-->
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
March 28, 2024, 09:35:15 PM

Login with username, password and session length
Search:     Advanced search
News: Beach Boys Britain
Home Help Search Calendar Login Register
+  The Smiley Smile Message Board
|-+  Non Smiley Smile Stuff
| |-+  The Sandbox
| | |-+  Campaign 2016
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 ... 81   Go Down
Print
Author Topic: Campaign 2016  (Read 523111 times)
0 Members and 7 Guests are viewing this topic.
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #725 on: April 15, 2016, 10:35:53 AM »

Yeah, that was 'funny'.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #726 on: April 15, 2016, 11:15:30 AM »

Those polls are subject to a larger margin of error in my view.  Time will tell if this country will elect Trump.  I seem to remember all kinds of pejorative stuff circulated about Reagan being only a B-list movie star.   It sounds like déjà vu.  Funny the Iran hostages from the US were released contemporaneous to his taking the Oath of Office. There are many voters on both sides who are disenfranchised and sick of the party rhetoric.   Wink

While it is correct that the hostage crisis ended the day that Reagan was sworn it, it is a pretty big GOP-perpetuated myth that Reagan had anything to do with the freeing of the hostages.

Furthermore, Reagan was terrible for the country and also terrible for Latin American countries in particular.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #727 on: April 15, 2016, 03:37:22 PM »

Yeah, that was 'funny'.

Emily - "Funny" meaning curious timing.   
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #728 on: April 15, 2016, 03:39:57 PM »

Yeah, that was 'funny'.

Emily - "Funny" meaning curious timing.   
Yeah, I agree, the timing was curious.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #729 on: April 15, 2016, 03:40:58 PM »

Those polls are subject to a larger margin of error in my view.  Time will tell if this country will elect Trump.  I seem to remember all kinds of pejorative stuff circulated about Reagan being only a B-list movie star.   It sounds like déjà vu.  Funny the Iran hostages from the US were released contemporaneous to his taking the Oath of Office. There are many voters on both sides who are disenfranchised and sick of the party rhetoric.   Wink

While it is correct that the hostage crisis ended the day that Reagan was sworn it, it is a pretty big GOP-perpetuated myth that Reagan had anything to do with the freeing of the hostages.

Furthermore, Reagan was terrible for the country and also terrible for Latin American countries in particular.
CSM - if it is a myth, then why were the hostages not released to President Carter?

Reagan worked with Eastern Europe to take the Berlin Wall down, and with the breakup of the USSR.    
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #730 on: April 15, 2016, 03:41:50 PM »

Yeah, that was 'funny'.

Emily - "Funny" meaning curious timing.   
Yeah, I agree, the timing was curious.
Contemporaneous to the Inauguration. 
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #731 on: April 15, 2016, 05:57:32 PM »

Those polls are subject to a larger margin of error in my view.  Time will tell if this country will elect Trump.  I seem to remember all kinds of pejorative stuff circulated about Reagan being only a B-list movie star.   It sounds like déjà vu.  Funny the Iran hostages from the US were released contemporaneous to his taking the Oath of Office. There are many voters on both sides who are disenfranchised and sick of the party rhetoric.   Wink

While it is correct that the hostage crisis ended the day that Reagan was sworn it, it is a pretty big GOP-perpetuated myth that Reagan had anything to do with the freeing of the hostages.

Furthermore, Reagan was terrible for the country and also terrible for Latin American countries in particular.
CSM - if it is a myth, then why were the hostages not released to President Carter?

They essentially were. They were released as a result of the negotiations done by the Carter Administration. There wasn't a single member of the Reagan Administration who engaged in negotiations though if they did, it appears as if Reagan would have done virtually the same as Carter since before the election Reagan went on record as saying that he felt the US should "agree to virtually all the new demands ...  in return for the prompt release of the American hostages." This fact has conveniently been left out of the historical record in the grand efforts of myth-making when it comes to Reagan.

Quote
Reagan worked with Eastern Europe to take the Berlin Wall down, and with the breakup of the USSR.    

He also plunged the country into debt, where it had not been since (I think) before WWI, after being the world's largest creditor. Personal debt also skyrocketed under Reagan as it does under most Republican presidents. Reagan also committed terrorism in Nicaragua, supported the Scorched Earth campaign in Guatemala and likewise supported the terrorist campaigns in El Salvador. He supported Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq's radical Islamisation of Pakistan. And he pushed forward an economic campaign that, at that time, led to the biggest financial crises since the Great Depression. The fact that he was around at the time that the USSR dissolved is pretty coincidental but the above facts that I mentioned were directly related to actions undertaken by the Administration.
« Last Edit: April 15, 2016, 06:05:15 PM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #732 on: April 15, 2016, 08:04:25 PM »

Those polls are subject to a larger margin of error in my view.  Time will tell if this country will elect Trump.  I seem to remember all kinds of pejorative stuff circulated about Reagan being only a B-list movie star.   It sounds like déjà vu.  Funny the Iran hostages from the US were released contemporaneous to his taking the Oath of Office. There are many voters on both sides who are disenfranchised and sick of the party rhetoric.   Wink

While it is correct that the hostage crisis ended the day that Reagan was sworn it, it is a pretty big GOP-perpetuated myth that Reagan had anything to do with the freeing of the hostages.

