About the American Civilization......

[Marquis de Sodaq]

Originally posted by MacTBone
...but guess what, no Pres. is perfect.

Of course not. Having not liked Reagan does not mean I did like Clinton! I just think Reagan is very overrated. All our leaders do good and bad. I suspect more of the latter than the former, but then I'm a bit of a sourpuss in that regard. Clinton had fortunate circumstance on his side, but he obviously didn't capitalize on that as well as he could have.

[Sava]

Originally posted by jsw363
Reagan was a GREAT president. I think that his decision to fire the air traffic controllers was a GOOD one. That single decision shifted the balance of power between labor and management forever. It allowed companies to fire workers, adapt to the information revolution and then hire more workers. As a result millions of jobs were eliminated, BUT also millions of jobs were created, helping thrust America into the economic expansion of the 90's.

I have been reading some of your posts and I really wonder about you.

Reagan was in the middle stages of Alzheimers disease BEFORE he was president. Reagen was the WORST president this country has ever had, maybe next to the current one. Republicans in general are bad presidents.

Reagan cut taxes so that the upper 1 percent of the population got richer, and everybody else got poorer. He allowed companies the freedom to make insane amounts of money, fire hundreds of workers just so the CEO's could make an extra million or two, and on top of that, the guy waste trillions of dollars on stupid defense plans. Reagan's foreign policies weren't that terrible, he did put in motion the end of Communism in Russia by forcing the arms race to bankrupt Russia, but there were much better ways that much better and smarter Democrats of the time wanted to go about bringing down Communism in Russia.

Had Ronald Reagan not been our president, the Soviet Union would have been broken up much earlier, oil prices would not be as high, the super rich would not be as super rich, many more people would have had jobs in the 80's, and technology would be ahead of where it is today. By pushing the breakup of AT&T, you have created companies that do not offer low priced reliable service, but mini-monopolies that charge insanely high per minute rates in order to further rape America of its wealth.

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by SoulAssassin


I have been reading some of your posts and I really wonder about you.

I,m not a 100% behind Reagan but I really wonder about you.

[jsw363]

Originally posted by SoulAssassin
I have been reading some of your posts and I really wonder about you.

No need to resort to ad hominem attacks. I wonder about lots of these people. I just don't say it out loud.

I guess that I am to understand from your post that you are liberal. I am writing this just so that you realize that you need to think more about your opinions in some cases. Some of your information is inaccurate.

Reagan cut taxes so that the upper 1 percent of the population got richer, and everybody else got poorer.

I know that you were too young to remember the tax cuts (sorry, I checked ). So here's the truth. Reagan first proposed a 30%, across the board (i.e., for all taxpayers), tax rate cut during the 1980 primary campaign. He was able to sign into law the tax cuts in late 1981 after an attempt by congressional Democrats to block the cuts (i.e. "gridlock") failed... but at the reduced rate of 25%, and an effective rate of 23% since the cuts would be over three years (5% in 1981, retroactive; 10% for 1982; 10% for 1983). The share of the income tax burden borne by the top 10 percent of taxpayers increased from 48.0 percent in 1981 to 57.2 percent in 1988. Meanwhile, the share of income taxes paid by the bottom 50 percent of taxpayers dropped from 7.5 percent in 1981 to 5.7 percent in 1988.

No I didn't make this up. It's not some conservative conspiracy. I got it from the webpage of the US Congress. The link is below.

http://www.house.gov/jec/fiscal/tx-grwth/reagtxct/reagtxct.htm

Reagan's foreign policies weren't that terrible, he did put in motion the end of Communism in Russia by forcing the arms race to bankrupt Russia, but there were much better ways that much better and smarter Democrats of the time wanted to go about bringing down Communism in Russia.

Glad that you admit that he had some good points. The Soviet Union's defense spending did not rise or fall in response to American military expenditures. Revised estimates by the Central Intelligence Agency indicate that Soviet expenditures on defense remained more or less constant throughout the 1980s. Neither the military buildup under Jimmy Carter and Reagan nor SDI had any real impact on gross spending levels in the USSR, according to Gorbachev.

By pushing the breakup of AT&T, you have created companies that do not offer low priced reliable service, but mini-monopolies that charge insanely high per minute rates in order to further rape America of its wealth.

