| Topic: |
Religions > Atheism |
| User: |
"Will Lockhart" |
| Date: |
06 Jun 2004 04:22:48 PM |
| Object: |
Ronald Reagan, the Great Satan has finally died!!!! |
The most evil man in US History has finally died and went to hell.
Satan has finally collected on the soul that Reagan sold to him to be
the most powerful man in US History.
"Those whome the gods would destroy, they would first drive mad!" Need
we say more about the condition of Reagan before he died. Reagan was
pure evil, the poorer became poorer, rich became richer and the
minorities were nearly destroyed. Let's not forget about the near
global catastrophes of the Iran-Contra and near nuke war with the former
USSR.
The guy was a demon and will burn for all eternity in Hell. Bush Sr.
and Rumsfeld will join him shortly. All will be suprised to see that
the former Ayatollah Komein never made it to hell.
--
Discuss Politics, reality shows, Race Relations, Gay Rights and Marvel
or DC characters.
http://www.comicboards.org
.
|
|
| User: "Goodness Godless" |
|
| Title: Re: Ronald Reagan, the Great Satan has finally died!!!! |
06 Jun 2004 07:26:41 PM |
|
|
"Will Lockhart" <retailmgr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bo-dnTFK5Mi1Fl7dRVn-gg@comcast.com...
The most evil man in US History has finally died and went to hell.
Satan has finally collected on the soul that Reagan sold to him to be
the most powerful man in US History.
Evil, come now don't be silly.
Regan, Bush nor Chimpazees.
These are too Stupid to be called Evil, let alone Satan.
Get a Grip.
McCathy, Stalin and Hitler yes!
Bur Bush and Regan are just Brainwashed/Braindead Yanks.
Their bosses, the faceless Money Men in Wall Street, maybe?
Bush and Regan are just like 5 year olds found playing with their willies!
Give then a spank and they will become rapists for Mummy!
--
Anyone who is not shocked by quantum theory has not understood it.
Niels Bohr
Goodness Godless
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hypatia Kosh" |
|
| Title: Re: Ronald Reagan, the Great Satan has finally died!!!! |
07 Jun 2004 10:19:30 PM |
|
|
"Goodness Godless" <goodness@godless.net> wrote in message news:<1086567825.153185@athnrd02.forthnet.gr>...
"Will Lockhart" <retailmgr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bo-dnTFK5Mi1Fl7dRVn-gg@comcast.com...
The most evil man in US History has finally died and went to hell.
Satan has finally collected on the soul that Reagan sold to him to be
the most powerful man in US History.
Evil, come now don't be silly.
Regan, Bush nor Chimpazees.
These are too Stupid to be called Evil, let alone Satan.
Get a Grip.
McCathy, Stalin and Hitler yes!
George Herbert Walker Bush. Former spook. Committed treason. Possibly
arranged extremely convenient death of Iran-Contra witness. Saved by
Oliver North falling on his sword for the administration. Known liar.
Adulterer.
Of course it's not surprising that a man who committed treason against
the People of the United States would cheat on his wife. A minor sin
in the scheme of things. But it's funny how we rip into Bubba Boy, the
brilliant but flawed backwoods ***** who couldn't control himself,
and yes, abused his power in other ways, while Bush, the traitor,
calculating and controlled, seems to have the true "teflon".
-HK
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Scott" |
|
| Title: Re: Ronald Reagan, the Great Satan has finally died!!!! |
07 Jun 2004 02:10:34 PM |
|
|
"Will Lockhart" <retailmgr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bo-dnTFK5Mi1Fl7dRVn-gg@comcast.com...
The most evil man in US History has finally died and went to hell.
Satan has finally collected on the soul that Reagan sold to him to be
the most powerful man in US History.
"Those whome the gods would destroy, they would first drive mad!" Need
we say more about the condition of Reagan before he died. Reagan was
pure evil, the poorer became poorer, rich became richer and the
minorities were nearly destroyed. Let's not forget about the near
global catastrophes of the Iran-Contra and near nuke war with the former
USSR.
The guy was a demon and will burn for all eternity in Hell. Bush Sr.
and Rumsfeld will join him shortly. All will be suprised to see that
the former Ayatollah Komein never made it to hell.
--
Discuss Politics, reality shows, Race Relations, Gay Rights and Marvel
or DC characters.
http://www.comicboards.org
The minorities were nearly destroyed???? LOL!
Who is this moron???
Scott
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "mariner" |
|
| Title: Re: Ronald Reagan, the Great Satan has finally died!!!! |
06 Jun 2004 04:39:53 PM |
|
|
"Will Lockhart" <retailmgr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bo-dnTFK5Mi1Fl7dRVn-gg@comcast.com...
snip inane drivel<
"Those whome the gods would destroy, they would first drive mad!"
I think you are getting you're getting RR mixed up with 'islam' its the
muslims who are going mad - fool.
As an example :- God gave you life to live to the fullest - and what do
muslims do and think - they prefer death over and above all things - such
stupidity is unbelieveable.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Jez" |
|
| Title: Re: Ronald Reagan, the Great Satan has finally died!!!! |
10 Jun 2004 10:57:38 AM |
|
|
"mariner" <rjhardyack@starnett.com> wrote in message
news:ca02v8$f8v$1@sparta.btinternet.com...
"Will Lockhart" <retailmgr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bo-dnTFK5Mi1Fl7dRVn-gg@comcast.com...
snip inane drivel<
"Those whome the gods would destroy, they would first drive mad!"
I think you are getting you're getting RR mixed up with 'islam' its the
muslims who are going mad - fool.
As an example :- God gave you life to live to the fullest
Who ?
--
Jez
"The condition of alienation, of being asleep, of being unconscious,
of being out of one's mind, is the condition of the normal man. Society
highly values its normal man.It educates children to lose themselves
and to become absurd,and thus to be normal. Normal men have killed
perhaps 100,000,000 of their fellow normal men in the last fifty years."
R.D. Laing
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Icono" |
|
| Title: Re: Ronald Reagan, the Great Satan has finally died!!!! |
06 Jun 2004 09:40:40 PM |
|
|
"Will Lockhart" <retailmgr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bo-dnTFK5Mi1Fl7dRVn-gg@comcast.com...
That's right.
He was terrible.
It was because of him that Clinton had a free ride. ALL changes take 2 to 8
years to take effect.
It was because of him that government contracts to protect us dried up (no
need)
It was because of him that the really sick and hate filled liberals had
something to vent ( fart) about. They have nothing else without an
education. We must take care of the retarded.
.
|
|
|
| User: "• R.L. Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: Ronald Reagan, the Great Satan has finally died!!!! |
07 Jun 2004 06:02:10 AM |
|
|
In article <HAQwc.31702$lL1.19566@fed1read03>, "Icono"
<iconoclst@home.com> wrote:
"Will Lockhart" <retailmgr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bo-dnTFK5Mi1Fl7dRVn-gg@comcast.com...
That's right.
He was terrible.
It was because of him that Clinton had a free ride. ALL changes take 2 to 8
years to take effect.
It was because of him that government contracts to protect us dried up (no
need)
It was because of him that the really sick and hate filled liberals had
something to vent ( fart) about. They have nothing else without an
education. We must take care of the retarded.
• But must they live in the White House?
--
€ R.L. Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org. + in adr = spam trap
.
|
|
|
| User: "Icono" |
|
| Title: Re: Ronald Reagan, the Great Satan has finally died!!!! |
07 Jun 2004 12:19:21 PM |
|
|
"• R.L. Measures" <+r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:+r-0706040402100001@192.168.1.100...
In article <HAQwc.31702$lL1.19566@fed1read03>, "Icono"
<iconoclst@home.com> wrote:
"Will Lockhart" <retailmgr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bo-dnTFK5Mi1Fl7dRVn-gg@comcast.com...
That's right.
He was terrible.
It was because of him that Clinton had a free ride. ALL changes take 2
to 8
years to take effect.
It was because of him that government contracts to protect us dried up
(no
need)
It was because of him that the really sick and hate filled liberals had
something to vent ( fart) about. They have nothing else without an
education. We must take care of the retarded.
• But must they live in the White House?
Cute :>)
Government (Liberalism to one extent or another) (Republicans or Democrats)
is foreordained to be in the Whitehouse.
Where would we be if we still had States rights?
Where would we be if we still had freedom of religion? (When did sexual
orientation or abortion become a governmental rather than a religious
preference?)
Where would we be if a theif assumed you had a gun?
Where would we be if trade between states was state regulated?
