cuts in military spending.

Data Miner
Sunday, June 13, 2004

"You do realize, of course, that when Clinton defeated GHWB in '92, the economy was in a recession..."

Actually it wasn't in a recession, by the end of 1992 the economy was growing and unemployment was dropping. The "stupid" comment was just fud from James Carvill.

Anony Coward
Sunday, June 13, 2004

Jupiter missles in Turkey were merely an attempt at Soviets grasping at fig leaves during negotiations.  Why Kennedy did not grant them their fig leaf, I'll never understand, but he didn't. In the end it didn't matter, and Kennedy's handling of the missile crisis is considered masterful.  I certainly won't argue against his handling of the situation because you cannot argue with results.

So it is with Reagan. I think the genius of the man's vision and foreign policy has finally become clear.  If the fall of the USSR were an accident, then the accident could have happened in the 40 years prior to Reagan.  Same with Castro, same with "Great Leader" and his pathetic offspring "Dear Leader".  The fall of the USSR was no more a given than the mere fact that the US entered WWII meant that the Axis would be defeated.  Neither were a given nor were they accidents of history.  Just because his administration made foreign policy look easy, doesn't mean that it was.

And so it is with Clinton.  You cannot say that Clinton did nothing.  Tending the garden of economic prosperity is plenty.  If Clinton failed at anything, it is that he had the potential for becoming a unifying force but often was divisive - and mostly over nothing than his own pride.  He did not entangle the US unnecessarily, he built alliances and isolated our enemies.  Interest rates and inflation were at historic lows that may never be repeated.  The budget debt was eliminated by the end of his 2nd term. Generations will look back at the 90's with envy.

hoser
Sunday, June 13, 2004

Regarding Reagan and Clinton: The guy I liked could do no wrong.  The guy I didn't like was hopeless.

It would appear that most Americans agree with me.

Cognitive Dissonance
Sunday, June 13, 2004


Actually, the "deficit" was only covered if you count the Social Security revenues in the general fund.  Sure, this works in the 90's, but you're just short-changing future retirees.

There never was any "balanced budget".  The deficit never disappeared.

It was moved from the "general fund" to the Social Security accounts*.


*  Sorry, by "accounts", I mean the lump sum of cash that we're paying into that we'll never see even though it's called "our" accounts.

Arg.

KC
Sunday, June 13, 2004

Yet another internet discussion that demonstrates how unbelievably fucked up Americans are.  Please just build a wall around your fucking country and isolate the rest of us from the bizarre orwellien fantasy world you inhabit.

ants are commies, kill all the ants
Sunday, June 13, 2004

Yeah, yeah, of course we've heard it before:

Yankee go home, umm but leave your money.  We like your money.

Americans are pigs.  Too bad we own everything.

KC: Although you are correct, it doesn't matter what you include under the Bush Jr/Sr administrations, the budget wasn't even close - isn't even close. 

Isn't even an issue with Bush Jr., and this time he cannot blame congress.

hoser
Sunday, June 13, 2004

The View from the Gulag:

"There was a long list of all the Western leaders who had lined up to condemn the evil Reagan for daring to call the great Soviet Union an evil empire right next to the front-page story about this dangerous, terrible man who wanted to take the world back to the dark days of the Cold War. This was the moment. It was the brightest, most glorious day. Finally a spade had been called a spade. Finally, Orwell's Newspeak was dead. President Reagan had from that moment made it impossible for anyone in the West to continue closing their eyes to the real nature of the Soviet Union."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/004/224ncdel.asp

Matthew Lock
Sunday, June 13, 2004

"Yet another internet discussion that demonstrates how unbelievably fucked up Americans are.  Please just build a wall around your fucking country and isolate the rest of us from the bizarre orwellien fantasy world you inhabit."

Wow, how insightful.  Maybe we should do just that.  Just make sure not to come ask for help when you manage to get into another World War.

ac
Sunday, June 13, 2004

> In general, conservatism is about only getting the government involved where necessary, and then only at the lowest level necessary

In that case Dubya should have invaded Iraq on his own and not sent other people to do the job for him. Instead he flies in when the fighting is "over", waves a huge plastic turkey around, and then fucks off again.


Monday, June 14, 2004

Hey, I give mad props to Clinton. I wish I could get a blowjob at work. If I got a blowjob at work every day, I'd never be absent. :-P

Wisea**
Monday, June 14, 2004

DFL
Dumb
Fscking
Liberal

Mike
Monday, June 14, 2004

Dubya:
DFC
Dumb
Fucking
Conservative

Mike
Tuesday, June 15, 2004

*  Recent Topics

*  Fog Creek Home