A Former REPUBLICAN Senator for Kerry!

[Imran Siddiqui]

Of course, you're sitting here, talking about deficit size, and % of steel tariffs, and debates about whether 200 or 140 billions should be spent on Iraq... and you think it's something like a big difference?

As opposed to say, Canadian elections, or German elections, or British elections. There is more difference between Bush and Kerry than any of the two major candidates in any of those countries.

When was the last time in history an American admin imposed a radical change of course?

Reagan .

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by MrFun
It would be like using ten guys, each with a mop, just to clean a small spot of spilled milk, wouldn't it?

Ten guys with a mop

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

As opposed to say, Canadian elections, or German elections, or British elections. There is more difference between Bush and Kerry than any of the two major candidates in any of those countries.

I'm sorry that you used the example of Canadian politics. The political spectrum here is much broader; true, the difference between Libs and Cons is probably similar to the difference between Dems and Pukes (minimal), but there's still the NDP and the Bloc to stir things up.

Reagan .

He was a war criminal like all American presidents. Seriously though, I'm interested in knowing what he did that was so different. Don't throw apples.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Reagan .

Yes -- Reagan imposed "radical" dictatorships on Latin American peoples.


But I think Oncle was referring to POSITIVE radical efforts.

[Imran Siddiqui]

the difference between Libs and Cons is probably similar to the difference between Dems and Pukes (minimal), but there's still the NDP and the Bloc to stir things up.

So what about the NDP and the Bloc? Are any of them going to be the majority partner in a coalition?

Seriously though, I'm interested in knowing what he did that was so different.

He threw out detente when he came in and decided to confront the Soviets and did it by building up military power. He said screw this 'Great Society' BS and cut taxes drastically. He changed the whole rhetoric of the US from the welfare state should be larger to 'the era of big government is over' (even if it wasn't). Oh, and he made 'Liberal' a dirty word.

There is a reason it is refered to as the "Reagan Revolution".

[Fake Boris]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
So what about the NDP and the Bloc? Are any of them going to be the majority partner in a coalition?

The Bloc is, right now.

He threw out detente when he came in and decided to confront the Soviets and did it by building up military power.

Wow! an American president building up military against the Soviets!

He said screw this 'Great Society' BS and cut taxes drastically.

Cut on healthcare and spend on the military! almost like spend on healthcare and spend on the military!

Oh, and he made 'Liberal' a dirty word.

Incredible! sounds like FOX and Bush wouldn't have done it!

There is a reason it is refered to as the "Reagan Revolution".

Ideological mythology. Is it that Reagan caused the erosion of the buying power of the working class, or the aforementioned erosion resulted in uneducated poor people turning conservative?

[Imran Siddiqui]

The Bloc is, right now.

I didn't know that Prime Minister Martin was a Bloc member .

an American president building up military against the Soviets!

After detente had been the new philosophy, yeah, it was a pretty big deal. And it was an aggressive build up, conventionally, which was very different (it had been nuclear ever since the Eisenhower Doctrine).

Incredible! sounds like FOX and Bush wouldn't have done it!

Both came after Reagan, so I'm not sure if you are really this dumb or are just playing.

Ideological mythology.

Let's see, he changed the direction of the country drastically (as much of a change as Thatcher in Britain) and it's mythology? Don't think so. He actually thought the people should be able to keep more of their money! I know hard for a socialist, who wants to steal the peoples' money, to accept

[Gatekeeper]

President George W. Bush repeated again on Friday that, had he known then what he knows now about Iraq, he would *not* have changed a single thing in regards to his actions. So that means:

1. There *still* wouldn't have been any post-war planning.

2. We *still* would have relied on Ahmad Chalabi and his exile cronies to bring peace and stability.

3. We *still* would have gone in with far *fewer* combat troops than needed — 150,000 or so vs. the minimum of 250,000 or so that members of the Joint Chiefs of Staff had recommended.

4. The State Department would *still* have been waylaid and sidelined by civilians in the Pentagon (read: Feith, Rumsfeld, et al.) for well over a year before finally getting to pick up the pieces afterward.

5. Bush would've *still* landed on that aircraft carrier, all gussied up in his flight suit, and declared an end to major combat (with an escape clause, of course, for "mopping up" action).

6. We *still* would've left Iraq's borders porous and virtually undefended.

7. We *still* would've used a system of persuasion that led to the abuse incidents at the Abu Ghraib prison complex.

8. There would still be *no* weapons of mass destruction.

9. Osama bin Laden and Ayman al-Zawahari of al-Qaida fame would *still* be free, since our armies would *still* be tied up in Iraq.

10. One *good* "still," however, is the fact that there'd *still* be one less dictator in the world. But, frankly, I don't give a damn when other nations — Iran and North Korea come to mind here, along with Russia's increasing turn to authoritarian rule — pose a greater risk to the world than a beaten down (but defiant) Iraq ever did.

Do you know what, Mr. President? There *is* a difference between being a steadfast, unflappable leader and being a stubborn mule about things.

Gatekeeper

[notyoueither]

Actually, Reagan and Maggie were part of a swing away from big government Liberalism that was seen in many countries. They were also big time proponents of confrontation with the Soviets and the end of Detente.

Unfortunately, they didn't make all their goals. However, the goal of fiscal resposibility was realised in their wake. Now, today, even the left (NDP) in Canada advocates balanced budgets. I'm not sure how the Yanks got so ****ed up, considering RR led the charge.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Well Reagan couldn't get a balanced budget. He let the war against the Soviets get in the way of that... but I'm willing to make that trade (and yes, I consider the Soviets back then more of a threat to the US than Islamic fundamentalism is today).

[notyoueither]

Most people agreed.

Ironically, none of the conservative governments presided over quiet, prosperous times. There was the boom of the 80's, but government spending was not reigned in. Interest rates in the 20% range certainly did not help government spending as costs of past debts became unmanagable.

Curiously, it was after the medicine given by the likes of Maggie and Ronnie, that 'Liberals' were later able to balance budgets.

[notyoueither]

Incidently, balancing budgets became important, so that even Socialists in Canada would have to be in favour of it.

That was the biggest permanent effect of the swing of the 80's (outside of the US apparently).

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Guynemer




Case in point: tonight.

Go on.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by Oncle Boris


Ted Striker

[Agathon]

I change my mind. Apolyton's liberals are the pride and joy of the intelligenisa Only a group of barely college-educated / not college educated pale internet posters can present such a reasoned defense of the leftist ideology. Hats off to intelligence.

I don't know about Apolyton's liberals, but Apolyton's communists have no interest in providing a reasoned defence of their beliefs to you, we have re-education camps for that. Remember to bring a warm hat with you.

* and at least we can spell "intelligentsia".