Where would we be if there were no National controls on trade or commerce?
Where would we be if corporations faced actual libel rather than law created
(or excused) libel?
Where would we be if there was no such thing as "controlled" or
"prescription" drugs?
Answer:
We would be where the founding fathers intended and truly free and safe (or
close to it).
--
€ R.L. Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org. + in adr = spam trap
.
|
|
|
| User: "Robert Schneider" |
|
| Title: Re: Ronald Reagan, the Great Satan has finally died!!!! |
07 Jun 2004 02:04:07 PM |
|
|
"Icono" <iconoclst@home.com> wrote in message
news:ss1xc.37895$lL1.33358@fed1read03...
". R.L. Measures" <+r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:+r-0706040402100001@192.168.1.100...
In article <HAQwc.31702$lL1.19566@fed1read03>, "Icono"
<iconoclst@home.com> wrote:
"Will Lockhart" <retailmgr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bo-dnTFK5Mi1Fl7dRVn-gg@comcast.com...
That's right.
He was terrible.
It was because of him that Clinton had a free ride. ALL changes take
2
to 8
years to take effect.
It was because of him that government contracts to protect us dried up
(no
need)
It was because of him that the really sick and hate filled liberals
had
something to vent ( fart) about. They have nothing else without an
education. We must take care of the retarded.
. But must they live in the White House?
Cute :>)
Government (Liberalism to one extent or another) (Republicans or
Democrats)
is foreordained to be in the Whitehouse.
Where would we be if we still had States rights?
What federal powers would you give back to the states?
Where would we be if we still had freedom of religion? (When did sexual
orientation or abortion become a governmental rather than a religious
preference?)
Funny. "The Passion of the Christ" wasn't banned from cinemas and people
are still allowed to attend church on Sunday (as well as other days of the
week).
Where would we be if a theif assumed you had a gun?
Probably dead since the thief would have to kill you before robbing you.
Better learn to be a quick draw!
Where would we be if trade between states was state regulated?
A fine mess. It is best to play by one set of rules.
Where would we be if there were no National controls on trade or commerce?
There would be no tariff revenue and embargoes would cease to exist. Job
outsourcing would be unchecked, diminishing the power of unions leading to
workers losing their rights and benefits. Also, contraband would cease to
exist.
Where would we be if corporations faced actual libel rather than law
created
(or excused) libel?
Please elaborate.
Where would we be if there was no such thing as "controlled" or
"prescription" drugs?
There would be no people in prison for drug possession but there certainly
would be an increase of deaths due to drug abuse.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Hypatia Kosh" |
|
| Title: Re: Ronald Reagan, the Great Satan has finally died!!!! |
07 Jun 2004 10:27:04 PM |
|
|
"Icono" <iconoclst@home.com> wrote in message news:<ss1xc.37895$lL1.33358@fed1read03>...
"? R.L. Measures" <+r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:+r-0706040402100001@192.168.1.100...
In article <HAQwc.31702$lL1.19566@fed1read03>, "Icono"
<iconoclst@home.com> wrote:
"Will Lockhart" <retailmgr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bo-dnTFK5Mi1Fl7dRVn-gg@comcast.com...
That's right.
He was terrible.
It was because of him that Clinton had a free ride. ALL changes take 2
to 8
years to take effect.
It was because of him that government contracts to protect us dried up
(no
need)
It was because of him that the really sick and hate filled liberals had
something to vent ( fart) about. They have nothing else without an
education. We must take care of the retarded.
? But must they live in the White House?
Cute :>)
Government (Liberalism to one extent or another) (Republicans or Democrats)
is foreordained to be in the Whitehouse.
Where would we be if we still had States rights?
Segregation.
Where would we be if we still had freedom of religion? (When did sexual
orientation or abortion become a governmental rather than a religious
preference?)
17th century state laws made sodomy (or in Massachusetts, "the crime
against nature") a felony. Only now is government getting OUT of
religious law.
Where would we be if a theif assumed you had a gun?
Burglars always assume that inhabitants are dangerous. This is why
they case houses and do their best to burgle while the residents are
away.
Where would we be if trade between states was state regulated?
Did you forget your early USA history? That's why we have the 1789
Constitution instead of the original confederation.
Where would we be if there were no National controls on trade or commerce?
A mess.
Where would we be if corporations faced actual libel rather than law created
(or excused) libel?
Huh?
Where would we be if there was no such thing as "controlled" or
"prescription" drugs?
Cheaper drugs. And public health problems.
Answer:
We would be where the founding fathers intended and truly free and safe (or
close to it).
The Founding Fathers went through a couple drafts because they didn't
get it perfectly right the first time. Nobody can create the perfect
government a priori.
-Hypatia
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "• R.L. Measures" |
|
| Title: Re: Ronald Reagan, the Great Satan has finally died!!!! |
07 Jun 2004 03:16:15 PM |
|
|
In article <ss1xc.37895$lL1.33358@fed1read03>, "Icono"
<iconoclst@home.com> wrote:
"• R.L. Measures" <+r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:+r-0706040402100001@192.168.1.100...
In article <HAQwc.31702$lL1.19566@fed1read03>, "Icono"
<iconoclst@home.com> wrote:
"Will Lockhart" <retailmgr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bo-dnTFK5Mi1Fl7dRVn-gg@comcast.com...
That's right.
He was terrible.
It was because of him that Clinton had a free ride. ALL changes take 2
to 8
years to take effect.
It was because of him that government contracts to protect us dried up
(no
need)
It was because of him that the really sick and hate filled liberals had
something to vent ( fart) about. They have nothing else without an
education. We must take care of the retarded.
• But must they live in the White House?
Cute :>)
Government (Liberalism to one extent or another) (Republicans or Democrats)
is foreordained to be in the Whitehouse.
Where would we be if we still had States rights?
• For damn sure, Nigahs would not be votin' in Mississippi.
Where would we be if we still had freedom of religion? (When did sexual
orientation or abortion become a governmental rather than a religious
preference?)
Where would we be if a theif assumed you had a gun?
• Likely not in your face.
Where would we be if trade between states was state regulated?
• Up ***** Creek without a paddle.
Where would we be if there were no National controls on trade or commerce?
Where would we be if corporations faced actual libel rather than law created
(or excused) libel?
Where would we be if there was no such thing as "controlled" or
"prescription" drugs?
• The war on drugs would be won because the druggies would OD, the profit
from illicit drugs would disappear, and the world would be a better place.
Answer:
We would be where the founding fathers intended and truly free and safe (or
close to it).
--
€ R.L. Measures, 805-386-3734, www.somis.org. + in adr = spam trap
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Laura Gonzalez" |
|
| Title: Re: Ronald Reagan, the Great Satan has finally died!!!! |
07 Jun 2004 07:03:21 PM |
|
|
On Mon, 7 Jun 2004 10:19:21 -0700, "Icono" <iconoclst@home.com> wrote:
"• R.L. Measures" <+r@somis.org> wrote in message
news:+r-0706040402100001@192.168.1.100...
In article <HAQwc.31702$lL1.19566@fed1read03>, "Icono"
<iconoclst@home.com> wrote:
"Will Lockhart" <retailmgr@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:bo-dnTFK5Mi1Fl7dRVn-gg@comcast.com...
That's right.
He was terrible.
It was because of him that Clinton had a free ride. ALL changes take 2
to 8
years to take effect.
It was because of him that government contracts to protect us dried up
(no
need)
It was because of him that the really sick and hate filled liberals had
something to vent ( fart) about. They have nothing else without an
education. We must take care of the retarded.
• But must they live in the White House?
Cute :>)
Government (Liberalism to one extent or another) (Republicans or Democrats)
is foreordained to be in the Whitehouse.
Where would we be if we still had States rights?
Where would we be if we still had freedom of religion? (When did sexual
orientation or abortion become a governmental rather than a religious
preference?)
Where would we be if a theif assumed you had a gun?
Where would we be if trade between states was state regulated?
Where would we be if there were no National controls on trade or commerce?
Where would we be if corporations faced actual libel rather than law created
(or excused) libel?
Where would we be if there was no such thing as "controlled" or
"prescription" drugs?
Answer:
We would be where the founding fathers intended and truly free and safe (or
close to it).
Weren't some of those things you mentioned problems with the Articles
of Confederation? That's why the founding fathers realized we needed
a stronger central government.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Clayton of Sunnybrook Farm" |
|
| Title: Re: Ronald Reagan, the Great Satan has finally died!!!! |
07 Jun 2004 06:52:49 PM |
|
|
From and interview with anti-nuclear campaigner Dr Helen Caldicott from
"Enough Rope with Andrew Denton".