Furthermore, Reagan was terrible for the country and also terrible for Latin American countries in particular.
CSM - if it is a myth, then why were the hostages not released to President Carter?

They essentially were. They were released as a result of the negotiations done by the Carter Administration. There wasn't a single member of the Reagan Administration who engaged in negotiations though if they did, it appears as if Reagan would have done virtually the same as Carter since before the election Reagan went on record as saying that he felt the US should "agree to virtually all the new demands ...  in return for the prompt release of the American hostages." This fact has conveniently been left out of the historical record in the grand efforts of myth-making when it comes to Reagan.

Quote
Reagan worked with Eastern Europe to take the Berlin Wall down, and with the breakup of the USSR.    

He also plunged the country into debt, where it had not been since (I think) before WWI, after being the world's largest creditor. Personal debt also skyrocketed under Reagan as it does under most Republican presidents. Reagan also committed terrorism in Nicaragua, supported the Scorched Earth campaign in Guatemala and likewise supported the terrorist campaigns in El Salvador. He supported Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq's radical Islamisation of Pakistan. And he pushed forward an economic campaign that, at that time, led to the biggest financial crises since the Great Depression. The fact that he was around at the time that the USSR dissolved is pretty coincidental but the above facts that I mentioned were directly related to actions undertaken by the Administration.
I agree with you except I do think his insane arms race that contributed to ongoing financial crises also accelerated the bankruptcy of the USSR. The idea that he worked 'with' them is absurd.
He was the most terrifying, least ethical president of my lifetime and we are still reeling from the garbage he shilled. I would expect Trump to be similar in his complete disregard of human lives or rights and his complete ignorance and magical thinking regarding economics
CSM have you read 'The Massacre at El Mozote'?
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #733 on: April 15, 2016, 08:08:09 PM »

Those polls are subject to a larger margin of error in my view.  Time will tell if this country will elect Trump.  I seem to remember all kinds of pejorative stuff circulated about Reagan being only a B-list movie star.   It sounds like déjà vu.  Funny the Iran hostages from the US were released contemporaneous to his taking the Oath of Office. There are many voters on both sides who are disenfranchised and sick of the party rhetoric.   Wink

While it is correct that the hostage crisis ended the day that Reagan was sworn it, it is a pretty big GOP-perpetuated myth that Reagan had anything to do with the freeing of the hostages.

Furthermore, Reagan was terrible for the country and also terrible for Latin American countries in particular.
CSM - if it is a myth, then why were the hostages not released to President Carter?

They essentially were. They were released as a result of the negotiations done by the Carter Administration. There wasn't a single member of the Reagan Administration who engaged in negotiations though if they did, it appears as if Reagan would have done virtually the same as Carter since before the election Reagan went on record as saying that he felt the US should "agree to virtually all the new demands ...  in return for the prompt release of the American hostages." This fact has conveniently been left out of the historical record in the grand efforts of myth-making when it comes to Reagan.

Quote
Reagan worked with Eastern Europe to take the Berlin Wall down, and with the breakup of the USSR.    

He also plunged the country into debt, where it had not been since (I think) before WWI, after being the world's largest creditor. Personal debt also skyrocketed under Reagan as it does under most Republican presidents. Reagan also committed terrorism in Nicaragua, supported the Scorched Earth campaign in Guatemala and likewise supported the terrorist campaigns in El Salvador. He supported Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq's radical Islamisation of Pakistan. And he pushed forward an economic campaign that, at that time, led to the biggest financial crises since the Great Depression. The fact that he was around at the time that the USSR dissolved is pretty coincidental but the above facts that I mentioned were directly related to actions undertaken by the Administration.
I agree with you except I do think his insane arms race that contributed to ongoing financial crises also accelerated the bankruptcy of the USSR. The idea that he worked 'with' them is absurd.
He was the most terrifying, least ethical president of my lifetime and we are still reeling from the garbage he shilled. I would expect Trump to be similar in his complete disregard of human lives or rights and his complete ignorance and magical thinking regarding economics
CSM have you read 'The Massacre at El Mozote'?

Point well taken re: arms race and USSR bankruptcy.

