Attention Republicans: Stop being corporatists.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The comparison does not work. It is a week comparison that is more iconic then it is meaningful.

cool, we agree

Originally posted by Moriarty
Really? you're asking for proof that Reagan was one of the main pieces in the take-down of soviet russia? you ARE a victim of the american public school system. Very well.

No, that's not what I was asking. Reading comprehension fail on your part. (Who was making fun of whose education system, now? awesome )

I was asking the EXACT opposite. 😬

Originally posted by Moriarty
There is no empirical scientific proof of how much Ronald Reagan took part in the aversion of a nuclear holocaust, because the cold war was a poker game, but here are the bare-boned facts:

"empirical scientific proof"? That's really just rediculous to say about political influences. How the h*ll are you going to empirically prove, with the scientific method, that Reagan did or did not influence the fall of the Iron Curtain? 😬

Originally posted by Moriarty
He built up america's missile defense.

So where's your "empirical scientific" proof that this caused a paradigm shift in the thinking of the Russian peoples? Oh, this paradigm shift would cause fracturinn interests of the USSR...which is why we ended up with multiple nations coming from the USSR after it fell apart. So, this "paradigm shift" in thinking would actually be multiple and different thinking from many different groups (ie, over a dozen different forms of "patriotic identity".)

Anyway, if anything, building up our missile system would only provoke a sense of urgency and unite the people against the US. People become patriotic when they feel threatened: their nation is supposed to "provide for the common defense". That's stuff I learned in my crappy school. 😐

Originally posted by Moriarty
He severely attacked soviet russia's reputation among other countries with strong words such as "evil empire"

Right, cause that obviously worked for Bush when he created the Axis of Evil list, right?

Originally posted by Moriarty
using economics, he crippled russia even more than its pitiful government could:

Wha? If you're referring to sanctions or damming trade between the two...

You do realize that the record for a trade deficit was set in the 80s during Reagan's presidency, right? Guess where lots of oil came from, during the 80s? awesome

In other words, this point of yours is completely wrong.

Originally posted by Moriarty
He was the one doing the diplomacy with Mikhail.

Agreed there. No matter how many advisors one has, you still have to actually be haflway decent in your social skills to not ****up really important agreements.

Originally posted by Moriarty
I'm not saying he was THE GUY who SINGLEHANDEDLY did it, but he was the KEY PLAYER.

Maybe. I'm not 100% sure on that. He was definitely a key player, but I'm not sure if he was THE key player.

Originally posted by Moriarty
Also, if you want to talk economics:
The guy's economics were not bad at all. A serious improvement over the previous management.

True. But he created much bigger messes down the road..which is what I'm finding out in my studies (in my "sh*t" schools, now less. 😐 )

its probably more correct to say that Reagan happened to be the president of the US during the period in which poor soviet policy eventually bankrupted the state.

certainly his policies affected this, but it is not as if soviet policy was sustainable at any point prior to Reagan.

Originally posted by inimalist
its probably more correct to say that Reagan happened to be the president of the US during the period in which poor soviet policy eventually bankrupted the state.

certainly his policies affected this, but it is not as if soviet policy was sustainable at any point prior to Reagan.

lol

That's prolly true.

IMO, I think Clinton would have done better during that era than he did in his 90s.

maybe, he would have at least been a good challange to the Republicans, but the religification of American politics during the period was much more helpful to the Republicans, as "democrat" became synonymous with godless to a huge number of conservatives.

I assume you mean that his economic policies might have been more successful than they were, or that they would have had better longterm success that Reagans, and I tend to agree with that, though you would probably know better than me. I don't really have a nuanced understanding between the differences in Reagan "trickle down" vs Clinton "trickle down"

Originally posted by inimalist
I assume you mean that his economic policies might have been more successful than they were, or that they would have had better longterm success that Reagans, and I tend to agree with that, though you would probably know better than me. I don't really have a nuanced understanding between the differences in Reagan "trickle down" vs Clinton "trickle down"

Yes. His economic and foreign polices would have worked better for America during that period.

And we wouldn't have these lasting nasty effects from Reaganomics. I think the transition would have been smoother and less "I'm still grumpy about the Cold War" attitude that the American government seems to still have. I'm of the opinion that Clinton would have bent over backwards to make things like Rainbows and flowers with the USSR/breakup period. (I can't think of any good descriptors, at the moment, so bare with me. lol )

Originally posted by Zeal Ex Nihilo
Old news, but still fail. (And for the record, the bill did just pass, despite the GOP's attempts to block it.)

Seriously, what the f***. We basically need to kill all the current Republicans and then clone Ron Paul a hundred times.

That's a minor fail compared to the bigger picture, the fact that both sides of our shit government feel the need for their to be a "cap" in the first place, as to protect bad business practices.