Andrew Denton: Let's talk about another US president. You campaigned around
the world in the '70s and '80s and you got a rare one on one with President
Ronald Reagan.
Dr Helen Caldicott: I did.
Andrew Denton: What was that experience like?
Dr Helen Caldicott: Well, I met his daughter in the Playboy Mansion. There
is such a place. There was Hugh Hefner with the Playgirls, you know?
Andrew Denton: How did you come to be in the Playboy Mansion?
Dr Helen Caldicott: Well, um, Hefner was excerpting a book called 'With
Enough Shovels' about, "Don't worry about nuclear war. "If there are enough
shovels to go round, you dig your hole - "we'll all make it." It was called
'With Enough Shovels'. That was a Federal Emergency Management Agency. And
he had a lot of film stars that night and I was to address them with Paul
Newman. And my agent said, "Look, be emotional." She said, "They're film
stars. You can be emotional tonight." So I dropped the bomb and I said,
"Look, go out tonight and look at the stars and realise we're probably the
only life in the whole universe and realise how precious this is and what
we're going to do about it." So.and Kris Kristofferson was crying and stuff.
Andrew Denton: Well, that's because you mentioned other stars. He wouldn't
like that. This is Hollywood.
Dr Helen Caldicott: He's a darling. Anyway, so, um, up came this tall,
slender girl with long black hair and she said, "I'm Patti Davis." She said,
"I want you to see my father. You're the only one who can change his mind
about nuclear war." I said, "OK, but I want to see him alone." She rang me
two days later and said we've got an hour at the end of his working day. And
I said, "What time?" She said, "4 o'clock."
Andrew Denton: He was an old man, fair enough.
Dr Helen Caldicott: So we swept into the southern portico in the black limo
with the walkie-talkies and secrets. Went into the downstairs library in
which there were no books.
(Andrew laughs)
Dr Helen Caldicott: We waited a while, and I was nervous because it was the
President, and he came in all dithery. He didn't shake my hand, so I shook
his, and I said, "You probably don't know who I am, do you?" He said, "Yes,
you're an Australian, you read 'On the Beach' when you were young and you're
scared of nuclear war." I said, "That's right." He said, "I, too, am scared,
but our way is to prevent it - I believe in building more bombs." So we were
off to a fantastic start.
Dr Helen Caldicott: Yeah. I'd just written my book, 'Missile Envy', and I
just had facts and figures just. You're a good audience - you recognise what
I'm talking about.facts and figures pouring out of my eyes, ears and that
and every single thing he said was wrong. So I'd stop him. And do you
remember when he used to get anxious, he used to get what we call a malar
flush - red cheeks. And he'd get really upset, so I had to pat his hand and
reassure him and I'd correct him and then we'd go onto the next subject,
which was wrong again. So I spent about half the time holding his hand, and
as a clinician able to assess his IQ, which was about 100 - average. That
takes in all the very mentally retarded people and the very smart people,
like you - he was in the middle.
(Audience titters.)
Dr Helen Caldicott: And then he said, "Look, I.I took some notes before I
came down," and reached into his pocket and pulled them out. In his childish
writing he had written, "People who work for the nuclear weapons freeze are
either KGB dupes or Soviet agents." I said, "That's from last month's
'Reader's Digest', verbatim." He said, "No, it's from my intelligence
files." Which Patti later told me was one and the same thing. He'd virtually
never read a book but he subscribed religiously to the 'Reader's Digest'.
Andrew Denton: So.
Dr Helen Caldicott: It was actually.was. He's a nice old man. He was a nice
old man, but tot. Would have been a nice chicken farmer or something, you
know? But totally inappropriate to be president. Now, the one we've got now
is not as intelligent.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Craney" |
|
| Title: Re: Ronald Reagan, the Great Satan has finally died!!!! |
08 Jun 2004 08:46:14 AM |
|
|
In article <40c4ff72$0$1584$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
cjfat@BLOCKINGOFTHESPAMphonyemail.com says...
From and interview with anti-nuclear campaigner Dr Helen Caldicott from
"Enough Rope with Andrew Denton".
Andrew Denton: Let's talk about another US president. You campaigned around
the world in the '70s and '80s and you got a rare one on one with President
Ronald Reagan.
Dr Helen Caldicott: I did.
Andrew Denton: What was that experience like?
Dr Helen Caldicott: Well, I met his daughter in the Playboy Mansion. There
is such a place. There was Hugh Hefner with the Playgirls, you know?
Andrew Denton: How did you come to be in the Playboy Mansion?
Dr Helen Caldicott: Well, um, Hefner was excerpting a book called 'With
Enough Shovels' about, "Don't worry about nuclear war. "If there are enough
shovels to go round, you dig your hole - "we'll all make it." It was called
'With Enough Shovels'. That was a Federal Emergency Management Agency. And
he had a lot of film stars that night and I was to address them with Paul
Newman. And my agent said, "Look, be emotional." She said, "They're film
stars. You can be emotional tonight." So I dropped the bomb and I said,
"Look, go out tonight and look at the stars and realise we're probably the
only life in the whole universe and realise how precious this is and what
we're going to do about it." So.and Kris Kristofferson was crying and stuff.
Andrew Denton: Well, that's because you mentioned other stars. He wouldn't
like that. This is Hollywood.
Dr Helen Caldicott: He's a darling. Anyway, so, um, up came this tall,
slender girl with long black hair and she said, "I'm Patti Davis." She said,
"I want you to see my father. You're the only one who can change his mind
about nuclear war." I said, "OK, but I want to see him alone." She rang me
two days later and said we've got an hour at the end of his working day. And
I said, "What time?" She said, "4 o'clock."
Andrew Denton: He was an old man, fair enough.
Dr Helen Caldicott: So we swept into the southern portico in the black limo
with the walkie-talkies and secrets. Went into the downstairs library in
which there were no books.
(Andrew laughs)
Dr Helen Caldicott: We waited a while, and I was nervous because it was the
President, and he came in all dithery. He didn't shake my hand, so I shook
his, and I said, "You probably don't know who I am, do you?" He said, "Yes,
you're an Australian, you read 'On the Beach' when you were young and you're
scared of nuclear war." I said, "That's right." He said, "I, too, am scared,
but our way is to prevent it - I believe in building more bombs." So we were
off to a fantastic start.
Dr Helen Caldicott: Yeah. I'd just written my book, 'Missile Envy', and I
just had facts and figures just. You're a good audience - you recognise what
I'm talking about.facts and figures pouring out of my eyes, ears and that
and every single thing he said was wrong. So I'd stop him. And do you
remember when he used to get anxious, he used to get what we call a malar
flush - red cheeks. And he'd get really upset, so I had to pat his hand and
reassure him and I'd correct him and then we'd go onto the next subject,
which was wrong again. So I spent about half the time holding his hand, and
as a clinician able to assess his IQ, which was about 100 - average. That
takes in all the very mentally retarded people and the very smart people,
like you - he was in the middle.
(Audience titters.)
Dr Helen Caldicott: And then he said, "Look, I.I took some notes before I
came down," and reached into his pocket and pulled them out. In his childish
writing he had written, "People who work for the nuclear weapons freeze are
either KGB dupes or Soviet agents." I said, "That's from last month's
'Reader's Digest', verbatim." He said, "No, it's from my intelligence
files." Which Patti later told me was one and the same thing. He'd virtually
never read a book but he subscribed religiously to the 'Reader's Digest'.
Andrew Denton: So.
Dr Helen Caldicott: It was actually.was. He's a nice old man. He was a nice
old man, but tot. Would have been a nice chicken farmer or something, you
know? But totally inappropriate to be president. Now, the one we've got now
is not as intelligent.
An interesting sideline of this post (and one that appears often in
discussions about our current president) is the implicit assumption that
whoever is President must be of high intelligence.
Why is that? After all, men of average intelligence have made great
contributions to society. Dr. Francis Crick (of DNA sequencing fame, and
Nobel laureate) was a man of average IQ, measuring at a modest 105.
Also, a look around the boardrooms of major corporations, upon which our
economy relies, will reveal a lot of folks who score in the average
range.
There is simply no correlation between IQ and aptitude for complex
management tasks, which is what being President requires.
There appears to be more than a little intellectual arrogance here.
Putting our last ex-president aside for the moment (it's too soon to
judge his place in history) our worst president since WW2 was the most
cerebral -- Mr. Carter.