I have not read The Massacre at El Mozote. Do you recommend it?
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #734 on: April 15, 2016, 08:16:19 PM »

Yes, at a time when you aren't feeling very sensitive.
Here's a contemporary report indicating that Carter informed Reagan the morning of the inauguration of the release:
http://www.nytimes.com/1981/01/21/us/reagan-takes-oath-40-th-president-promises-era-national-renewal-minutes-later-52.html?pagewanted=all
One can also read histories of that crisis. All indicate that the release was negotiated by Carter's team. How were people supposing Reagan is somehow responsible for something that happened the day of his inauguration?
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #735 on: April 16, 2016, 05:33:01 AM »

Those polls are subject to a larger margin of error in my view.  Time will tell if this country will elect Trump.  I seem to remember all kinds of pejorative stuff circulated about Reagan being only a B-list movie star.   It sounds like déjà vu.  Funny the Iran hostages from the US were released contemporaneous to his taking the Oath of Office. There are many voters on both sides who are disenfranchised and sick of the party rhetoric.   Wink

While it is correct that the hostage crisis ended the day that Reagan was sworn it, it is a pretty big GOP-perpetuated myth that Reagan had anything to do with the freeing of the hostages.

Furthermore, Reagan was terrible for the country and also terrible for Latin American countries in particular.
CSM - if it is a myth, then why were the hostages not released to President Carter?

They essentially were. They were released as a result of the negotiations done by the Carter Administration. There wasn't a single member of the Reagan Administration who engaged in negotiations though if they did, it appears as if Reagan would have done virtually the same as Carter since before the election Reagan went on record as saying that he felt the US should "agree to virtually all the new demands ...  in return for the prompt release of the American hostages." This fact has conveniently been left out of the historical record in the grand efforts of myth-making when it comes to Reagan.

Quote
Reagan worked with Eastern Europe to take the Berlin Wall down, and with the breakup of the USSR.    

He also plunged the country into debt, where it had not been since (I think) before WWI, after being the world's largest creditor. Personal debt also skyrocketed under Reagan as it does under most Republican presidents. Reagan also committed terrorism in Nicaragua, supported the Scorched Earth campaign in Guatemala and likewise supported the terrorist campaigns in El Salvador. He supported Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq's radical Islamisation of Pakistan. And he pushed forward an economic campaign that, at that time, led to the biggest financial crises since the Great Depression. The fact that he was around at the time that the USSR dissolved is pretty coincidental but the above facts that I mentioned were directly related to actions undertaken by the Administration.
I agree with you except I do think his insane arms race that contributed to ongoing financial crises also accelerated the bankruptcy of the USSR. The idea that he worked 'with' them is absurd.
He was the most terrifying, least ethical president of my lifetime and we are still reeling from the garbage he shilled. I would expect Trump to be similar in his complete disregard of human lives or rights and his complete ignorance and magical thinking regarding economics
CSM have you read 'The Massacre at El Mozote'?
Emily - in the Soviet bloc, including Poland, there was positive change for the people. The trade union Solidarnosc, raised the issue globally. There was less religious oppression. For some, that was the first and most important issue in a religiously oppressive regime. We are seeing religious "cleansing" in the human massacre that is the Middle East. That is not unimportant.   

Reagan, Gorbachev and multilingual Pope John Paul II (who met one-on-one with Gorbachev) were able to get some basic resolution to oppression issues in the early 1980's.  Reading this history in a text, is quite different from seeing the Berlin Wall fall in real-time, and the statues of the leaders of the old Soviet era pulled down by the citizens of those countries.  Reagan, Gorbachev and the John Paul II, largely shut the Cold War down in Eastern Europe.  Imperfect as it might be, life was better for those citizens. 

The economics policy piece is secondary to the actual religious liberty the Soviet bloc finally could practice without condemnation, after nearly 50+ years of Communism.  And, not everyone here is versed in basic international economics.  But they do understand the visual of a sit-down among global leaders, or marching in unity after France's January massacre.  Somehow the US did not get the memo. It was a bad "optic" for this administration.  Not even a former US President marched.   

Carter did work on human rights, as he continues to do, and that article suggests that it was more on Carter's watch than Reagan's but that plane with 52 hostages, after 14 months in captivity, left Iranian airspace, by hours, after the transfer of power was made and likely hastened by the impending change of power. Reagan invited Carter to go to West Germany  to greet the hostages, so he was included in that transition time.  Unfortunately Carter was perceived as weak as the current Chief Executive and why he was not elected to a second term.
   
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #736 on: April 16, 2016, 10:12:46 AM »

FdP, media images are selling you a story; very often fiction. A good, well cited, history monograph will have its biases and interpretations but will also be specific regarding facts and sources and lead you through the analysis transparently. "Being there" can be cool, and in the case of the collapse of the USSR, I was, but "being there" only gives you subjective personal experiences. It doesn't give knowledge or understanding without research beyond your personal impressions.
Every thing you just talked about I "saw" as much as you did. But my impressions were entirely different. That's what happens when two people experience something. Your experiences are your personal facts but they aren't historical facts.
I think the idea you have that Reagan was of personal critical importance in the collapse of the USSR is a fine example: that's what the media story was; that's what his speeches told you; and his policies to speed them into bankruptcy contributed. But Perestroika wasn't his idea and it was coming along with or without him as was a the economic collapse. As with the hostages, Reagan was just there for the photo ops.
Regarding religious freedom, I guess that's of tantamount importance to some. I'd guess food and shelter and staying alive and not seeing your family killed are more important to many.
Bringing me to  the region in which Reagan did have significant historical impact, as CSM said, Central America. You didn't see any grinny waves from tarmacs there, right? He didn't go for photo ops with the rotting bodies of his victims. So people who were 'there' during his administration never learned about those facts. And when reporters tried to report the truth they were smeared and ridiculed by Reagan's representatives. Several lost their jobs for trying to tell the truth; at least one died. What you were reading in the mass media at the time, both about the Eastern Bloc and about Central America, was a carefully spun tale with Reagan as the Mr. Smith goes to Washington hero. He wasn't in the film industry all those years for nothing.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #737 on: April 16, 2016, 11:27:09 AM »