So it's raised to 10 billion, great; what if the damages done by BP come out to cost 20, 30 or 40+ billion? Who's picking up the slack.

Originally posted by Robtard
That's a minor fail compared to the bigger picture, the fact that both sides of our shit government feel the need for their to be a "cap" in the first place, as to protect bad business practices.

So it's raised to 10 billion, great; what if the damages done by BP come out to cost 20, 30 or 40+ billion? Who's picking up the slack.

I could have sworn that the oil companies are till civilly liable for the damages they cost...so they have to pick up the bill AND pay the fine, which is what this debate is about.

I don't see why there shouldn't be a cap

frankly, the American taxpayer bears a huge share of the responsibility for this mess.

I'm looking at you, east coast liberal environmentalists who have been against offshore drilling since forever, you just murdered a manatee.

EDIT: and i don't mean in some abstract "oh, we could have done more to change the government's mind", I mean you, ddm, in no metaphorical terms, blew up that rig

Originally posted by dadudemon
I could have sworn that the oil companies are till civilly liable for the damages they cost...so they have to pick up the bill AND pay the fine, which is what this debate is about.

Holy this post is so full of fail:

Here it is again, without mistakes:

"I could have sworn that the oil companies are still civilly liable for the damages they cause...so they have to pick up the bill AND pay the fine, which is sort of what the debate is about: raise the fine to absurd levels to deter poopyhead corporations from making preventable mistakes in addition to the standard tort practices."

I must have gotten distracted, hit submit, and forgot about looking over the post.

Originally posted by inimalist
I don't see why there shouldn't be a cap

frankly, the American taxpayer bears a huge share of the responsibility for this mess.

I'm looking at you, east coast liberal environmentalists who have been against offshore drilling since forever, you just murdered a manatee.

EDIT: and i don't mean in some abstract "oh, we could have done more to change the government's mind", I mean you, ddm, in no metaphorical terms, blew up that rig

fear MOI?!??!?!

I'm all about solar panel and bio-diesel. 🙁

It can't be my fault! Damn my voting apathy!

Originally posted by dadudemon
fear MOI?!??!?!

I'm all about solar panel and bio-diesel. 🙁

It can't be my fault! Damn my voting apathy!

ipso facto, you should pay for it!

I can't think of one good reason why you shouldn't have to pay for a mistake made by a company you are in no way affiliated with in a location you haven't visited in 10 years [assuming]

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And so does Obama. What's the difference? 🙄

Originally posted by Robtard
That's a minor fail compared to the bigger picture, the fact that both sides of our shit government feel the need for their to be a "cap" in the first place, as to protect bad business practices.

So it's raised to 10 billion, great; what if the damages done by BP come out to cost 20, 30 or 40+ billion? Who's picking up the slack.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Not my point. I'm not saying Reagan is like Hitler because they had charisma, i'm saying both are similar because they used charisma to make people think their bad policies were actually good.

but all politicians use charisma and speaking skills to manage their policies.

is there really a benefit in appealing to arguably the evilest person of the 20th century to make a comparison of a personallity characteristic or strategy that is almost universally used by politicians?

Its like when people call Obama a socialist to critisize increasing government spending on traditionally private industries. Whatever point they might have is overshadowed by the inappropriateness of the analogy they use.

Originally posted by inimalist
but all politicians use charisma and speaking skills to manage their policies.

is there really a benefit in appealing to arguably the evilest person of the 20th century to make a comparison of a personallity characteristic or strategy that is almost universally used by politicians?

Its like when people call Obama a socialist to critisize increasing government spending on traditionally private industries. Whatever point they might have is overshadowed by the inappropriateness of the analogy they use.

Originally posted by inimalist
right, so no need to concern oneself, if the whole system is corrupt

Third party, they need a third party....

Originally posted by King Kandy
No... Dadudemon had been talking about how he used to think Reagan was a good president. I said that that was because he used charisma to misguide people, and that he shouldn't feel bad because people fell for Hitler who used the same tactic.

fair enough, maybe I'm being oversensitive on the issue 🙂

Originally posted by lil bitchiness
Third party, they need a third party....

man, I messed up that joke....

I agree, but I my point was that, it doesn't matter how bad the Democrats are, the thread was about Republican policy.

Janx's point that Democrats are as bad as Republicans is moot, and really a dodge/redirection of fault. It also presumes that the Republicans are as bad as accused, but argues that it is ok, since, assumedly, politics is a dirty game

Originally posted by inimalist
but all politicians use charisma and speaking skills to manage their policies.

Not George W. Bush; he didn't have any of either.

Originally posted by King Kandy
Not my point. I'm not saying Reagan is like Hitler because they had charisma, i'm saying both are similar because they used charisma to make people think their bad policies were actually good.

And that is the same thing that Obama is doing.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
And that is the same thing that Obama is doing.