Mike
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Tirebiter" |
|
| Title: Re: Ronald Reagan, the Great Satan has finally died!!!! |
08 Jun 2004 10:54:59 AM |
|
|
In article <MPG.1b2f7f07474d0809896bc@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
Mike Craney <mcraney@hotop.com> wrote:
An interesting sideline of this post (and one that appears often in
discussions about our current president) is the implicit assumption that
whoever is President must be of high intelligence.
Why is that? After all, men of average intelligence have made great
contributions to society. Dr. Francis Crick (of DNA sequencing fame, and
Nobel laureate) was a man of average IQ, measuring at a modest 105.
I would like the source for this factoid. Despite that, what this
demonstrates (even if true) is the shortcomings of the IQ test. Crick's
many contributions (not just the double helix) and his career indicate that
he is in fact quite brilliant.
Also, a look around the boardrooms of major corporations, upon which our
economy relies, will reveal a lot of folks who score in the average
range.
That explains a lot of really moronic business decisions.
There is simply no correlation between IQ and aptitude for complex
management tasks, which is what being President requires.
You are making a fundamental mistake of confusing IQ score with
intelligence. The link is tenuous. Complex management tasks require an
intelligence for, yes, complex management tasks. Both Reagan and Bush II
simply don't qualify. It requires the ability to examine and synthesize
large amounts of often contradictory data. Both men are afflicted with a
great laziness, inattention to any level of detail and nuance, a near total
lack of curiosity, and a general inability to allow reality to intrude on
their fossilized views.
There appears to be more than a little intellectual arrogance here.
Putting our last ex-president aside for the moment (it's too soon to
judge his place in history) our worst president since WW2 was the most
cerebral -- Mr. Carter.
This simply isn't true. Perhaps you are forgetting Ford, a really lousy
president and a dullard. Carter was intelligent and well read. It wasn't
his intelligence that got in the way of being a good president, it was his
lack of political skills, and a considerable moralistic strain that people
should agree to his policies because they were the proper policies. In many
ways they were decent policies, but being president is not the same as
being a preacher. He refused to do the dealing and compromising that is an
essential element of politics, especially at that level.
And as far as Carter being the most cerebral, that is also untrue. Truman,
Nixon and Johnson were all brilliant in many ways and well read. I was
never a fan of Nixon, but he was the author of several very thoughtful
books (which he actually wrote himself). All of these presidents had
problematic administrations, but so did virtually every president.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Craney" |
|
| Title: Re: Ronald Reagan, the Great Satan has finally died!!!! |
08 Jun 2004 11:18:05 AM |
|
|
In article <Tirebiter7-60DCED.10545908062004@individual.net>, Tirebiter7
@nospam.netscape.net says...
In article <MPG.1b2f7f07474d0809896bc@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
Mike Craney <mcraney@hotop.com> wrote:
An interesting sideline of this post (and one that appears often in
discussions about our current president) is the implicit assumption that
whoever is President must be of high intelligence.
Why is that? After all, men of average intelligence have made great
contributions to society. Dr. Francis Crick (of DNA sequencing fame, and
Nobel laureate) was a man of average IQ, measuring at a modest 105.
I would like the source for this factoid. Despite that, what this
demonstrates (even if true) is the shortcomings of the IQ test. Crick's
many contributions (not just the double helix) and his career indicate that
he is in fact quite brilliant.
And I wish I had it. It was taught to me when I was working on my
masters in education, as an example of why the IQ test is no longer
viewed as a useful indicator of academic effectiveness.
A while back, I interviewed for a job at a company, and they had as part
of their interview process an IQ test. I test rather high, and because
of my score (which was the second best they had ever recorded) the
interviewer decided to tell me about the HIGHEST score they had ever
recorded from an applicant.
It was the night watchman. He was a MENSA member who just couldn't see
the point in having any sort of "real" job, as that would, in his
estimation, just "screw up his life." He was quite happy having a 2X
minimum wage job where he could sit comfortably with his portable chess
kit and work out strategies with himself.
The bottom line is that Crick was indeed brilliant, and although there
is a correlation between IQ and scientific achievement (undoubtedly) it
is not absolute; and, when you move out of the hard sciences into the
soft (like, management effectiveness) that correlation becomes vague
rather quickly.
Also, a look around the boardrooms of major corporations, upon which our
economy relies, will reveal a lot of folks who score in the average
range.
That explains a lot of really moronic business decisions.
Unfortuatnately for your argument, some of the BEST business decisions
are made by the same people.
There is simply no correlation between IQ and aptitude for complex
management tasks, which is what being President requires.
You are making a fundamental mistake of confusing IQ score with
intelligence.
No, I'm affirming that fact. The point here is that intelligence is not
easily measureable, and also can be task specific, e.g., a person who
shows brilliance in one area may not even be able to match his socks.
Anecdotes about Einstein's lack of life management skills have abounded
for years.
The link is tenuous. Complex management tasks require an
intelligence for, yes, complex management tasks. Both Reagan and Bush II
simply don't qualify. It requires the ability to examine and synthesize
large amounts of often contradictory data. Both men are afflicted with a
great laziness, inattention to any level of detail and nuance, a near total
lack of curiosity, and a general inability to allow reality to intrude on
their fossilized views.
OK, but now the *real* question needs to be asked. In the U.S., the
office of President is primarily a bully pulpit. He can suggest
legislation but has no power to submit it for ratification. He can
suggest a budget but no actual power to get it approved. In short, the
President can suggest anything, but has to resort to leadership skills
and depend on his image to get anything done.
With that model, what matters is not the intelligence of the President,
but (1) the intelligence of the people around him, and (2) his ability
to lead (coerce, armtwist, gain popular approval).
I am certainly not arguing that either Reagan or Bush II are brilliant
men. Nor would I put Bush II's leadership skills in the same class as
Reagan's. The point I would make, however, that it is highly possible
for a person of average intelligence to be an effective -- and even
exceptional -- President, based on other characteristics.
There appears to be more than a little intellectual arrogance here.
Putting our last ex-president aside for the moment (it's too soon to
judge his place in history) our worst president since WW2 was the most
cerebral -- Mr. Carter.
This simply isn't true. Perhaps you are forgetting Ford, a really lousy
president and a dullard. Carter was intelligent and well read. It wasn't
his intelligence that got in the way of being a good president, it was his
lack of political skills, and a considerable moralistic strain that people
should agree to his policies because they were the proper policies. In many
ways they were decent policies, but being president is not the same as
being a preacher. He refused to do the dealing and compromising that is an
essential element of politics, especially at that level.
Well, I'd say you're rationalizing the point away, but then again, you
seem to be agreeing with my key point -- its not intelligence that
matters, its leadership skills, of which political "dealing and
compromising" is a component.
And as far as Carter being the most cerebral, that is also untrue. Truman,
Nixon and Johnson were all brilliant in many ways and well read.
If we're measuring cerebral by IQ, I believe my point is correct. I
recall reading an article at some point which listed IQ's for
president's back as far as Kennedy. Clinton topped the list, Carter was
second. However, no matter. I think we're agreeing on the basic point,
that intelligence is not the primary factor in good Presidential
performance.
I was
never a fan of Nixon, but he was the author of several very thoughtful
books (which he actually wrote himself). All of these presidents had
problematic administrations, but so did virtually every president.
I concur.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Tirebiter" |
|
| Title: Re: Ronald Reagan, the Great Satan has finally died!!!! |
08 Jun 2004 02:38:49 PM |
|
|
In article <MPG.1b2fa2a3c5e3ba1a9896c2@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
Mike Craney <mcraney@hotop.com> wrote:
In article <Tirebiter7-60DCED.10545908062004@individual.net>, Tirebiter7
@nospam.netscape.net says...
In article <MPG.1b2f7f07474d0809896bc@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
Mike Craney <mcraney@hotop.com> wrote:
An interesting sideline of this post (and one that appears often in
discussions about our current president) is the implicit assumption that
whoever is President must be of high intelligence.
Why is that? After all, men of average intelligence have made great
contributions to society. Dr. Francis Crick (of DNA sequencing fame, and
Nobel laureate) was a man of average IQ, measuring at a modest 105.
I would like the source for this factoid. Despite that, what this
demonstrates (even if true) is the shortcomings of the IQ test. Crick's
many contributions (not just the double helix) and his career indicate that
he is in fact quite brilliant.
And I wish I had it. It was taught to me when I was working on my
masters in education, as an example of why the IQ test is no longer
viewed as a useful indicator of academic effectiveness.
It has a very high predictive value estimating how people will perform on
future tests of the same type.
