RIP Gip

Rest in peace

Sweet.

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr Sweet.

Sir I hope you get

Actually, I was hoping to come to California ASAP so's I could piss on his grave.

I could get a twofer and piss on Nixon while I'm at it.

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr Sweet.

Seriously though, Alzheimer's is a horrible way to go. My grandfather currently has dementia and it's not terribly heartening to see.

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr Actually, I was hoping to come to California ASAP so's I could piss on his grave.I could get a twofer and piss on Nixon while I'm at it.

I'll be sure to be there to kick you in the head.

I'm not wishing horrible things (like alzheimer's) on anybody. Had I been uncharitable, I would have expressed some uncharitable thoughts about where I hope he is and what he's doing there right about now...but it's not for me to judge. I'll leave that to his maker. But the bell-end is gone from this world? Sweet.

As a lefty, you shouldn't be too happy this has happened. Now it's time to reminisce in Reagan conservatism; maybe Bush can use this to help his campaign. Still I may go up to Oregon and kick you in the head.

I'll have a cold one waiting, my friend from the wrong end.

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr I'll have a cold one waiting, my friend from the wrong end.

Ok how bout you come down to Simi Valley, and we'll have a showdown for the ages at the Reagan library.

If it's a showdown involving beer, I'm afraid I won't be much of a champion. First thing you know, I'll be looking for a place to take a piss. ;)

My granddma has Alzheimer and I assure it's psychologicaly terrible.

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr If it's a showdown involving beer, I'm afraid I won't be much of a champion. First thing you know, I'll be looking for a place to take a piss. ;)

Over at Simi you can take a piss off the mountain.

Originally posted by Clown so all those rumors reported this morning about his health getting worse weren't rumors after all????

Nope they weren't rumors, he died at 1:09 PM at his home in Bel Air

Originally posted by Clown they're gonna bury him at the library??? creepy...

I don't think they will bury him there, but once i get back home, I'll surely go take a visit to the library.

Alrighty I'll be sure to visit his grave.

Poor NBC; with all the Reagan coverage, maybe the Belmont will get shoddier ratings than the Stanley Cup.

Terrible disease. You have to respect Nancy for staying with him til the end.

Love him or hate him at least you knew where he stood and what he stood for. He gave the country some optimism after the Carter years and probably inspired many to get involved in politics so they could vote against him.

Perhaps the last real statesman the US has had as POTUS. "Mr. Gorbachev, Tear down that wall" is a better quote than "I did not have sexual relations..." "Read my lips, no new taxes..." and "strategery."

Thanx to Reagan my life ended up the way it did. My mother persuaded me not to join the National Guard in fear that I would end up in Central America, dead in some jungle. My SS card (Social Security) still reads "Contras suck," as a bit of idealism I had during my college years.

RIP

Have you heard it on the news About this fascist groove thang Evil men with racist views Spreading all across the land Don't just sit there on your ass Unlock that funky chaindance Brothers, sisters shoot your best We don't need this fascist groove thang Brothers, sisters, we don't need this fascist groove thang History will repeat itself Crisis point we're near the hour Counterforce will do no good Hot you ass I feel your power Hitler proves that funky stuff Is not for you and me girl Europe's an unhappy land They've had their fascist groove thang Brothers, sisters, we don't need this fascist groove thang Democrats are out of power Across that great wide ocean Reagan's president elect Fascist god in motion Generals tell him what to do Stop your good time dancing Train their guns on me and you Fascist thang advancing Brothers, sisters, we don't need this fascist groove thang Sisters, brothers lend a hand Increase our population Grab that groove thang by the throat And throw it in the ocean You're real tonight you move my soul Let's cruise out of the dance war Come out your house and dance your dance Shake that fascist groove thang

Ummm, Mr. Death, sorry to bother you, and hope you won't hold it against me, but I think you forgot one...

You may hate Reagan and Thatcher, but both the US and Britain were better off after these two leaders than before.

everybody loves you when you die.

you would have never thought it at the time, but Reagan actually seems 10 times more qualified and responsible than Bush Jr. at least Reagan was a successful person and worked his way up to top in a fashion. George W. doesnt have the experience to even manage a Wendy's, spent 15 years after college doing nothing but getting f*cked up and exploiting his family's fame and money, at the very least an alcoholic even by implied admission. and half the people don't have a problem with this guy who can't even fake sincerity on the simplist level. the only time he seems sincere is when he is being an asshole.

He was a pretty successful governor, and he did have the Bush name; so that's why people assumed he would be a good candidate. Talking about riding his father's sucess... cough, Gore, cough. Reagan was plenty qualified in his work with GE and serving two terms as California governor.

Maybe AMC or TCM will show a few "Bonzo" movies during the next few days.

