AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre, obviously still not completely settled down, wrote:

Quote:

You have very strange ideas about what constitutes a hissy fit too. I said I don't have a citation because the newscasts were too long ago to be easily found on the internet even if they are here somewhere. I don't care whether you believe it or not and I don't care if your interpretation of my explanation is a 'hissy fit'.

Foxfyre, if either Yeltsin or Gorbachev actually publicly stated that the breakup of the Soviet Union was the doing of Ronald Reagan...it would have been the top news story of the year!

“The newcasts were too long ago!!!!”

Were they further back than Charles Lindbergh's flight across the Atlantic? We know about that! Were they further back than Truman beating Dewey? We know about that!

C'mon. You are upset because you set up a trap for yourself. You were trying to use something that (as far as I know) did not happen to bolster your argument.

If it happened, we'll find out about it. One of the conservatives here will dig up something...and try to sell it.

Quote:

Why is it so threatening to you if they did say it?

Are you kidding here??? You made an argument against an argument I made...and introduced this as part of your counter. Now, I am countering it. What is all this “threat” nonsense? We do this all the time...you do it; I do it; all of us do exactly this!

Quote:

Do you despise Ronald Reagan or hold him in such disrespect that this is an important thing for you to discredit?

No I do not despise him. I mentioned that he was a very nice guy...and I mentioned other good things about him. I just don't think he was an especially good president.

(Disclaimer) I voted for him the first time he ran. I am terribly embarrassed to admit that...because Carter was a much better choice, but I was pissed at Carter and I allowed my being pissed to truly cloud my judgment. I now consider it the biggest political mistake I've ever made.)

0 Replies

Frank writes

Quote:

But that's the kind of thing we see coming from conservatives, Foxfyre...strawmen...so that the actual words do not have to be dealt with. I guess I was hoping these neos...these MAC's might be different in that regard. But apparently not.

That wasn't a straw man Frank. You libs have been trying to discredit Reagan and what he accomplished since his name came up today. Not a single one of you have given him credit for anything. It (a good thing) wasn't his doing - he was overrated - he did this (bad) thing - he did that (bad) thing - Democrats were pussies to allow him to do whatever--none of it was THEIR doing of course; they just caved in to HIM. And when it is pointed out to you that this is what is being communicated, you translate THAT to being a straw man?

MACs can get it wrong and do. MACs can fail to act when they should and can act inappropriately when they act. And they aren't always immune from mean spirited, ridiculous verbal attacks from MALs and don't always choose to stay above the fray when such garbage is incoming.

I wish we could all be saints as the MALs seem to see themselves and their leaders, but alas we are not. It is a burden I carry.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

That wasn't a straw man Frank.

Yeah, it really was, Foxfyre.

Here is what you said: “Those who do not want to give the USA any credit for that collapse, fine.”

Okay...who here said that the USA should not get any credit for the collapse of the Soviet Union?

If you cannot find anyone saying that...then IT IS a strawman.

Quote:

You libs have been trying to discredit Reagan and what he accomplished since his name came up today.

I am not a liberal. And I am not really trying to discredit him. I am merely mentioning that the conservatives vastly over-rate his acheivments.

Quote:

Not a single one of you have given him credit for anything.

That is just flat out false, Foxfyre. I gave him credit...so you cannot say not a single one.

Quote:

It (a good thing) wasn't his doing - he was overrated - he did this (bad) thing - he did that (bad) thing - Democrats were pussies to allow him to do whatever--none of it was THEIR doing of course; they just caved in to HIM. And when it is pointed out to you that this is what is being communicated, you translate THAT to being a straw man?

No...I said “...do not want to give the USA any credit for that collapse” was a strawman...AND IT IS.

I ask again: Who here has asserted that the USA had nothing to do with the collapse?

Quote:

MACs can get it wrong and do.

Yes...now we are getting somewhere. I agree completely. But this is almost like agreeing with Christians when they “We are not perfect!”

Quote:

MACs can fail to act when they should and can act inappropriately when they act.

Yes, yes, yes...we are on a roll of agreement.

Quote:

And they aren't always immune from mean spirited, ridiculous verbal attacks from MALs and don't always choose to stay above the fray when such garbage is incoming.