A while back, I interviewed for a job at a company, and they had as part
of their interview process an IQ test. I test rather high, and because
of my score (which was the second best they had ever recorded) the
interviewer decided to tell me about the HIGHEST score they had ever
recorded from an applicant.
It was the night watchman. He was a MENSA member who just couldn't see
the point in having any sort of "real" job, as that would, in his
estimation, just "screw up his life." He was quite happy having a 2X
minimum wage job where he could sit comfortably with his portable chess
kit and work out strategies with himself.
I have little respect for mensa. First off, it ain't that selective. The
top 2% of people who score on this test. Big deal. Really smart competant
people don't need to join a club to reassure themselves they're smart. I
wonder what proportion of mensa members are like the loser you describe.
"Sure, I never amounted to anything in life, but I'm really smart. " Yeah,
we're all impressed.
The bottom line is that Crick was indeed brilliant, and although there
is a correlation between IQ and scientific achievement (undoubtedly) it
is not absolute; and, when you move out of the hard sciences into the
soft (like, management effectiveness) that correlation becomes vague
rather quickly.
Also, a look around the boardrooms of major corporations, upon which our
economy relies, will reveal a lot of folks who score in the average
range.
That explains a lot of really moronic business decisions.
Unfortuatnately for your argument, some of the BEST business decisions
are made by the same people.
There is simply no correlation between IQ and aptitude for complex
management tasks, which is what being President requires.
You are making a fundamental mistake of confusing IQ score with
intelligence.
No, I'm affirming that fact. The point here is that intelligence is not
easily measureable, and also can be task specific, e.g., a person who
shows brilliance in one area may not even be able to match his socks.
Anecdotes about Einstein's lack of life management skills have abounded
for years.
Mostly wrong.
The link is tenuous. Complex management tasks require an
intelligence for, yes, complex management tasks. Both Reagan and Bush II
simply don't qualify. It requires the ability to examine and synthesize
large amounts of often contradictory data. Both men are afflicted with a
great laziness, inattention to any level of detail and nuance, a near total
lack of curiosity, and a general inability to allow reality to intrude on
their fossilized views.
OK, but now the *real* question needs to be asked. In the U.S., the
office of President is primarily a bully pulpit.
No, it has awesome powers.
He can suggest
legislation but has no power to submit it for ratification. He can
suggest a budget but no actual power to get it approved. In short, the
President can suggest anything, but has to resort to leadership skills
and depend on his image to get anything done.
That's a big part of it. But the president appoints people to run the
executive branch. They have enormous power to do all kinds of things
through regulatory processes. For example, look at the way both Reagan and
Bush sold the environment to corporate polluters.
With that model, what matters is not the intelligence of the President,
but (1) the intelligence of the people around him, and (2) his ability
to lead (coerce, armtwist, gain popular approval).
To what purpose? A dimwit who has no vision or a vision based on a complete
misunderstanding may be able to persuade people to get things done, and
maybe he has smart people who will help carry it out.
I am certainly not arguing that either Reagan or Bush II are brilliant
men.
By any measure, their mental abilities are mediocre at best.
Nor would I put Bush II's leadership skills in the same class as
Reagan's.
You are confusing leadership with salesmanship. Reagan was a great
salesman. He had a warm sunny disposition that he used to sell a greedy
corporate takeover wrapped up in a nice fuzzy norman rockwell tissue.
The point I would make, however, that it is highly possible
for a person of average intelligence to be an effective -- and even
exceptional -- President, based on other characteristics.
There appears to be more than a little intellectual arrogance here.
Putting our last ex-president aside for the moment (it's too soon to
judge his place in history) our worst president since WW2 was the most
cerebral -- Mr. Carter.
This simply isn't true. Perhaps you are forgetting Ford, a really lousy
president and a dullard. Carter was intelligent and well read. It wasn't
his intelligence that got in the way of being a good president, it was his
lack of political skills, and a considerable moralistic strain that people
should agree to his policies because they were the proper policies. In many
ways they were decent policies, but being president is not the same as
being a preacher. He refused to do the dealing and compromising that is an
essential element of politics, especially at that level.
Well, I'd say you're rationalizing the point away, but then again, you
seem to be agreeing with my key point -- its not intelligence that
matters, its leadership skills, of which political "dealing and
compromising" is a component.
And as far as Carter being the most cerebral, that is also untrue. Truman,
Nixon and Johnson were all brilliant in many ways and well read.
If we're measuring cerebral by IQ, I believe my point is correct. I
recall reading an article at some point which listed IQ's for
president's back as far as Kennedy. Clinton topped the list, Carter was
second.
Those are totally bogus. It's people guessing after the fact.
However, no matter. I think we're agreeing on the basic point,
that intelligence is not the primary factor in good Presidential
performance.
It certainly helps. Imagine if Reagan had been smart and used his
salesmanship skills to actually pursue wise policies. Instead, he nearly
bankrupted us, played a dangerous game of chicken, and got us allied with
horrible right wing dictators. No future historian is going to judge him a
great president.
I was
never a fan of Nixon, but he was the author of several very thoughtful
books (which he actually wrote himself). All of these presidents had
problematic administrations, but so did virtually every president.
I concur.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Craney" |
|
| Title: Re: Ronald Reagan, the Great Satan has finally died!!!! |
08 Jun 2004 03:09:29 PM |
|
|
In article <Tirebiter7-3C340C.14384908062004@individual.net>, Tirebiter7
@netscape.net says...
In article <MPG.1b2fa2a3c5e3ba1a9896c2@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
Mike Craney <mcraney@hotop.com> wrote:
In article <Tirebiter7-60DCED.10545908062004@individual.net>, Tirebiter7
@nospam.netscape.net says...
In article <MPG.1b2f7f07474d0809896bc@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
Mike Craney <mcraney@hotop.com> wrote:
An interesting sideline of this post (and one that appears often in
discussions about our current president) is the implicit assumption that
whoever is President must be of high intelligence.
Why is that? After all, men of average intelligence have made great
contributions to society. Dr. Francis Crick (of DNA sequencing fame, and
Nobel laureate) was a man of average IQ, measuring at a modest 105.
I would like the source for this factoid. Despite that, what this
demonstrates (even if true) is the shortcomings of the IQ test. Crick's
many contributions (not just the double helix) and his career indicate that
he is in fact quite brilliant.
And I wish I had it. It was taught to me when I was working on my
masters in education, as an example of why the IQ test is no longer
viewed as a useful indicator of academic effectiveness.
It has a very high predictive value estimating how people will perform on
future tests of the same type.
Bingo. :-)
A while back, I interviewed for a job at a company, and they had as part
of their interview process an IQ test. I test rather high, and because
of my score (which was the second best they had ever recorded) the
interviewer decided to tell me about the HIGHEST score they had ever
recorded from an applicant.
It was the night watchman. He was a MENSA member who just couldn't see
the point in having any sort of "real" job, as that would, in his
estimation, just "screw up his life." He was quite happy having a 2X
minimum wage job where he could sit comfortably with his portable chess
kit and work out strategies with himself.
I have little respect for mensa. First off, it ain't that selective. The
top 2% of people who score on this test. Big deal. Really smart competant
people don't need to join a club to reassure themselves they're smart. I
wonder what proportion of mensa members are like the loser you describe.
"Sure, I never amounted to anything in life, but I'm really smart. " Yeah,
we're all impressed.
Probably so. I don't know enough members to make a call, but you're
right about secure people not needing a membership club for
reinforcement.
I knew one other guy who was a Mensa member, and he was kind of a low-
level corporate lawyer type. Again, not the performance you'd expect if
IQ were predictive.
The bottom line is that Crick was indeed brilliant, and although there
is a correlation between IQ and scientific achievement (undoubtedly) it
is not absolute; and, when you move out of the hard sciences into the
soft (like, management effectiveness) that correlation becomes vague
rather quickly.
Also, a look around the boardrooms of major corporations, upon which our
economy relies, will reveal a lot of folks who score in the average
range.
That explains a lot of really moronic business decisions.
Unfortuatnately for your argument, some of the BEST business decisions
are made by the same people.
There is simply no correlation between IQ and aptitude for complex
management tasks, which is what being President requires.
You are making a fundamental mistake of confusing IQ score with
intelligence.
No, I'm affirming that fact. The point here is that intelligence is not
easily measureable, and also can be task specific, e.g., a person who
shows brilliance in one area may not even be able to match his socks.
Anecdotes about Einstein's lack of life management skills have abounded
for years.
Mostly wrong.
What is?