FdP, media images are selling you a story; very often fiction. A good, well cited, history monograph will have its biases and interpretations but will also be specific regarding facts and sources and lead you through the analysis transparently. "Being there" can be cool, and in the case of the collapse of the USSR, I was, but "being there" only gives you subjective personal experiences. It doesn't give knowledge or understanding without research beyond your personal impressions.
Every thing you just talked about I "saw" as much as you did. But my impressions were entirely different. That's what happens when two people experience something. Your experiences are your personal facts but they aren't historical facts.
I think the idea you have that Reagan was of personal critical importance in the collapse of the USSR is a fine example: that's what the media story was; that's what his speeches told you; and his policies to speed them into bankruptcy contributed. But Perestroika wasn't his idea and it was coming along with or without him as was a the economic collapse. As with the hostages, Reagan was just there for the photo ops.
Regarding religious freedom, I guess that's of tantamount importance to some. I'd guess food and shelter and staying alive and not seeing your family killed are more important to many.
Bringing me to  the region in which Reagan did have significant historical impact, as CSM said, Central America. You didn't see any grinny waves from tarmacs there, right? He didn't go for photo ops with the rotting bodies of his victims. So people who were 'there' during his administration never learned about those facts. And when reporters tried to report the truth they were smeared and ridiculed by Reagan's representatives. Several lost their jobs for trying to tell the truth; at least one died. What you were reading in the mass media at the time, both about the Eastern Bloc and about Central America, was a carefully spun tale with Reagan as the Mr. Smith goes to Washington hero. He wasn't in the film industry all those years for nothing.
Emily - my sources are not all media sources. That is trivializing the contemporaneous experience, seeing live headlines and having a relationship with immigrants from those countries, it is not over reliance on media.

A sibling was in Germany when the Berlin Wall was taken down. That is not media-filtered.

The global perception of the US was a stronger one, than when Carter was in office. There is no excuse for Obama skipping out on the global march last January after Hypercacher.   
 
Reagan might have been in photo ops but the result speaks for itself.  The results were a freer society with the ability to move from the USSR and travel. 

Central America is problematic but we were not discussing Central America, but the 14 month hostage situation with Iran, as well as the 1980-81 era Solidarity Union strikes in Gdansk with Lech Walesa leading the group.  John Paul II's visit to the US in 1979 established a relationship with the Pontiff for much of the humanitarian efforts that he was seeking support for.  They are not random events.  The Holy Father was instrumental in diplomacy particularly in Cold War Poland where he visited again, under much changed circumstances, in 1983 after much of these diplomatic efforts were realized.  (He had been there in 1979 but prior to the union strikes.)   

The Democrats have no excuses for the absence of Obama in France (except for the agenda-driven global warming conference the week after the Bataclan massacre) and Hillary's throwing Bill under the bus this week, with the Crime Bill from the early 90's, with her saying "oh, it was Bill's legislation" that has resulted in over-incarceration of minority populations while she is bankrolled by those who run the private prisons.

How much of the truth is being reported out in this administration with regard the actual military numbers being sent back to Iraq after the draw-down? It was not until there was a death that it was revealed. 

There is never an excuse for crippling an open press. Whistleblowers almost always lose their jobs. It is the risk of exposing injustice; it goes hand-in-hand.

There was less of an excuse for this administration, when reporter Jim Foley's parents attempted to pay ransom to get their kid released and was hounded and threatened by this administration. He got the big sword. 

Now that Foley's parents have exposed the truth about their attempts to get him freed, the administration has "walked that back" including the outrageous threats of prosecution against his parents. He died for nothing. ISIS wanted money and they still want money for hostages.  Hillary could have sent the money she got from speeches to Verizon to help bankroll his release. 

There is plenty of blame to go around, for both parties, with suppression of the truth and diplomatic problems that have become "inconvenient." That cuts both ways. There were murders in all of these countries, which are inconvenient, regardless of where it occurred in Eastern Europe or Central America.       


Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #738 on: April 16, 2016, 11:57:56 AM »

FdP, media images are selling you a story; very often fiction. A good, well cited, history monograph will have its biases and interpretations but will also be specific regarding facts and sources and lead you through the analysis transparently. "Being there" can be cool, and in the case of the collapse of the USSR, I was, but "being there" only gives you subjective personal experiences. It doesn't give knowledge or understanding without research beyond your personal impressions.
Every thing you just talked about I "saw" as much as you did. But my impressions were entirely different. That's what happens when two people experience something. Your experiences are your personal facts but they aren't historical facts.
I think the idea you have that Reagan was of personal critical importance in the collapse of the USSR is a fine example: that's what the media story was; that's what his speeches told you; and his policies to speed them into bankruptcy contributed. But Perestroika wasn't his idea and it was coming along with or without him as was a the economic collapse. As with the hostages, Reagan was just there for the photo ops.
Regarding religious freedom, I guess that's of tantamount importance to some. I'd guess food and shelter and staying alive and not seeing your family killed are more important to many.
Bringing me to  the region in which Reagan did have significant historical impact, as CSM said, Central America. You didn't see any grinny waves from tarmacs there, right? He didn't go for photo ops with the rotting bodies of his victims. So people who were 'there' during his administration never learned about those facts. And when reporters tried to report the truth they were smeared and ridiculed by Reagan's representatives. Several lost their jobs for trying to tell the truth; at least one died. What you were reading in the mass media at the time, both about the Eastern Bloc and about Central America, was a carefully spun tale with Reagan as the Mr. Smith goes to Washington hero. He wasn't in the film industry all those years for nothing.
Emily - my sources are not all media sources. That is trivializing the contemporaneous experience, seeing live headlines and having a relationship with immigrants from those countries, it is not over reliance on media.

A sibling was in Germany when the Berlin Wall was taken down. That is not media-filtered.

The global perception of the US was a stronger one, than when Carter was in office. There is no excuse for Obama skipping out on the global march last January after Hypercacher.  
 
Reagan might have been in photo ops but the result speaks for itself.  The results were a freer society with the ability to move from the USSR and travel.  

Central America is problematic but we were not discussing Central America, but the 14 month hostage situation with Iran, as well as the 1980-81 era Solidarity Union strikes in Gdansk with Lech Walesa leading the group.  John Paul II's visit to the US in 1979 established a relationship with the Pontiff for much of the humanitarian efforts that he was seeking support for.  They are not random events.  The Holy Father was instrumental in diplomacy particularly in Cold War Poland where he visited again, under much changed circumstances, in 1983 after much of these diplomatic efforts were realized.  (He had been there in 1979 but prior to the union strikes.)  

The Democrats have no excuses for the absence of Obama in France (except for the agenda-driven global warming conference the week after the Bataclan massacre) and Hillary's throwing Bill under the bus this week, with the Crime Bill from the early 90's, with her saying "oh, it was Bill's legislation" that has resulted in over-incarceration of minority populations while she is bankrolled by those who run the private prisons.

How much of the truth is being reported out in this administration with regard the actual military numbers being sent back to Iraq after the draw-down? It was not until there was a death that it was revealed.  

There is never an excuse for crippling an open press. Whistleblowers almost always lose their jobs. It is the risk of exposing injustice; it goes hand-in-hand.

There was less of an excuse for this administration, when reporter Jim Foley's parents attempted to pay ransom to get their kid released and was hounded and threatened by this administration. He got the big sword.  

Now that Foley's parents have exposed the truth about their attempts to get him freed, the administration has "walked that back" including the outrageous threats of prosecution against his parents. He died for nothing. ISIS wanted money and they still want money for hostages.  Hillary could have sent the money she got from speeches to Verizon to help bankroll his release.  

There is plenty of blame to go around, for both parties, with suppression of the truth and diplomatic problems that have become "inconvenient." That cuts both ways. There were murders in all of these countries, which are inconvenient, regardless of where it occurred in Eastern Europe or Central America.      


Whatever reasons Reagan had for being involved in the USSR, it was evidently not to free the society. Had Reagan been interested in freeing societies, he wouldn't have actively overthrown the democratic regime in Nicaragua in a terrorism campaign in order to put a military junta in place there. It's interesting that you should bring up the US relationship with Pope John Paul II in light of Reagan's support of the destruction of the Catholic movement in El Salvador, including the ardent support of massive atrocities in which about 75,000 people died, primarily directed against the Catholic Church (indeed the Archbishop of San Salvador was a key figure who was assassinated at the beginning of the war). Indeed, El Salvador was another case where the freedom loving Reagan supported the military junta overthrow of a democratizing government and proceeded to set up and fund a proxy army in order to carry out depraved and brutal murderous atrocities in the country. This was all well-known at the time. Reagan's interests in the USSR, whatever they were (and I have a pretty good reason), could not have been the freedom of the people since he was so ardently opposed to it elsewhere.

