Reagan - Page 10

johncmcleod · November 8, 2003, 23:31

Quote:

John, Why do you say a NY Times reporter who opposed the war in Iraq - read the end of the article online - is a conservative?

He was an aide to president Bush. President Bush was a conservative.

Ned · November 9, 2003, 02:11

Quote:

Originally posted by johncmcleod

He was an aide to president Bush. President Bush was a conservative.

Read my lips. No, he was not. He was a moderate to liberal Republican who was very highly critical of Reagan prior to being coopted by Reagan to be his VP.

Ned · November 9, 2003, 02:13

Quote:

Originally posted by Q Cubed
ned, not all who opposed the war were liberals. you did have a few conservatives who opposed the war in iraq.

not all liberals opposed the war, either.

===

the problem with star wars is that it'll never work until we have the technology for it, and we won't have the technology for it unless we spend a lot on it. so while we're spending all of that money, it won't work for most of the time.

my godfather's son is part of the team at raytheon working on their stuff. they've got a cute shirt that says "discrimination is our goal".

it has nothing to do with race.

Q Cubed, the reason the Europeans opposed Stars Wars had nothing to do with the fear that it would not work.

Winston · November 9, 2003, 02:58

Quote:

Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
They big lie in that article is the "they asked for the missiles" bit.

No lie. NATO, in 1979, unanimously agreed to deploy these missiles if the Soviet Union were to continue the build-up of SS20's.

But I'm sure you already knew that...

Ramo · November 9, 2003, 03:05

Quote:

I agree that Gorbachev was the right man in the right place.

And I'm saying that Ronnie almost caused him to be deposed.

Quote:

Dont forget though that Gorbachev was not seen to be a moderate when he took power after Chernenko.

Seen by whom? I seem to recall Maggie disagreeing with that assessment when she met first him.

Q Classic · November 9, 2003, 12:43

Quote:

Q Cubed, the reason the Europeans opposed Stars Wars had nothing to do with the fear that it would not work.

ned, that's not what i'm saying. i'm saying star wars is a helluva hard sell because we're sinking billions into something that won't work for a good many years, and will look like a miserable failure until the one moment it does start to work.

i'm well aware the euros didn't like it for the abm treaty in the 70s...

johncmcleod · November 9, 2003, 22:13

According to the article:

Quote:

Twenty years ago this month, I was an aide to Vice President George Bush during another trans-Atlantic crisis.

I interpret that as: he was an aide to Vice President George Bush.

Quote:

Read my lips. No, he was not. He was a moderate to liberal Republican who was very highly critical of Reagan prior to being coopted by Reagan to be his VP.

This is an internet forum. I can't see you, so I can't read your lips.

MrFun · November 10, 2003, 01:40

Quote:

Originally posted by The Vagabond
A few curious stories about Reagan from the Soviet side of the fence.

During his first visit to Moscow (1987, I guess), he was asked whether he was still thinking that the SU was an evil empire. "No, I no longer think so" was Reagan's reply.

About the same time, Gorby and Reagan exchanged TV addresses to their respective nations. Gorby spoke to the American people, while Reagan appeared on the Soviet TV. He (Reagan) ended his speech with the words "God bless you". It was so unusual for the Soviet ear to hear such kind of words on TV that my grandmother, the only religious person in our family, was deeply impressed. She was in love with Reagan ever since.

Also when in Moscow, Reagan expressed his admiration for the Soviet women. In a casual and somewhat perplexed manner, he said something like that: "Oh, not only do they have to take care of their families, but also to work a whole working day!". Wow, that was a masterpiece! Women were bought. First, they appreciated his care. Second, a subtle message was sent that in America women can usually dedicated themselves to their families.

No wonder he managed to handle America as he did.

DUH -- what political leader would rant about how evil the country that they are VISITING??

People say one thing, and mean something else . . . . .

Imran Siddiqui · November 10, 2003, 01:57

Quote:

He was an aide to president Bush. President Bush was a conservative.

Only someone on the far left can call that 1st President Bush a 'conservative'. He was the embodiment of moderate Republican. And no, he wasn't a fan of all of Reagan's ideas, but was a very loyal VP.

Quote:

And I'm saying that Ronnie almost caused him to be deposed.

Gorby was there in the first place because of Ronnie and his rhetoric. No Ronnie, No Gorby. That simple.

Ned · November 10, 2003, 02:02

Quote:

Originally posted by johncmcleod
I interpret that as: he was an aide to Vice President George Bush.
This is an internet forum. I can't see you, so I can't read your lips.