The link is tenuous. Complex management tasks require an
intelligence for, yes, complex management tasks. Both Reagan and Bush II
simply don't qualify. It requires the ability to examine and synthesize
large amounts of often contradictory data. Both men are afflicted with a
great laziness, inattention to any level of detail and nuance, a near total
lack of curiosity, and a general inability to allow reality to intrude on
their fossilized views.
OK, but now the *real* question needs to be asked. In the U.S., the
office of President is primarily a bully pulpit.
No, it has awesome powers.
He can suggest
legislation but has no power to submit it for ratification. He can
suggest a budget but no actual power to get it approved. In short, the
President can suggest anything, but has to resort to leadership skills
and depend on his image to get anything done.
That's a big part of it. But the president appoints people to run the
executive branch. They have enormous power to do all kinds of things
through regulatory processes. For example, look at the way both Reagan and
Bush sold the environment to corporate polluters.
With that model, what matters is not the intelligence of the President,
but (1) the intelligence of the people around him, and (2) his ability
to lead (coerce, armtwist, gain popular approval).
To what purpose? A dimwit who has no vision or a vision based on a complete
misunderstanding may be able to persuade people to get things done, and
maybe he has smart people who will help carry it out.
I am certainly not arguing that either Reagan or Bush II are brilliant
men.
By any measure, their mental abilities are mediocre at best.
Nor would I put Bush II's leadership skills in the same class as
Reagan's.
You are confusing leadership with salesmanship. Reagan was a great
salesman. He had a warm sunny disposition that he used to sell a greedy
corporate takeover wrapped up in a nice fuzzy norman rockwell tissue.
Leaders are always salesmen. They sell themselves.
The point I would make, however, that it is highly possible
for a person of average intelligence to be an effective -- and even
exceptional -- President, based on other characteristics.
There appears to be more than a little intellectual arrogance here.
Putting our last ex-president aside for the moment (it's too soon to
judge his place in history) our worst president since WW2 was the most
cerebral -- Mr. Carter.
This simply isn't true. Perhaps you are forgetting Ford, a really lousy
president and a dullard. Carter was intelligent and well read. It wasn't
his intelligence that got in the way of being a good president, it was his
lack of political skills, and a considerable moralistic strain that people
should agree to his policies because they were the proper policies. In many
ways they were decent policies, but being president is not the same as
being a preacher. He refused to do the dealing and compromising that is an
essential element of politics, especially at that level.
Well, I'd say you're rationalizing the point away, but then again, you
seem to be agreeing with my key point -- its not intelligence that
matters, its leadership skills, of which political "dealing and
compromising" is a component.
And as far as Carter being the most cerebral, that is also untrue. Truman,
Nixon and Johnson were all brilliant in many ways and well read.
If we're measuring cerebral by IQ, I believe my point is correct. I
recall reading an article at some point which listed IQ's for
president's back as far as Kennedy. Clinton topped the list, Carter was
second.
Those are totally bogus. It's people guessing after the fact.
Possibly so. However, you can make certain judgements based on word
usage, sentence structure, and the like. Of course, Clinton's academic
record speaks for itself, especially in that he didn't have anyone in
his family to open Ivy League doors for him.
However, no matter. I think we're agreeing on the basic point,
that intelligence is not the primary factor in good Presidential
performance.
It certainly helps. Imagine if Reagan had been smart and used his
salesmanship skills to actually pursue wise policies. Instead, he nearly
bankrupted us, played a dangerous game of chicken, and got us allied with
horrible right wing dictators. No future historian is going to judge him a
great president.
I'll grant you one out of three. According to Mr. Gorbachev, it wasn't
as much a dangerous game as the Dems thought it was at the time, and the
budgetary problems were largely caused by a Congress which passed the
tax cuts but didn't pass the spending cuts that were part of the overall
package.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Tirebiter" |
|
| Title: Re: Ronald Reagan, the Great Satan has finally died!!!! |
08 Jun 2004 03:34:51 PM |
|
|
In article <MPG.1b2fd8d76d4bcd249896c8@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
Mike Craney <mcraney@hotop.com> wrote:
In article <Tirebiter7-3C340C.14384908062004@individual.net>, Tirebiter7
@netscape.net says...
In article <MPG.1b2fa2a3c5e3ba1a9896c2@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
Mike Craney <mcraney@hotop.com> wrote:
However, no matter. I think we're agreeing on the basic point,
that intelligence is not the primary factor in good Presidential
performance.
It certainly helps. Imagine if Reagan had been smart and used his
salesmanship skills to actually pursue wise policies. Instead, he nearly
bankrupted us, played a dangerous game of chicken, and got us allied with
horrible right wing dictators. No future historian is going to judge him a
great president.
I'll grant you one out of three. According to Mr. Gorbachev, it wasn't
as much a dangerous game as the Dems thought it was at the time, and the
budgetary problems were largely caused by a Congress which passed the
tax cuts but didn't pass the spending cuts that were part of the overall
package.
And why do you suppose that is? Because the real goal of the tax cuts was
to abolish social security and medicare. Starve the beast, as Stockman put
it. But, amazingly, these programs are actually very popular with everyone
except the extreme right. They couldn't attack them directly, so they
adopted this dishonest approach to bankrupt them. And by the way, the tax
cuts were supposed to pay for themselves by unleashing all kinds of
business creativity. Remember the totally laughable laffer curve?
And by the way, blaming democrats for the budget deficit is pretty shady.
This proposal was submitted by the Reagan administration, pushed very
heavily by the republicans in congress and passed after extensive
armtwisting of conservative democrats, mostly southerners (the
bollweevils). I'm afraid that the republicans get to own the label of
being the party of massive borrowing and deficits.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Craney" |
|
| Title: Re: Ronald Reagan, the Great Satan has finally died!!!! |
08 Jun 2004 04:51:02 PM |
|
|
In article <Tirebiter7-9544A3.15345108062004@individual.net>, Tirebiter7
@netscape.net says...
In article <MPG.1b2fd8d76d4bcd249896c8@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
Mike Craney <mcraney@hotop.com> wrote:
In article <Tirebiter7-3C340C.14384908062004@individual.net>, Tirebiter7
@netscape.net says...
In article <MPG.1b2fa2a3c5e3ba1a9896c2@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
Mike Craney <mcraney@hotop.com> wrote:
However, no matter. I think we're agreeing on the basic point,
that intelligence is not the primary factor in good Presidential
performance.
It certainly helps. Imagine if Reagan had been smart and used his
salesmanship skills to actually pursue wise policies. Instead, he nearly
bankrupted us, played a dangerous game of chicken, and got us allied with
horrible right wing dictators. No future historian is going to judge him a
great president.
I'll grant you one out of three. According to Mr. Gorbachev, it wasn't
as much a dangerous game as the Dems thought it was at the time, and the
budgetary problems were largely caused by a Congress which passed the
tax cuts but didn't pass the spending cuts that were part of the overall
package.
And why do you suppose that is? Because the real goal of the tax cuts was
to abolish social security and medicare. Starve the beast, as Stockman put
it. But, amazingly, these programs are actually very popular with everyone
except the extreme right. They couldn't attack them directly, so they
adopted this dishonest approach to bankrupt them. And by the way, the tax
cuts were supposed to pay for themselves by unleashing all kinds of
business creativity. Remember the totally laughable laffer curve?
And by the way, blaming democrats for the budget deficit is pretty shady.
When it comes to budget deficits, there's plenty of blame to pass
around. To everyone. We're talking about one singular locus in time
here, 1981. Bottom line is that the deficits were projectable, and if
you're looking to play the "blame game", you have to blame not only the
administration, but every "yes" vote that enacted that budgetary
scenario that caused the deficits. (That is, if you want to be fair
about it, which you may not wish to be.)
Hell, the Dems never believed in supply side economics, which means they
voted the way they did (tax cuts up, spending cuts down) in ***full
knowledge*** of what would happen according to their own economic
models. So, why didn't they just reject the budget, knowing what would
occur? Hm?
Two reasons. First, you'll recall the Dems back then were unconcerned
with deficits. They didn't become concerned with them until a) they got
tired of having the GOP beat the hell out of them with it during the
campaigns, and b) Clinton and the DLC managed to move the party to the
center, getting rid of the old line social program advocates, vis a vis
Tip O Neill, Rostenkowski, and other useful idiots. Second, they didn't
have the FRIGGIN COJONES to do the right thing, because they had just
spent four years getting baked over the Carter "economy" (remember 15%
home mortgages?) and the voters would have ripped their hearts out if
the party which had spent the last presidency proving they were
economically clueless were to now try to impose their economic myopia
onto a new administration that was elected to fix these financial
matters.
