This time it's London...

[SilentCal]

ctenidae is on to something. Except for some bad eggs in Abu Gharib, I think nobody has anything bad to say about our troops over there. Anyone that does disparage any of the troops that are doing their job for their country, is going to get a serious :smash: from me. :flag:

[/quote]

 

[pizza]

OK - you liked Reagan but hate W? I don't get it. They are so much the same except that W is a lousy actor by comparison.

Wow, what a thread.
I'd be curious to know what perspective you come from to draw such a conclusion. I understand the underlying meaning behind Reagan being a better actor, but are you implying that they're politically similar or just similar in character?

For the record, I think that Bush is more different politically from Reagan than from Kerry. This is more of a factor of the times than a factor of the politics - two decades is a long time in politics. As far as character goes, accusations as to either can't really be backed up because nothing can be proven. As far as we know, Clinton lied much more than either of them. I'm not saying he did, I'm saying we don't know.

Comparisons between Reagan and Bush2 are really pointless anyway.

 

[Greg]

I think there was a post on the AMC boards recently about where the Mountains and Molehills board went to. I think I might have found it :lol:

You guys are all a riot. It doesn't matter what topic it is, you guys turn it into a politcal boxing match.

I bet the next Supreme Court nominee choice battle will be at least a 100 posts within a day or two as well.

What happened to the lost art of compromise?

There is a potential solution in the works. Stay tuned!

-Stephen

Please all - see this thread.

 

[ChileMass]

OK - you liked Reagan but hate W? I don't get it. They are so much the same except that W is a lousy actor by comparison.

Wow, what a thread.
I'd be curious to know what perspective you come from to draw such a conclusion. I understand the underlying meaning behind Reagan being a better actor, but are you implying that they're politically similar or just similar in character?

For the record, I think that Bush is more different politically from Reagan than from Kerry. This is more of a factor of the times than a factor of the politics - two decades is a long time in politics. As far as character goes, accusations as to either can't really be backed up because nothing can be proven. As far as we know, Clinton lied much more than either of them. I'm not saying he did, I'm saying we don't know.

Comparisons between Reagan and Bush2 are really pointless anyway.

Personally, I think all politics is pointless, but here's my response to your question about Reagan and W being similar:

-Religious nuts are allowed large influence on policy
-Rich people get preference over the middle/working classes
-Increased separation of economic "haves" and "have-nots"
-Primary voter appeal between the coasts
-Regular use of military force abroad
-Ongoing vicious battles with "liberal" press
-Foreign policy largely secondary to domestic issues
-Market-driven economic policies (laissez-faire)
-Questionable use of military (Iran/Contra, Iraq)
-Tax cuts for the rich and for corporations
-Environmental issues subverted to corporate/short-term needs
-Cabinet composed of hard-line right-wing hawks
-Supreme Court nominees must be ultra-conservatives

Shall I go on? Anyone wanna add to this list? I'm sure there's more......

 

[pizza]

Heh. There's no nice way to say this, but all of your points are kind of typical, boring, old, untrue and oversimplified.

So yeah, I've heard what you said a hundred times. I could take the same approach between, say, a Kerry and a Mondale, and I would sound good, but what I said above about your comments would have applied to me as well. Yet it would have made a lot of sense to a conservative.

So I'm going to keep my response short: The two major parties these days are homogonized and dishonest. BOTH.

Both parties are much different from 20 years ago.

That's about it.

 

[Stephen]

OK, I want to dispel some of this.

-Religious nuts are allowed large influence on policy

The ten commandments are out, the bible is out, but the koran is treated with white gloves.

-Rich people get preference over the middle/working classes

Cause goodness knows rich people don't work.

-Increased separation of economic "haves" and "have-nots"

I've moved from the have-not to the haves. IT had nothing to do with government.

-Primary voter appeal between the coasts

Liberals on the coast, conservatives in fly over country. That hasn't changed.

-Regular use of military force abroad

As has been the case for the last, oh, 60 years or so.

-Ongoing vicious battles with "liberal" press

Regan had decidedly more respect from the press than W. I'm old enough to remember that.

-Foreign policy largely secondary to domestic issues

When Bush was originally running against Gore, the claim was that he had no foreign policy. Now it's all he has apparently. Bush does have domestic policy such as tax cuts. I disagree with immigration, though (It's the borders, stupid!)

-Market-driven economic policies (laissez-faire)

I believe it's referred to as "free-market" for just that reason.

-Questionable use of military (Iran/Contra, Iraq)

Again, this goes through every administration (Bush SR., IRAQ, Clinton, Sudan)

-Tax cuts for the rich and for corporations

I'm not rich NOR a corporation, but I got a tax cut.

-Environmental issues subverted to corporate/short-term needs

I think removing dead timber to cut down on forest fires is not a short term solution. OH, that reminds me... anyone hear of Hillary writing to support International Paper's plan to burn tires for energy production? She indicated that the chemicals from the tires would be of "minimal impact". I know that I sound like a conspiracy nut, but it's an amazing coincidence that International Paper was also involved in the Whitewater deal. But I digress...