I also consider this incomparable to not participating in a march.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2016, 12:03:21 PM by Chocolate Shake Man » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #739 on: April 16, 2016, 12:22:55 PM »

FdP, media images are selling you a story; very often fiction. A good, well cited, history monograph will have its biases and interpretations but will also be specific regarding facts and sources and lead you through the analysis transparently. "Being there" can be cool, and in the case of the collapse of the USSR, I was, but "being there" only gives you subjective personal experiences. It doesn't give knowledge or understanding without research beyond your personal impressions.
Every thing you just talked about I "saw" as much as you did. But my impressions were entirely different. That's what happens when two people experience something. Your experiences are your personal facts but they aren't historical facts.
I think the idea you have that Reagan was of personal critical importance in the collapse of the USSR is a fine example: that's what the media story was; that's what his speeches told you; and his policies to speed them into bankruptcy contributed. But Perestroika wasn't his idea and it was coming along with or without him as was a the economic collapse. As with the hostages, Reagan was just there for the photo ops.
Regarding religious freedom, I guess that's of tantamount importance to some. I'd guess food and shelter and staying alive and not seeing your family killed are more important to many.
Bringing me to  the region in which Reagan did have significant historical impact, as CSM said, Central America. You didn't see any grinny waves from tarmacs there, right? He didn't go for photo ops with the rotting bodies of his victims. So people who were 'there' during his administration never learned about those facts. And when reporters tried to report the truth they were smeared and ridiculed by Reagan's representatives. Several lost their jobs for trying to tell the truth; at least one died. What you were reading in the mass media at the time, both about the Eastern Bloc and about Central America, was a carefully spun tale with Reagan as the Mr. Smith goes to Washington hero. He wasn't in the film industry all those years for nothing.
Emily - my sources are not all media sources. That is trivializing the contemporaneous experience, seeing live headlines and having a relationship with immigrants from those countries, it is not over reliance on media.

A sibling was in Germany when the Berlin Wall was taken down. That is not media-filtered.

The global perception of the US was a stronger one, than when Carter was in office. There is no excuse for Obama skipping out on the global march last January after Hypercacher.  
 
Reagan might have been in photo ops but the result speaks for itself.  The results were a freer society with the ability to move from the USSR and travel.  

Central America is problematic but we were not discussing Central America, but the 14 month hostage situation with Iran, as well as the 1980-81 era Solidarity Union strikes in Gdansk with Lech Walesa leading the group.  John Paul II's visit to the US in 1979 established a relationship with the Pontiff for much of the humanitarian efforts that he was seeking support for.  They are not random events.  The Holy Father was instrumental in diplomacy particularly in Cold War Poland where he visited again, under much changed circumstances, in 1983 after much of these diplomatic efforts were realized.  (He had been there in 1979 but prior to the union strikes.)  

The Democrats have no excuses for the absence of Obama in France (except for the agenda-driven global warming conference the week after the Bataclan massacre) and Hillary's throwing Bill under the bus this week, with the Crime Bill from the early 90's, with her saying "oh, it was Bill's legislation" that has resulted in over-incarceration of minority populations while she is bankrolled by those who run the private prisons.

How much of the truth is being reported out in this administration with regard the actual military numbers being sent back to Iraq after the draw-down? It was not until there was a death that it was revealed.  

There is never an excuse for crippling an open press. Whistleblowers almost always lose their jobs. It is the risk of exposing injustice; it goes hand-in-hand.

There was less of an excuse for this administration, when reporter Jim Foley's parents attempted to pay ransom to get their kid released and was hounded and threatened by this administration. He got the big sword.  

Now that Foley's parents have exposed the truth about their attempts to get him freed, the administration has "walked that back" including the outrageous threats of prosecution against his parents. He died for nothing. ISIS wanted money and they still want money for hostages.  Hillary could have sent the money she got from speeches to Verizon to help bankroll his release.  

There is plenty of blame to go around, for both parties, with suppression of the truth and diplomatic problems that have become "inconvenient." That cuts both ways. There were murders in all of these countries, which are inconvenient, regardless of where it occurred in Eastern Europe or Central America.      

Sources: There are many different histories. There’s the history of the media, in which case media reports are important sources. There are histories of different population segments, in which personal anecdotes are often the only, and sometimes the best, sources. There’s political history, the topic at hand, in which the mass media and personal anecdotes can be the most misleading sources.

You said, “The global perception of the US was a stronger one, than when Carter was in office.”
- My personal experience was that people started hating the US under Reagan, with good reason. I haven’t researched contemporary global attitudes toward the US at that time compared to other times, though, have you? If not, maybe you should not take your personal experience as a general fact.
You said, “Reagan might have been in photo ops but the result speaks for itself.  The results were a freer society with the ability to move from the USSR and travel.  “
-I don’t think the freer society was a ‘result’ of Reagan’s photo ops or any of Reagan’s actions. That’s a non sequitur.
You said, “Central America is problematic but we were not discussing Central America, but the 14 month hostage situation with Iran, as well as the 1980-81 era Solidarity Union strikes in Gdansk with Lech Walesa leading the group. “
-You brought up Reagan, so that’s what I’m discussing. You added Poland, I added Central America. (Rather, I think CSM did)
You said, “There were murders in all of these countries, which are inconvenient, regardless of where it occurred in Eastern Europe or Central America.”
-Yes, but in one of those places we were directly responsible for the murders, through Reagan. In the other, only indirectly.