What's shady is voting a budget in knowing full well you're creating an
economic problem. Putting aside the popularity of SS and Medicare for
the moment, at least the GOP offered an *economically* responsible
budget, even if it was irresponsible to cut the programs they wanted to
cut. The Dems have no such excuse.
This proposal was submitted by the Reagan administration, pushed very
heavily by the republicans in congress and passed after extensive
armtwisting of conservative democrats, mostly southerners (the
bollweevils). I'm afraid that the republicans get to own the label of
being the party of massive borrowing and deficits.
Sure, if you're inclined towards intellectual dishonesty.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Tirebiter" |
|
| Title: Re: Ronald Reagan, the Great Satan has finally died!!!! |
08 Jun 2004 06:24:06 PM |
|
|
In article <MPG.1b2ff0aff5eb82069896c9@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
Mike Craney <mcraney@hotop.com> wrote:
In article <Tirebiter7-9544A3.15345108062004@individual.net>, Tirebiter7
@netscape.net says...
In article <MPG.1b2fd8d76d4bcd249896c8@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
Mike Craney <mcraney@hotop.com> wrote:
In article <Tirebiter7-3C340C.14384908062004@individual.net>, Tirebiter7
@netscape.net says...
In article <MPG.1b2fa2a3c5e3ba1a9896c2@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
Mike Craney <mcraney@hotop.com> wrote:
However, no matter. I think we're agreeing on the basic point,
that intelligence is not the primary factor in good Presidential
performance.
It certainly helps. Imagine if Reagan had been smart and used his
salesmanship skills to actually pursue wise policies. Instead, he
nearly
bankrupted us, played a dangerous game of chicken, and got us allied
with
horrible right wing dictators. No future historian is going to judge
him a
great president.
I'll grant you one out of three. According to Mr. Gorbachev, it wasn't
as much a dangerous game as the Dems thought it was at the time, and the
budgetary problems were largely caused by a Congress which passed the
tax cuts but didn't pass the spending cuts that were part of the overall
package.
And why do you suppose that is? Because the real goal of the tax cuts was
to abolish social security and medicare. Starve the beast, as Stockman put
it. But, amazingly, these programs are actually very popular with everyone
except the extreme right. They couldn't attack them directly, so they
adopted this dishonest approach to bankrupt them. And by the way, the tax
cuts were supposed to pay for themselves by unleashing all kinds of
business creativity. Remember the totally laughable laffer curve?
And by the way, blaming democrats for the budget deficit is pretty shady.
When it comes to budget deficits, there's plenty of blame to pass
around. To everyone.
Well, that is certainly true. The system is set up so politicians get
rewarded and reelected for bringing home the bacon. In order to do that,
they have to vote for bacon for the other guys to get support for their
bacon. Nobody wants to raise taxes to balance things, because some *****
will run on the "he raised taxes" platform.
Almost everybody is on the federal tit in one way or another. When you pose
the question, do you want to raise taxes or cut spending, people oppose
actually paying for the services they are getting, in fact they want more
services. They are willing to cut any program that doesn't benefit them
directly. Unfortunately, discretionary funding is a small part of the
federal budget. So, you could eliminate medical research, NASA, the park
service, etc. and it wouldn't do ***** to the deficit.
We're talking about one singular locus in time
here, 1981. Bottom line is that the deficits were projectable, and if
you're looking to play the "blame game", you have to blame not only the
administration, but every "yes" vote that enacted that budgetary
scenario that caused the deficits. (That is, if you want to be fair
about it, which you may not wish to be.)
I agree, I blame everyone who voted for those stupid tax cuts then and the
more recent ones.
Hell, the Dems
You are acting as if the democrats supported the supply side tax cuts. They
didn't. SOME democrats, mostly the southern conservatives did.
never believed in supply side economics, which means they
voted the way they did (tax cuts up, spending cuts down) in ***full
knowledge*** of what would happen according to their own economic
models. So, why didn't they just reject the budget, knowing what would
occur? Hm?
I wonder. In fact Reagan, being an idiot, was probably the only person who
did believe the supply side nonsense. Stockman knew it was ***** and got
caught saying so. Bush I didn't believe it "voodoo economics." So why did
ANYONE vote for it?
Two reasons. First, you'll recall the Dems back then were unconcerned
with deficits. They didn't become concerned with them until a) they got
tired of having the GOP beat the hell out of them with it during the
campaigns, and b) Clinton and the DLC managed to move the party to the
center, getting rid of the old line social program advocates, vis a vis
Tip O Neill, Rostenkowski, and other useful idiots. Second, they didn't
have the FRIGGIN COJONES to do the right thing, because they had just
spent four years getting baked over the Carter "economy" (remember 15%
home mortgages?) and the voters would have ripped their hearts out if
the party which had spent the last presidency proving they were
economically clueless were to now try to impose their economic myopia
onto a new administration that was elected to fix these financial
matters.
A very curious reading of the situation. The main reason the democrats were
reluctant to do anything about the deficit before Clinton was that cutting
programs was very unpopular with their base and they couldn't raise taxes
because of the republicans screaming "tax and spend." Of course, in
retrospect, tax and spend looks more responsible than borrow and spend.
What's shady is voting a budget in knowing full well you're creating an
economic problem.
You mean like Bush's tax cuts or his medicare prescription plan? He
actually had to lie to get the prescription plan passed.
Putting aside the popularity of SS and Medicare for
the moment, at least the GOP offered an *economically* responsible
budget, even if it was irresponsible to cut the programs they wanted to
cut. The Dems have no such excuse.
Again, it was only some democrats who did that. And the republicans passed
the tax cuts knowing that making the cuts necessary to offset it was
impossible. I don't think anyone who voted for tax cuts has an excuse.
This proposal was submitted by the Reagan administration, pushed very
heavily by the republicans in congress and passed after extensive
armtwisting of conservative democrats, mostly southerners (the
bollweevils). I'm afraid that the republicans get to own the label of
being the party of massive borrowing and deficits.
Sure, if you're inclined towards intellectual dishonesty.
"Reagan proved deficits don't matter. "We won the midterms. This is our
due." Be sure to let us know when Bush proposes a balanced budget. He
doesn't even pretend to try. And they invoke Reagan to justify deficits.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Mike Craney" |
|
| Title: Re: Ronald Reagan, the Great Satan has finally died!!!! |
08 Jun 2004 07:06:51 PM |
|
|
In article <Tirebiter7-E3094D.18240608062004@individual.net>, Tirebiter7
@netscape.net says...
In article <MPG.1b2ff0aff5eb82069896c9@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
Mike Craney <mcraney@hotop.com> wrote:
In article <Tirebiter7-9544A3.15345108062004@individual.net>, Tirebiter7
@netscape.net says...
In article <MPG.1b2fd8d76d4bcd249896c8@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
Mike Craney <mcraney@hotop.com> wrote:
In article <Tirebiter7-3C340C.14384908062004@individual.net>, Tirebiter7
@netscape.net says...
In article <MPG.1b2fa2a3c5e3ba1a9896c2@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
Mike Craney <mcraney@hotop.com> wrote:
However, no matter. I think we're agreeing on the basic point,
that intelligence is not the primary factor in good Presidential
performance.
It certainly helps. Imagine if Reagan had been smart and used his
salesmanship skills to actually pursue wise policies. Instead, he
nearly
bankrupted us, played a dangerous game of chicken, and got us allied
with
horrible right wing dictators. No future historian is going to judge
him a
great president.
I'll grant you one out of three. According to Mr. Gorbachev, it wasn't
as much a dangerous game as the Dems thought it was at the time, and the
budgetary problems were largely caused by a Congress which passed the
tax cuts but didn't pass the spending cuts that were part of the overall
package.
And why do you suppose that is? Because the real goal of the tax cuts was
to abolish social security and medicare. Starve the beast, as Stockman put
it. But, amazingly, these programs are actually very popular with everyone
except the extreme right. They couldn't attack them directly, so they
adopted this dishonest approach to bankrupt them. And by the way, the tax
cuts were supposed to pay for themselves by unleashing all kinds of
business creativity. Remember the totally laughable laffer curve?
And by the way, blaming democrats for the budget deficit is pretty shady.
When it comes to budget deficits, there's plenty of blame to pass
around. To everyone.