-Cabinet composed of hard-line right-wing hawks
It has evolved to that due to the nature of the war on terror. Was FDR's cabinet hard-line and right-wing too?

-Supreme Court nominees must be ultra-conservatives
Like Sandra Day O'Connor, who supported abortion rights. She was nominated by Reagan. Compare that to W's nominees and.... wait... he hasn't nominated any yet.

Shall I go on? Anyone wanna add to this list? I'm sure there's more......

One would be nice. :wink:

-Stephen

 

[ChileMass]

Stephen - Pizza - !! Boys - why can't we all just get along - ??? :wink:

I've fortunately moved to being one of the haves as well, and although I am disparaging both W and Reagan, I voted for both. All I'm doing is pointing out the similarities. Whether you consider each point a good or bad thing is a personal preference.

I still find it funny that people remember ole Dutch with such fondness and hammer W for what I consider to be very similar policies and attitudes. It's all in the PR and the delivery. Ronnie scared the be-jeezus out of most people 20-25 years ago. He provoked the Russkis, he took programs away from the poor (well, made them more "efficient", anyway), and generally turned the US welfare state upside down. His wife was an uncrowned empress whom everyone hated, and his advisers were hawkish robots that frightened everyone more than the President. I'm telling you today isn't that different! 20 years of favorable spin has softened Reagan's legacy.

 

[ChileMass]

Both parties are much different from 20 years ago.

OK - this I will ask you to expand upon. Different how?

 

[pizza]

Both parties are much different from 20 years ago.

OK - this I will ask you to expand upon. Different how?

Politics in general has changed tremendously over the last 20 year. The parties are more homogonized than ever, the concerns of the country are different, and both parties are more dependant on lobbies, who are more powerful than ever.

Compare the 80s to the 60s. Or the 60s to the 40s. There are huge differences between all the periods, and 00s and 80s are no different.

 

[SkiDog]

there is probably a thread on the actual war on the board somewhere, but I just found this and can't find the war posts as they were "before my time" here...so I am going to post this here...sorry to the moderators if this is frowned upon..

Just to dispell some myths that have been mentioned on this thread.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/special/xyz.php

M

 

[dmc]

Just to dispell some myths that have been mentioned on this thread.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/special/xyz.php

M

Ummm... Right Wing News... OK...
I think I'll get my news from more tradtional sources...

 

[SkiDog]

Just to dispell some myths that have been mentioned on this thread.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/special/xyz.php

M

Ummm... Right Wing News... OK...
I think I'll get my news from more tradtional sources...

Yeah I know...probably because you dont like the spin...why not just go read...they will link you to the SOURCES they use...some of its undeniable..

M

 

[ctenidae]

Not to crank this up again, but what about the 9th myth, that the Bush Administrations stated reasons for invading Iraq have changed at least 3 times?

That one's a little tougher to debunk, and is the root of my unease.

 

[SkiDog]

Just to dispell some myths that have been mentioned on this thread.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/special/xyz.php

M

Ummm... Right Wing News... OK...
I think I'll get my news from more tradtional sources...

did you enjoy farenheight 9/11?

M

 

[SkiDog]

Not to crank this up again, but what about the 9th myth, that the Bush Administrations stated reasons for invading Iraq have changed at least 3 times?

That one's a little tougher to debunk, and is the root of my unease.

I dont follow...and I also wasnt trying to stir up the hornets nest again, but figured some of that was pertinent informaiton.

Gotta take it all with a grain of salt anyway.

M

 

[dmc]

Just to dispell some myths that have been mentioned on this thread.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/special/xyz.php

M

Ummm... Right Wing News... OK...
I think I'll get my news from more tradtional sources...

Yeah I know...probably because you dont like the spin...why not just go read...they will link you to the SOURCES they use...some of its undeniable..

M

Not a big fan of any of that too far left or too far right stuff...
I only saw F911 a month ago... Didnt watch any of the "swift boat" bs...
I prefer to hear the facts and make up my mind without spin...

 

[ctenidae]

First we were invading because Iraq had WMD's, then it turned out they didn't, so we were invading because Iraq supported terrorists. That didn't seem to have the bang Bush wanted, so now we're in Iraq to bring democracy and to free the Iraqis from an evil dictator.

Why not pick one and stick to it? Bush could have sold it to the UN and the US as "Look, the guy's an ass, he's making us all look stupid, and he's killing people. Plus, his sons are a couple of real dirtbags. We ought to do something about it because it'd do the world some good." I'd have gone along with that a lot better than "Well, he's got...uhm, no, well, forget I said that, it's because he,...well, maybe not so much...Look! They're voting! It's great!"

 

[Greg]

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,163186,00.html
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/4703777.stm

 

[ctenidae]

Yikes!

A little more detail:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/21/AR2005072100474.html

Wonder if the exploding rucksack story checks out- a little premature detonation, perhaps? The three stations closed are pretty far apart, though all on lines that meet at King's Cross (where one bomb went off two weeks ago). Scary stuff...

 

[loafer89]

Apparently one of the terrorists ran into a university hospital and the police now have the hospital locked down

Hopefully they get the bastard.

I heard this information on WCBS 880 radio while running an erand from work.