I was making a reference to a pledge George Bush made during his acceptance speech in 1988. He promised in that speech not to raise taxes during his term. He did so with the phrase, "Read my lips, no new taxes!" When later he did raise taxes, the Democrats used that phrase and the campaign against them in 1992 to great effect.

George Bush is what is known as a liberal Republican. For example, he was in favor of abortion prior to becoming by Reagan's VP.

johncmcleod · November 10, 2003, 13:27

You can say he's not conservative, but when you look at where George Bush is on a political scale with all the political ideologies of the world, he's conservative, but moderate by US standards. We shouldn't always look at people by US standards, there are other people in the world too.

Ned · November 10, 2003, 13:51

Quote:

Originally posted by johncmcleod
You can say he's not conservative, but when you look at where George Bush is on a political scale with all the political ideologies of the world, he's conservative, but moderate by US standards. We shouldn't always look at people by US standards, there are other people in the world too.

JohnC, by world standards today, even Lenin was a conservative.

Regardless, this NY Times reporter clearly is not a neo-con as he opposed the war. So when he is talking about what happened back in the 80's, he should have some credibility to those who share is views today.

I can affirm, though, from my own memory that what the guy said was true.

Now, as to the protests, standard operating procedure for Republican presidents. Note the Euro's requested the Pershings when Carter was president. But when Reagan was president, suddenly their installation is "warmongering."

Imran Siddiqui · November 10, 2003, 15:52

Quote:

You can say he's not conservative, but when you look at where George Bush is on a political scale with all the political ideologies of the world, he's conservative, but moderate by US standards. We shouldn't always look at people by US standards, there are other people in the world too.

Bush wasn't running for a world legislature, he was running for US President. Since he is running in the political entity of the US, he must be evaluated by US standards.

johncmcleod · November 10, 2003, 20:04

So if the US gets a bunch of bad presidents in a row (compared to the rest of the world's leaders), and then they get a president that is only kind of bad, does that make him a great president?

But I think you are missing the point. The reporter was an aide to the Reagan administration, and therefore he's biased. You can easily tell because when he's describing the situation he makes the US seem like the good guy and makes the Europeans sound evil.

The Vagabond · November 10, 2003, 21:54

Quote:

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Gorby was there in the first place because of Ronnie and his rhetoric. No Ronnie, No Gorby. That simple.

Not that simple, unless you want to say that it was Ronnie's speeches that caused three consecutive Soviet leaders (Brezhnev, Andropov and Chernenko) die one after another over a period of 2.5 years in 1982-1985!

That was really a toughest and unprecedented leadership crisis. So it's no wonder that, after all the ambitious old farts had been expended, it was the youngest Politburo member who had to take over the helm.

Sikander · November 10, 2003, 22:32

Quote:

Originally posted by Winston

No lie. NATO, in 1979, unanimously agreed to deploy these missiles if the Soviet Union were to continue the build-up of SS20's.

But I'm sure you already knew that...

Tee hee, Horsie bought the Big Lie of the Left.

MrFun · November 11, 2003, 03:19

The next person that makes a post on here, is going to get dunked in my toilet.

LET THIS THREAD DIE -- FOR THE LOVE OF GOD!!

The Mad Monk · November 11, 2003, 03:44

Quote:

Originally posted by MrFun

DUH -- what political leader would rant about how evil the country that they are VISITING??

People say one thing, and mean something else . . . . .

*dons scuba gear*

That story wasn't about just "saying nice things", it was about how he could sway what should have been a hostile audience so easily. That's talent.

Must you put down everything about the man? It's so sad.

MrFun · November 11, 2003, 17:01

** dunks Mad Monk into the toilet **

The Mad Monk · November 11, 2003, 17:56

*blurble*

Winston · November 11, 2003, 19:48

Maybe the anecdote about Reagan slumbering during meetings was perpetuated by this quote of his:

- I have left orders to be awakened at any time in case of national emergency, even if I'm in a cabinet meeting.

The man was a natural with words and wit. Following the Hinckley assassination attempt in 1981, as he was about to undergo emergency surgery to save his life, he commented to the team of surgeons: - Please assure me you are all republicans?

Imran Siddiqui · November 11, 2003, 19:52

Quote:

So if the US gets a bunch of bad presidents in a row (compared to the rest of the world's leaders), and then they get a president that is only kind of bad, does that make him a great president?

If good and bad are defined differently in the US, then yes. The problem is that conservative and liberal are defined differently in the US, so for a US politician, you have to use those terms.

Quote:

But I think you are missing the point. The reporter was an aide to the Reagan administration, and therefore he's biased. You can easily tell because when he's describing the situation he makes the US seem like the good guy and makes the Europeans sound evil.

In that case, do you believe anyone? After all, they are all biased.