Sorry you have high long distance charges. Maybe you should switch to Sprint.

[civcop]

Well done jsw!

It is difficult, nay impossible, to argue against the facts. Still, liberals in the U.S. attempt to do so. You correctly state the facts surrounding Reagan's tax cut. George W. Bush's tax cut is similar, yet our liberal friends would have us believe that it only benefits the wealthy.

Futher facts:
Republicans in the Congress were responsible for the passing of the Civil Rights Act. Democrats tried to block it. Al Gore's father voted against it. LBJ relied on Republican congressmen to get the bill through.

Reagan is on the short list of best Presidents in the modern era. I happen to believe he was the best of the 20th century, but that is just my pragmatic, conservative opinion.

Clinton not only gave red China military technology, but he gave our military short shrift. Who are we relying on in the near future to avenge our nation? It isn't the red Chinese. It isn't "Lonely" Bill Clinton either (lonely enough to stroll down the streets of N.Y. to get in the public eye again). Who is having to stare down a national catastrophe while simultaneously building up our military? None other than George W. Bush. Get behind him...it's your patriotic duty. We conservatives would have done it for Clinton or (God help us) President Gore.

And if jsw is correct in realizing by your birth date that you are not old enough to understand the Reagan era, then upon what are you basing your view? It surely isn't historical fact. Liberals are like goody huts filled with a swarm of Barbarians. They look promising on the outside, but open them up and you find that all they want to do is fight and take your gold.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

calm down, children!

Grouping people together and labelling them "liberals" is another thing that we owe to Reagan. It's so much easier to lambast an opposing opinion if you lump all naysayers into a stereotype and oversimplify "their" stance. Doing this can lead to nothing but inaccurate statements, whatever your position.

Civcop, both parties worked the Civil Rights Act thru congress. For one party to take credit at the expense of the other is nonsense.

Jsw363, if you think Reagan's blast against labor was good, you simply must not understand the history of organized labor in the US. The existence of the minimum wage, 15 minute breaks, the 40 hr work week, on-the-job safety requirements, benefits of ALL kinds, etc, etc, etc, are all due to the efforts of organized labor. It saddens me when I hear unions badmouthed by people (no, I'm not a union member). Unless you live on someone else's tab, you owe organized labor a huge thank you. Yes, time rolls on. Some unions get corrupt, some wallow in worthlessness. But as a whole, organized labor is a good thing.

I suppose you'll now brand me a "liberal." We (hopefully) are all critically thinking people who have some differing opinions. Think before ignorantly stereotyping, it undermines any point you try to make.

[jsw363]

Re: calm down, children!

Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq
Grouping people together and labelling them "liberals" is another thing that we owe to Reagan. It's so much easier to lambast an opposing opinion if you lump all naysayers into a stereotype and oversimplify "their" stance. Doing this can lead to nothing but inaccurate statements, whatever your position.

I suppose you'll now brand me a "liberal." We (hopefully) are all critically thinking people who have some differing opinions. Think before ignorantly stereotyping, it undermines any point you try to make.

Marquis- So typically liberal (kidding) . I don't think I engage in "ignorant stereotyping." If you read my post closely, you'll see that I am encourage people to break free from the labels. I wrote:"I am writing this just so that you realize that you need to think more about your opinions in some cases. Some of your information is inaccurate." I was encouraging SoulAssassin to examine his beliefs more closely. I didn't "lump all naysayers into a stereotype" I made a hesitant suggestion about the political leanings of ONE individual. Please don't exaggerate my statements.

Originally posted by Marquis de Sodaq
Jsw363, if you think Reagan's blast against labor was good, you simply must not understand the history of organized labor in the US. The existence of the minimum wage, 15 minute breaks, the 40 hr work week, on-the-job safety requirements, benefits of ALL kinds, etc, etc, etc, are all due to the efforts of organized labor. It saddens me when I hear unions badmouthed by people (no, I'm not a union member).

I said that: "I think that his decision to fire the air traffic controllers was a GOOD one. "I never mentioned labor or unions in general and did not "badmouth" unions, as you allege. I didn't discuss the history of labor unions, whether or not they were beneficial to this country or anything else. I talked about one decision made by our former president.