As to what CSM said, it’s very clear that all the talk about “freedom” on the part of the US government is just a manipulative tactic. The US government has never evinced a proclivity toward freedom in its foreign policy. Not once. Not one time. (anyone ever seen Vampire’s Kiss?”)
« Last Edit: April 16, 2016, 12:38:02 PM by Emily » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #740 on: April 16, 2016, 01:15:43 PM »

Emily - whatever the history, this campaign of 2016 rests on some serious issues and a perceived lack of transparency.  Sanders is not doing as well as he is, for nothing.  

Reagan did many things that I did not agree with.  1st - Air Traffic Controllers strike in 1981 where he fired them all.  It was wrong, and the skies are less safe since.  Bad policy decision to send a union message.  This election does not rest upon historical analysis.  But how a statement about policy changes allowing the USSR breakup resulting in a freer society was not a result of Reagan efforts is ridiculous, when indeed it was under Reagan.  Good and bad.  

Not every country is going to like us. We can't solve everyone's problems.  It is ok some don't like us.  We have been a very generous country on a humanitarian level. We need to re-build our own infrastructure.  And, I don't mean roads.  

Today some Long Island retired FBI sent a letter to Comey with regard the probe that has been delayed and delayed and delayed with the election in sight.  

Since it is reported on fox, I expect that it will be dismissed it out of hand.  http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2016/04/16/abscam-agents-to-fbi-chief-bureaus-reputation-on-line-in-clinton-probe.html?intcmp=hplnws    

All the historic analysis is not going to keep the US safe. Enforcing current laws on the books just might.  Wink
« Last Edit: April 16, 2016, 01:19:08 PM by filledeplage » Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #741 on: April 16, 2016, 01:30:33 PM »

But how a statement about policy changes allowing the USSR breakup resulting in a freer society was not a result of Reagan efforts is ridiculous, when indeed it was under Reagan.

Only ridiculous to someone who thinks that everything that happens in the world happened because of the sitting US president.

We are not at all generous on a humanitarian level:
https://www.princeton.edu/~soapbox/vol2no4/24noveck.html

This campaign season does indeed show that US Americans are displeased, but it also shows that they have a complete misunderstanding of why things are as they are.
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #742 on: April 16, 2016, 01:38:21 PM »

Also, I never suggest that we 'solve everyone's problems.' But I do suggest we stop being everyone's problem.
Logged
Chocolate Shake Man
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2871


View Profile
« Reply #743 on: April 16, 2016, 01:45:41 PM »

All the historic analysis is not going to keep the US safe. Enforcing current laws on the books just might.  Wink

I disagree with the first sentence. I think learning that previous actions have consequences in the present will definitely help keep the country safe.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #744 on: April 16, 2016, 01:51:45 PM »

But how a statement about policy changes allowing the USSR breakup resulting in a freer society was not a result of Reagan efforts is ridiculous, when indeed it was under Reagan.

Only ridiculous to someone who thinks that everything that happens in the world happened because of the sitting US president.

We are not at all generous on a humanitarian level:
https://www.princeton.edu/~soapbox/vol2no4/24noveck.html

This campaign season does indeed show that US Americans are displeased, but it also shows that they have a complete misunderstanding of why things are as they are.
Yes, they are displeased.  More like incensed, to see illegal drugs coming into this country on submarines which kill our young people, daily, by the scores.  

Big Pharma is unchecked as well. That needs to be fixed.    

And, seeing hotels/hospitals set up for labor and delivery to take advantage of jus soli American citizenship.  

Seeing our military commit suicide because they can't get VA treatment.  

Military paying for body armor.  Bail outs of the auto and banking industries. And homeowners becoming homeless because no one bailed them out.  They have had enough.  

And the backlash has been building on both sides of the party, with Dems and Republicans plotting to deny the ticket toppers the nomination. Oh, the people are not "misunderstanding" the corruption in politics. They are getting the message, loud and clear.  

For years, politicos have complained about lack of political involvement by the citizens.  Now, nearly everyone is engaged.  No one in power likes it.

If people are misunderstanding of "why things are as they are" maybe an education campaign might help fix that.  

But, I think they are watching primary elections, caucuses, and rallies and they are understanding exactly what is going on.   Wink
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #745 on: April 16, 2016, 01:57:39 PM »

But how a statement about policy changes allowing the USSR breakup resulting in a freer society was not a result of Reagan efforts is ridiculous, when indeed it was under Reagan.

Only ridiculous to someone who thinks that everything that happens in the world happened because of the sitting US president.

We are not at all generous on a humanitarian level:
https://www.princeton.edu/~soapbox/vol2no4/24noveck.html

This campaign season does indeed show that US Americans are displeased, but it also shows that they have a complete misunderstanding of why things are as they are.
Yes, they are displeased.  More like incensed, to see illegal drugs coming into this country on submarines which kill our young people, daily, by the scores.  

Big Pharma is unchecked as well. That needs to be fixed.    