Well, that is certainly true. The system is set up so politicians get
rewarded and reelected for bringing home the bacon. In order to do that,
they have to vote for bacon for the other guys to get support for their
bacon. Nobody wants to raise taxes to balance things, because some *****
will run on the "he raised taxes" platform.
Almost everybody is on the federal tit in one way or another. When you pose
the question, do you want to raise taxes or cut spending, people oppose
actually paying for the services they are getting, in fact they want more
services. They are willing to cut any program that doesn't benefit them
directly. Unfortunately, discretionary funding is a small part of the
federal budget. So, you could eliminate medical research, NASA, the park
service, etc. and it wouldn't do ***** to the deficit.
Right. That's why I always chuckle at those who want to balance the
budget by getting rid of foreign aid, or something akin to that.
We're talking about one singular locus in time
here, 1981. Bottom line is that the deficits were projectable, and if
you're looking to play the "blame game", you have to blame not only the
administration, but every "yes" vote that enacted that budgetary
scenario that caused the deficits. (That is, if you want to be fair
about it, which you may not wish to be.)
I agree, I blame everyone who voted for those stupid tax cuts then and the
more recent ones.
Hell, the Dems
You are acting as if the democrats supported the supply side tax cuts. They
didn't. SOME democrats, mostly the southern conservatives did.
What was the majority the dems held in Congress that year? 100 seats?
There weren't that many boll weevils. SOMEBODY in the northeast or
manufacturing states voted for those things.......
never believed in supply side economics, which means they
voted the way they did (tax cuts up, spending cuts down) in ***full
knowledge*** of what would happen according to their own economic
models. So, why didn't they just reject the budget, knowing what would
occur? Hm?
I wonder. In fact Reagan, being an idiot, was probably the only person who
did believe the supply side nonsense. Stockman knew it was ***** and got
caught saying so. Bush I didn't believe it "voodoo economics." So why did
ANYONE vote for it?
It's a really good question. Now, I'm personally a supporter of small
goverment/low taxes/limited govt.services and thus a supporter of tax
cuts in general, but we'll agree that you don't cut them because they'll
magically pay for themselves over time.
Two reasons. First, you'll recall the Dems back then were unconcerned
with deficits. They didn't become concerned with them until a) they got
tired of having the GOP beat the hell out of them with it during the
campaigns, and b) Clinton and the DLC managed to move the party to the
center, getting rid of the old line social program advocates, vis a vis
Tip O Neill, Rostenkowski, and other useful idiots. Second, they didn't
have the FRIGGIN COJONES to do the right thing, because they had just
spent four years getting baked over the Carter "economy" (remember 15%
home mortgages?) and the voters would have ripped their hearts out if
the party which had spent the last presidency proving they were
economically clueless were to now try to impose their economic myopia
onto a new administration that was elected to fix these financial
matters.
A very curious reading of the situation. The main reason the democrats were
reluctant to do anything about the deficit before Clinton was that cutting
programs was very unpopular with their base and they couldn't raise taxes
because of the republicans screaming "tax and spend." Of course, in
retrospect, tax and spend looks more responsible than borrow and spend.
Yep.
What's shady is voting a budget in knowing full well you're creating an
economic problem.
You mean like Bush's tax cuts or his medicare prescription plan? He
actually had to lie to get the prescription plan passed.
The latter. It's a mess. We need the coverage, but at some point you're
going to have to incent the drug companies to lower prices (special
patent provisions would possibly work.)
As for the former, it's not out of line. Whoever worked on that round of
tax cuts reasoned that (1) we were running a surplus, and you don't
really WANT the goverment to run a surplus, and (2) a return to the
economic levels of the mid 90's (not late 90's) would put the budget at
balance or at a manageable deficit level. It's not the administration's
fault that they had a budget-busting event on 9/11.
The current deficit can be divided up into thirds. About a third is
related to the downturn in economic activity. Another third is
attibutable to an increase in military spending, and the final third to
the setup of the Homeland Security (I hate that name. What happened to
'civil defense'>) department. If Bush hadn't been elected, two-thirds of
the current deficit still would have happened, because the economic
downturn is attributable to the larger economic cycle complicated by the
overheated economy of the late 90's, and Gore still would have had to
set up something like Homeland Security. (I'm assuming here that Gore
would have stopped military retaliation after Afghanistan.)
Bottom line is that the math will work itself out. The economy is
holding up it's end of the bargain, the startup costs for the new
department are now sunk, and our active military adventures are coming
to an end. And, if balance isn't on the horizon after these new
scenarios are vetted going forward, Congress can simply let a couple of
the tax cut provisions expire. (The only ones there that I'm really a
strong believer in are the child credit and the marriage penalty
removal.)
Putting aside the popularity of SS and Medicare for
the moment, at least the GOP offered an *economically* responsible
budget, even if it was irresponsible to cut the programs they wanted to
cut. The Dems have no such excuse.
Again, it was only some democrats who did that. And the republicans passed
the tax cuts knowing that making the cuts necessary to offset it was
impossible. I don't think anyone who voted for tax cuts has an excuse.
Yea, fair enough. I was getting worked up at that point.... :-)
This proposal was submitted by the Reagan administration, pushed very
heavily by the republicans in congress and passed after extensive
armtwisting of conservative democrats, mostly southerners (the
bollweevils). I'm afraid that the republicans get to own the label of
being the party of massive borrowing and deficits.
Sure, if you're inclined towards intellectual dishonesty.
"Reagan proved deficits don't matter. "We won the midterms. This is our
due." Be sure to let us know when Bush proposes a balanced budget. He
doesn't even pretend to try. And they invoke Reagan to justify deficits.
'
Well, deficits DON'T matter, as long as they are limited to a modest
(more modest than we currently have) % of GNP. Most goverment spending
causes economic stimulation.
Also, this: I suspect you don't spend much time listening to
conservative talk radio. There are a LOT of people on the right who are
VERY unhappy with Bush, primarily because of (1) the fact that Bush has
introduced new social programs which (2) are costly and are exaserbating
the deficit, and (3) he doesn't do anything to halt illegal immigration.
(There are about a dozen other reasons, but those are the biggies.)
A huge number of his votes this time around are going to come from
people who are holding their noses, and because voting for a Democrat is
unthinkable for them. Quite frankly, if the Dems had nominated a
moderate democrat who was viewed as strong on defense (Lieberman,
Gephardt, even Edwards) I think Bush's goose would be cooked.
Mike
.
|
|
|
| User: "George Tirebiter" |
|
| Title: Re: Ronald Reagan, the Great Satan has finally died!!!! |
08 Jun 2004 09:39:05 PM |
|
|
In article <MPG.1b30107ce3165a509896cc@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
Mike Craney <mcraney@hotop.com> wrote:
In article <Tirebiter7-E3094D.18240608062004@individual.net>, Tirebiter7
@netscape.net says...
In article <MPG.1b2ff0aff5eb82069896c9@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
Mike Craney <mcraney@hotop.com> wrote:
In article <Tirebiter7-9544A3.15345108062004@individual.net>, Tirebiter7
@netscape.net says...
In article <MPG.1b2fd8d76d4bcd249896c8@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
Mike Craney <mcraney@hotop.com> wrote:
In article <Tirebiter7-3C340C.14384908062004@individual.net>,
Tirebiter7
@netscape.net says...
In article <MPG.1b2fa2a3c5e3ba1a9896c2@news-server.houston.rr.com>,
Mike Craney <mcraney@hotop.com> wrote:
However, no matter. I think we're agreeing on the basic point,
that intelligence is not the primary factor in good Presidential
performance.
It certainly helps. Imagine if Reagan had been smart and used his
salesmanship skills to actually pursue wise policies. Instead, he
nearly
bankrupted us, played a dangerous game of chicken, and got us
allied
with
horrible right wing dictators. No future historian is going to
judge
him a
great president.
I'll grant you one out of three. According to Mr. Gorbachev, it
wasn't
as much a dangerous game as the Dems thought it was at the time, and
the
budgetary problems were largely caused by a Congress which passed the
tax cuts but didn't pass the spending cuts that were part of the
overall
package.
And why do you suppose that is? Because the real goal of the tax cuts
was
to abolish social security and medicare. Starve the beast, as Stockman
put
it. But, amazingly, these programs are actually very popular with
everyone
except the extreme right. They couldn't attack them directly, so they
adopted this dishonest approach to bankrupt them. And by the way, the
tax
cuts were supposed to pay for themselves by unleashing all kinds of
business creativity. Remember the totally laughable laffer curve?
And by the way, blaming democrats for the budget deficit is pretty
shady.
| | | | | | | | | | | |