Yeah, sure. But I'm sure they realize when things are just being said for the humor some comments can generate....right?

Quote:

I wish we could all be saints as the MALs seem to see themselves and their leaders, but alas we are not. It is a burden I carry.

Okay...I'm gonna treat this as humor rather than a strawman! It was good!

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Be assured, Foxfyre, that I know a bit of Germany's history.

And even a bit more about the time I've lived in.

I totally agree that you're better informed about what the USA did for us.
My post wasn't intended neither to question that nor all the efforts etc.

But I was only referring to the response where you didn't mention the UK at all: I grew up in the British Zone, my wife -though younger than me- even got a British ID-card, ...

As an aside: the occupation of Germany ended not five years after the war but on September 12, 1990, with the Two Plus Four Agreement ("Treaty on the Final Settlement with Respect to Germany").

1 Reply

@Walter Hinteler,

My post was not to defend the UK though Walter nor to give a detailed synopsis of German history. If the UK had been pertinent to the discussion I would have mentioned them.

I didn't claim to be better informed about what the USA did for us than you are and for you to say that is a cheap shot.

My post addressed the USA role only in direct response to other members' erroneous assumptions about what nation building is and what sort is a good thing to be doing.

2 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

but it isn't too difficult to connect the dots to believe that those who don't want to give Reagan and/or the USA a lot of credit for the collapse of the USSR don't want to give Reagan and/or the USA a lot of credit for freeing the people of the GDR either.

Well, not many -especially not our conservatives- share the opinion that Reagan had a lot to do with that.
Certainly he was engaged, like many others. But actually my co-citizens "freed" themselves.
And don't forgewt what started 1970 in Erfurt, the peace treaty between the FRG and Poland, the ... ... Reagan was Governor of California in those days.

1 Reply

@Foxfyre,

Foxfyre wrote:

I didn't claim to be better informed about what the USA did for us than you are and for you to say that is a cheap shot.

Well, the "tone" of your response, especially the schoolmarmish "remember?", gave me that idea.

0 Replies

@Foxfyre,

Quote:

My post addressed the USA role only in direct response to other members' erroneous assumptions about what nation building is and what sort is a good thing to be doing.

Not sure if you had me in mind when you wrote this, Foxfyre...you seem not to be mentioning names today. Terrible habit! You ought really not to work this way.

But anyway, I think I will do what I have been considering for a few hours now. I'm going to withdraw the "a form of nation building" comment as incorrect.

I will acknowledge that you are correct when you charged that I had misused that term.

Hate to do that. Makes the second mistake I've made this year already...and we're not even out of January. And I was hoping for a perfect year.

I guess “trying to impose democracy” would work...and probably so would “trying, for whatever reasons, to destabilize foreign governments” would also.

Whatever it is...or was...I'd just as soon we not do it. I think it is always ill-advised.

And I truly thought that was one of the areas where I came closer to conservative thought than liberal.

Remember, you mentioned that you had not seen me ever post anything that seemed anything but liberal. When I posted it, I was thinking I would point to it some day as an example of me posting something akin to conservative thought.

But perhaps I was wrong in thinking this corresponded to conservative thinking more than liberal.

Perhaps the conservatives are more interested in poking their noses in where they don't belong...and where the law of unintended consequences can so often rear its ugly head.

0 Replies

Taking into account that the economic effects of tax rate or major spending changes begin to occur about 18 months after the changes occur, what do you conclude from the following tables?