And, seeing hotels/hospitals set up for labor and delivery to take advantage of jus soli American citizenship.  

Seeing our military commit suicide because they can't get VA treatment.  

Military paying for body armor.  Bail outs of the auto and banking industries. And homeowners becoming homeless because no one bailed them out.  They have had enough.  

And the backlash has been building on both sides of the party, with Dems and Republicans plotting to deny the ticket toppers the nomination. Oh, the people are not "misunderstanding" the corruption in politics. They are getting the message, loud and clear.  

For years, politicos have complained about lack of political involvement by the citizens.  Now, nearly everyone is engaged.  No one in power likes it.

If people are misunderstanding of "why things are as they are" maybe an education campaign might help fix that.  

But, I think they are watching primary elections, caucuses, and rallies and they are understanding exactly what is going on.   Wink
None of these are the source problems. People are focusing on symptoms.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #746 on: April 16, 2016, 01:59:59 PM »

All the historic analysis is not going to keep the US safe. Enforcing current laws on the books just might.  Wink

I disagree with the first sentence. I think learning that previous actions have consequences in the present will definitely help keep the country safe.

CSM - We have laws on the books for border security and for immigration.  They are not being enforced.  It is contributing to the disorder of the country.

That is what I was referring to.  That is a first step for national security which is uppermost on the minds of many people.  
Logged
Emily
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 2022


View Profile
« Reply #747 on: April 16, 2016, 02:00:28 PM »

All the historic analysis is not going to keep the US safe. Enforcing current laws on the books just might.  Wink

I disagree with the first sentence. I think learning that previous actions have consequences in the present will definitely help keep the country safe.
Agree. History is the most important tool anyone's got for understanding why things are as they are and how to improve. Without it, people are just like babies, crying because they're uncomfortable but having no comprehension of the source of their discomfort or how to ameliorate it.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2016, 02:02:37 PM by Emily » Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #748 on: April 16, 2016, 02:04:02 PM »

But how a statement about policy changes allowing the USSR breakup resulting in a freer society was not a result of Reagan efforts is ridiculous, when indeed it was under Reagan.

Only ridiculous to someone who thinks that everything that happens in the world happened because of the sitting US president.

We are not at all generous on a humanitarian level:
https://www.princeton.edu/~soapbox/vol2no4/24noveck.html

This campaign season does indeed show that US Americans are displeased, but it also shows that they have a complete misunderstanding of why things are as they are.
Yes, they are displeased.  More like incensed, to see illegal drugs coming into this country on submarines which kill our young people, daily, by the scores.  

Big Pharma is unchecked as well. That needs to be fixed.    

And, seeing hotels/hospitals set up for labor and delivery to take advantage of jus soli American citizenship.  

Seeing our military commit suicide because they can't get VA treatment.  

Military paying for body armor.  Bail outs of the auto and banking industries. And homeowners becoming homeless because no one bailed them out.  They have had enough.  

And the backlash has been building on both sides of the party, with Dems and Republicans plotting to deny the ticket toppers the nomination. Oh, the people are not "misunderstanding" the corruption in politics. They are getting the message, loud and clear.  

For years, politicos have complained about lack of political involvement by the citizens.  Now, nearly everyone is engaged.  No one in power likes it.

If people are misunderstanding of "why things are as they are" maybe an education campaign might help fix that.  

But, I think they are watching primary elections, caucuses, and rallies and they are understanding exactly what is going on.   Wink
None of these are the source problems. People are focusing on symptoms.
Emily - they are among the punch list items for campaign issues.  Only those who can set policy can fix some of these "symptoms."  The electorate wants this fixed. They pay a lot of taxes for the level of inefficiency they are saddled with.  

Inefficiency and incompetence.  Flint water.  Only when it was held up to the sunlight was there action.  Now, we find out, there is lead in the water all over the country.  What a surprise.  Wink

Symptoms lead to diagnosis.  And remediation.  Raising awareness about the symptoms, is the first start to remediation.
Logged
filledeplage
Smiley Smile Associate
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3151


View Profile
« Reply #749 on: April 16, 2016, 02:06:46 PM »

All the historic analysis is not going to keep the US safe. Enforcing current laws on the books just might.  Wink

I disagree with the first sentence. I think learning that previous actions have consequences in the present will definitely help keep the country safe.
Agree. History is the most important tool anyone's got for understanding why things are as they are and how to improve. Without it, people are just like babies, crying because they're uncomfortable but having no comprehension of the source of their discomfort or how to ameliorate it.
Emily - if a lack of history awareness is the prime problem, then education is the solution. And, they can start with teaching Geography as an individual subject.  That was merged 50 years ago to teach history (which is a separate discipline) with geography and water the subject matter down as social studies.   I agree. 
Logged
Pages: 1 ... 25 26 27 28 29 [30] 31 32 33 34 35 ... 81   Go Up
Print
Jump to:  

Powered by SMF 1.1.21 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
Page created in 0.776 seconds with 22 queries.