I am all for intellectual discussions of the issues free from labels and personal attacks. I wish we could stick to discussing issues, though this is wildly OT.

[Marquis de Sodaq]

jsw363, the stereotyping comment was more directed at civcop's response, but this wasn't so clear in my post, sorry.

Regarding unions, I guess I connected the air traffic controllers (org. labor group) getting canned with your comments about what it led to: easier firing, shifting the balance of power (back to management), and allowing business adaptation. The first two points are directly contrary to the purpose of unions; The third is questionably tied exclusively to weakening labor's positiong. Yes, you mentioned it only as one anecdote, but seeing it as a general anti-labor position led me to my statement. I stand corrected!

Yeah, this is really off topic now. Somebody steer this back to its original topic!

[Dimorier Maximus]

Originally posted by static
Clinton - Yeah, I know what your thinking, but when he took office our nation was in a reccession, headed for a depression. His handling of the price of oil was amazing, really. With cheaper oil our industries surged back on their feet, and his administration was key for the expansion of the internet(No, Al Gore didn't invent it. ). America had it greatest economic boom, by far, under his presidency. And you can't forget about him getting 'favors' from an intern while on the phone with senators.

...please tell me you're joking. Clinton is one of the worst Presidents in recent history. Sure, he was a smooth talker, but he sucked as a leader. He brought about a level of moral decline never seen before or since his time. He made many lose respect for all Presidents in general. "His" handling of the price of oil? Please, he's not OPEC or Alan Greenspan. Anyone with any advisors would have been just as successful.

For male leader, George Washington is my favorite. For female leader, God forbid we ever elect a woman President, but if I must choose, then I pick Jessica Simpson. Then I would play against America a lot, set her as the leader, and go to the diplomacy screen with America whenever I wanted to see a pretty face .

[jsw363]

Marquis- We cool.

Originally posted by Dimorier Maximus
...please tell me you're joking. Clinton is one of the worst Presidents in recent history. Sure, he was a smooth talker, but he sucked as a leader. He brought about a level of moral decline never seen before or since his time. He made many lose respect for all Presidents in general. "His" handling of the price of oil? Please, he's not OPEC or Alan Greenspan. Anyone with any advisors would have been just as successful.

Guess we're back on topic....

For female leader, God forbid we ever elect a woman President, but if I must choose, then I pick Jessica Simpson. Then I would play against America a lot, set her as the leader, and go to the diplomacy screen with America whenever I wanted to see a pretty face .

[Warm Beer]

I read this thread with great amusement and interest. As a matter of fact, being a Liberal (a North West one at that ), I thought I should educate some of the more conservative folks in this thread with some Leftist propoganda.

But then, after reading jsw363's comment on staying on topic, I thought I'd add some good ol' fashioned bi-partisan co-operation to the discussion and keep my political idology out of this thread (well, mostly at least)

As far as being on topic, the female default leader in Civ III seems to be a moot point, seeing how there will be only one default leader per civiliation and that the USA has only had one gender in the Oval Office: Male.

As far as the Reagan vs Clinton debate... they're both schumcks (for very different reasons, I must add), but no need to go into that any further here.
On Ranking the Presidents, the study that was linked above was sponsored by the Federalist Society and The Wall Street Journal- VERY conservative groups... the Federalist Society, notoriously so- hence the High ranking of Reagan.

Geez I thought I was back on topic for a minute there...

[Mister Pleasant]

Clinton was worthless. Payed alot of lip service to liberal causes, then signs the CDC, the anti-terrorism and effective death penalty act, and so on. And before ANYONE jumps my case about opposing something called the "anti-terrorism and effective death penalty act" please reflect on the following. That law has not stopped one single terrorist - what it has done is denied habeus corpus to poor and underrepresented defendants as well as authorizing secret evidence. Secret evidence! How much more taliban-like can one get! I thought this was America . . .

Eisenhower was brilliant. He knew when NOT to do things (sounds funny coming from a liberal I know, but sometimes our libertarian brothers are correct that no government intervention is called for).

Madison would make a great leader for Civ because he designed the Consitution. For me, however, FDR will always remain the guy who opened concentration camps in America. He may have done alot of good, but the camps were an atrocity - a crime against humanity - and that can't be swept under the rug.