PERCENT OF LABOR FORCE UNEMPLOYED
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/suppl/empsit.cpseea1.txt
Employment & Unemployment Table 1970 to 2008
ftp://ftp.bls.gov/pub/special.requests/lf/aat1.txt
Unemployed Table 1942 to 2008
1977 ------------ 7.1 CARTER
1978 ------------ 6.1
1979 ------------ 5.8
1980 ------------ 7.1
1981 ------------ 7.6 REAGAN
1982 ------------ 9.7
1983 ------------ 9.6
1984 ------------ 7.5
1985 ------------ 7.2
1986 ------------ 7.0
1987 ------------ 6.2
1988 ------------ 5.5
1989 ------------ 5.3 BUSH 41
1990 ------------ 5.6
1991 ------------ 6.8
1992 ------------ 7.5
1993 ------------ 6.9 CLINTON
1994 ------------ 6.1
1995 ------------ 5.6
1996 ------------ 5.4
1997 ------------ 4.9
1998 ------------ 4.5
1999 ------------ 4.2
2000 ------------ 4.0
2001 ------------ 4.7 BUSH 43
2002 ------------ 5.8
2003 ------------ 6.0
2004 ------------ 5.5
2005 ------------ 5.1
2006 ------------ 4.6
2007 ------------ 4.6
2008
January ------- 4.9
February ------ 4.8
March ---------- 5.1
April ----------- 5.0
May ------------ 5.5
June ----------- 5.5
July ------------ 5.7
August --------- 6.1
September ---- 6.1
October ------- 6.5
November ----- 6.7
December ----- ...

2009 ------------ ... OBAMA

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

Bush Economy Continues Tanking
New Measures Needed to Help Workers
SOURCE: AP/Kathy Willens

John Kasyanenko, right, of Express Employment Professionals gives his business card to a woman seeking work at a job fair sponsored by Monster.com in New York on November 12, 2008. Last month, businesses slashed 533,000 jobs, the largest monthly loss in 34 years.

By David Madland | December 5, 2008

Employment figures released today by the Department of Labor show that the economy is reeling and workers are suffering greatly. In November, businesses slashed 533,000 jobs, the largest monthly loss of jobs in 34 years. Unemployment rose to 6.7 percent, the highest level in 15 years. And 200,000 more jobs were lost in September and October than previously estimated. There are now fewer jobs in the economy than there were two years ago, even though the population has increased by 5 million people during that time.

0 Replies

@Walter Hinteler,

Quote:

There has always been a place for mythology in American democracy " the hulking granite edifices of the Capitol Mall in Washington are a powerful testament to that " but this nation has arguably never seen the kind of bold, crudely calculated and ideologically driven legend-manufacturing as has taken place with Ronald Reagan. It is a myth machine that has been spectacularly successful, launched in the mid-1990s when the conservative brand was at low ebb.The docudrama version of the Gipper’s life story, successfully sold to the American public, helped to keep united and refuel a right-wing movement that consolidated power while citing Reaganism " as separate and apart from the flesh-and-blood Reagan " for misguided policies from lowering taxes in the time of war in Iraq to maintaining that unpopular conflict in a time of increasing bloodshed and questionable gains.

http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Why_Reagan_still_matters_A_sneak_peak_at_Tear_Down_This_Myth.html

Ought to be a good read.

(cyclo...just saw your earlier reference to the book)

1 Reply

@blatham,

This is what the Bush administration has wrought upon the American military.
It's not only the suicides but the huge numbers of vets coming home with PTS, broken families, and divorces.
Conservatism at its best.

Quote:

Army suicides at record high, passing civilians
Stressed by war and long overseas tours, U.S. soldiers killed themselves last year at the highest rate on record, the toll rising for a fourth straight year and even surpassing the suicide rate among comparable civilians.

0 Replies

Quote:

http://www.iraqbodycount.org/database/

Documented civilian deaths from violence in Iraq is

90,441 " 98,730, or a mximum of 98,730.

2003 -- 2004 -- 2005 -- 2006 -- 2007 -- 2008 -- 2009
...
12,047 -- 10,737 -- 14,766 -- 27,598 -- 24,301 -- 9,159 -- 122

IF
on March 20, 2009, the maximum civilian deaths since March 20, 2003 were 100,002,

THEN
the average civilian deaths per year would be 14,286,
and the average civilian deaths per month would be less than 1,191.
That is a daily average of less than 40 per day.