[static]

Originally posted by Dimorier Maximus


...please tell me you're joking. Clinton is one of the worst Presidents in recent history. Sure, he was a smooth talker, but he sucked as a leader. He brought about a level of moral decline never seen before or since his time. He made many lose respect for all Presidents in general. "His" handling of the price of oil? Please, he's not OPEC or Alan Greenspan. Anyone with any advisors would have been just as successful.

For male leader, George Washington is my favorite. For female leader, God forbid we ever elect a woman President, but if I must choose, then I pick Jessica Simpson. Then I would play against America a lot, set her as the leader, and go to the diplomacy screen with America whenever I wanted to see a pretty face .

Clinton is one of the worst Presidents in recent history???
So your saying he's worst than George Bush, Jimmy Carter, Ford, Nixon, L.B.J???

He brought about a level of moral decline never seen before or since his time???
Oh, he's the reason... I stupidly thought abuse of drugs(illegal and legal), parental neglect, lack of responsibility(The it's somebody else's fault syndrome), scummy lawyers, bad movie sequels, and Barbra Streisand music, were the causes of moral decline...

He made many lose respect for all Presidents in general???
So Jefferson who had slaves(and had affairs with them), and Nixon(need I say more..) never made anyone lose respect? I will agree that Clinton personally was scum, but MANY other presidents were.

"His" handling of the price of oil? Please, he's not OPEC or Alan Greenspan.
First off, Greenspan wasn't involved in oil. Second, perhaps I did overstate his influence, but the diplomatic relations we had with OPEC countries were instrumental with the low price of oil in the 90's.

Anyone with any advisors would have been just as successful???
Like George Bush and his advisors that led us into a recession .

For female leader, God forbid we ever elect a woman President, but if I must choose, then I pick Jessica Simpson.
Now that's something everyone can agree on.

[static]

Originally posted by Mister Pleasant
Clinton was worthless. Payed alot of lip service to liberal causes, then signs the CDC, the anti-terrorism and effective death penalty act, and so on. And before ANYONE jumps my case about opposing something called the "anti-terrorism and effective death penalty act" please reflect on the following. That law has not stopped one single terrorist - what it has done is denied habeus corpus to poor and underrepresented defendants as well as authorizing secret evidence. Secret evidence! How much more taliban-like can one get! I thought this was America . . .

Eisenhower was brilliant. He knew when NOT to do things (sounds funny coming from a liberal I know, but sometimes our libertarian brothers are correct that no government intervention is called for).

Madison would make a great leader for Civ because he designed the Consitution. For me, however, FDR will always remain the guy who opened concentration camps in America. He may have done alot of good, but the camps were an atrocity - a crime against humanity - and that can't be swept under the rug.

Clinton was worthless...???
He was alot of things, but worthless wasn't one of them.

That law has not stopped one single terrorist???
How do you know this? There are secret investigations that the public has no idea about going on everyday.

Eisenhower was brilliant???
Has public education gotten this bad . Name ONE thing that makes him so. It is common knowledge that the presidents who were former generals, made lousy presidents.

Originally posted by Mister Pleasant
(sounds funny coming from a liberal I know, but sometimes our libertarian brothers are correct that no government intervention is called for).

Why must everyone call themselves "liberals" and "conservatives". A great man once said:

Originally posted by static
If people stopped calling themselves Democrats, Republicans, Liberals,Conservatives, etc.........., and we just called ourselves AMERICANS, then I think things would be much better.

Oh wait, that was me...

[joseph1944]

Originally posted by static

He made many lose respect for all Presidents in general???
So Jefferson who had slaves(and had affairs with them), and Nixon(need I say more..) never made anyone lose respect? I will agree that Clinton personally was scum, but MANY other presidents were.

Some of our so-called experts now say Jefferson's brother may have been the Father of those children. Actually we don't know what the truce is, btw who cares. Jefferson died in 1826 and that was a 175 years ago. Clinton is still alive I think or did he pass away last night?

Like George Bush and his advisors that led us into a recession

Iraq invaded Kuwait, that started the recession. The Public stopped buying overnight.