1 Reply

Quote:

http://www.truthandpolitics.org/top-rates.php
Top US Marginal Income Tax Rates, 1913--2003
Historical rates (married couples, filing jointly)
...
Year -- Top Marginal Tax Rate -- Taxable Income Over
1913 7 500,000
1914 7 500,000
1915 7 500,000
1916 15 2,000,000
1917 67 2,000,000
1918 77 1,000,000
1919 73 1,000,000
1920 73 1,000,000
1921 73 1,000,000
1922 58 200,000
1923 43.5 200,000
1924 46 500,000
1925 25 100,000
1926 25 100,000
1927 25 100,000
1928 25 100,000
1929 24 100,000
1930 25 100,000
1931 25 100,000
1932 63 1,000,000
1933 63 1,000,000
1934 63 1,000,000
1935 63 1,000,000
1936 79 5,000,000
1937 79 5,000,000
1938 79 5,000,000
1939 79 5,000,000
1940 81.1 5,000,000
1941 81 5,000,000
1942 88 200,000
1943 88 200,000
1944 94 200,000
1945 94 200,000
1946 86.45 200,000
1947 86.45 200,000
1948 82.13 400,000
1949 82.13 400,000
1950 84.36 400,000
1951 91 400,000
1952 92 400,000
1953 92 400,000
1954 91 400,000
1955 91 400,000
1956 91 400,000
1957 91 400,000
1958 91 400,000
1959 91 400,000
1960 91 400,000
1961 91 400,000
1962 91 400,000
1963 91 400,000
1964 77 400,000
1965 70 200,000
1966 70 200,000
1967 70 200,000
1968 75.25 200,000
1969 77 200,000
1970 71.75 200,000
1971 70 200,000
1972 70 200,000
1973 70 200,000
1974 70 200,000
1975 70 200,000
1976 70 200,000
Year -- Top Marginal Tax Rate -- Taxable Income Over
CARTER
1977 70 203,200
1978 70 203,200
1979 70 215,400
1980 70 215,400
REGAN
1981 69.125 215,400
1982 50 85,600
1983 50 109,400
1984 50 162,400
1985 50 169,020
1986 50 175,250
1987 38.5 90,000
1988 28 29,750
BUSH 41
1989 28 30,950
1990 28 32,450
1991 31 82,150
1992 31 86,500
CLINTON
1993 39.6 89,150
1994 39.6 250,000
1995 39.6 256,500
1996 39.6 263,750
1997 39.6 271,050
1998 39.6 278,450
1999 39.6 283,150
2000 39.6 288,350
BUSH 43
2001 39.1 297,350
2002 38.6 307,050
2003 35 311,950

0 Replies

@ican711nm,

Are you bragging or pointing out that the USA is slipping in its ability to heap death upon innocents?

1 Reply

Quote:

http://www.heritage.org/research/features/BudgetChartBook/fed-rev-spend-2008-boc-R2-Federal-Government-Tax-Revenue.html?CFID=46546947&CFTOKEN=17840460
See the graphs for Federal Government Tax Revenue 1965 -2008

1 Reply

@JTT,

JTT wrote:

Are you bragging or pointing out that the USA is slipping in its ability to heap death upon innocents?

I was happy to show that the civilian deaths in Iraq since March 20, 2003 are, thankfully, less than one-fifth what you, JTT, claimed they were. About 90% of these deaths were caused by al-Qaeda and other terrorist factions in Iraq deliberately murdering non-murdering Iraq civilians. About 10% were caused by American troops while stopping from killing and/or killing those al-Qaeda and other terrorist factions in Iraq.

War is hell! But the USA doing nothing to stop Hussein from massacring his own people and doing nothing to remove al-Qaeda from Iraq, is far worse.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Interesting how the federal revenue has only tripled but the GDP has almost quadrupled.
1965-2008 GDP adjusted for inflation

Damn those pesky statistics.

1 Reply

@ican711nm,

Quote:

I was happy to show that the civilian deaths in Iraq since March 20, 2003 are, thankfully, less than one-fifth what you, JTT, claimed they were.

Did I really claim that? I still think that you're bragging. You know the USA could do much better. They should carpet bomb and napalm villages and line women and children up and shoot them like they did at My Lai or like the Tiger Force did.

That's America at its best.

0 Replies

MALs lie about who causes what.

For example, they blame Bush for the recession caused by MALs refusing to allow Bush to begin in 2006 to stop the corruption of our free market system by Fanny & Freddy. The MALs were the originators and promoters of Fanny & Freddy, yet blame Bush and private institutions for allowing themselves to be corrupted by the corrupting force of Fanny & Freddy.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATISM IN 2008 AND BEYOND

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know