Originally posted by bLuE oRdEr Have you heard it on the newsAbout this fascist groove thangEvil men with racist viewsSpreading all across the landDon't just sit there on your assUnlock that funky chaindanceBrothers, sisters shoot your bestWe don't need this fascist groove thang Brothers, sisters, we don't need this fascist groove thang History will repeat itselfCrisis point we're near the hourCounterforce will do no goodHot you ass I feel your powerHitler proves that funky stuffIs not for you and me girlEurope's an unhappy landThey've had their fascist groove thang Brothers, sisters, we don't need this fascist groove thang Democrats are out of powerAcross that great wide oceanReagan's president electFascist god in motionGenerals tell him what to doStop your good time dancingTrain their guns on me and youFascist thang advancing Brothers, sisters, we don't need this fascist groove thang Sisters, brothers lend a handIncrease our populationGrab that groove thang by the throatAnd throw it in the oceanYou're real tonight you move my soulLet's cruise out of the dance warCome out your house and dance your danceShake that fascist groove thangUmmm, Mr. Death, sorry to bother you, and hope you won't hold it against me, but I think you forgot one...

isnt that a song by heaven 17?

Hopefully Thatcher and Pinochet will follow soon.

If there is a vengeful, monotheistic supernatural entity out there,or a hell, then hes there.

arming right wing dictators arming death squads multiplying the US national debt by 3 incresing spending on "star wars" and cutting welfare "trees cause pollution"

not to mention all those bmovies, and "god bless america" (apart from the democracies in south america). the world is 0.000000001% better this morning. unfortunately the fuckwits are still in control.

also, may i mention : AIDS ?

Originally posted by RIP Gip You may hate Reagan and Thatcher, but both the US and Britain were better off after these two leaders than before.

The eighties were fucking dire in England. Thatcher ripped the soul out of the country, Reagan has to be partly to blame as well.While I have sympathy for the family and maybe as a man he was a great guy but he was at best a 'B' list actor and president.

Originally posted by Clockwork C Hopefully Thatcher and Pinochet will follow soon.If there is a vengeful, monotheistic supernatural entity out there,or a hell, then hes there.arming right wing dictatorsarming death squadsmultiplying the US national debt by 3incresing spending on "star wars" and cutting welfare"trees cause pollution"not to mention all those bmovies, and "god bless america" (apart from the democracies in south america). the world is 0.000000001% better this morning. unfortunately the fuckwits are still in control.also, may i mention : AIDS ?

Kill Thatcher? I bet the people in London don't remember its dismal state prior to Marge. Increasing the national debt? Debt spending is not such a bad thing as long as the debt is not to foreign countries; if the debt is to nations in the US. Also debt spending was the child of the lefty FDR. Increasing defense spending forced the Soviets to increase their own spending, which lead to their economic downfall and the collapse of their country. would Western Europeaners prefer to have a strong Soviet nuclear power present?? Also about welfare; the system was absolutely mismanaged and slothful; hence, he cut the funds for welfare. Who do you want in control? Leftist bastards who can't guide their country out of a wet paper bag? Reagan inspired Americans after its recent dismal past, and his defense spending forced the Soviets to fall. Reagan and FDR are the two best presidents of the last century.

Originally posted by Pizda > Originally posted by RIP Gip> You may hate Reagan and Thatcher, but both the US and Britain were better off after these two leaders than before.

The eighties were fucking dire in England. Thatcher ripped the soul out of the country, Reagan has to be partly to blame as well.While I have sympathy for the family and maybe as a man he was a great guy but he was at best a 'B' list actor and president. If it weren't for Thatcher's economic policies, then England would have remained fookin dire.

REST IN PEACE, a great man, a truly great President.

The Tories were great for the South East of England, fooked the rest of us up good and proper and didn't bat an eyelid over commuinities going to rack and ruin. Fucken Twats!

He was always our friend, he always supported us in our campaign against communism. And we managed, as you know. RIP +

Originally posted by RIP Gip > Originally posted by Pizda> > > > Originally posted by RIP Gip> > You may hate Reagan and Thatcher, but both the US and Britain were better off after these two leaders than before.>

The eighties were fucking dire in England. Thatcher ripped the soul out of the country, Reagan has to be partly to blame as well.While I have sympathy for the family and maybe as a man he was a great guy but he was at best a 'B' list actor and president. If it weren't for Thatcher's economic policies, then England would have remained fookin dire. Bollocks! Thatcher's policies ripped the heart out of this country with her "there's no such thing as society" mentality. Her actions were designed to make a quick buck for her pals in the city and the suffering caused to others was neither here nor there We're still suffering here now thanks to her bastard son Blair carrying on her legacy.

Originally posted by Philip Collins > Originally posted by RIP Gip> > > > Originally posted by Pizda> > > > > > > Originally posted by RIP Gip> > > You may hate Reagan and Thatcher, but both the US and Britain were better off after these two leaders than before.> > >

The eighties were fucking dire in England. Thatcher ripped the soul out of the country, Reagan has to be partly to blame as well.While I have sympathy for the family and maybe as a man he was a great guy but he was at best a 'B' list actor and president. If it weren't for Thatcher's economic policies, then England would have remained fookin dire. Bollocks! Thatcher's policies ripped the heart out of this country with her "there's no such thing as society" mentality. Her actions were designed to make a quick buck for her pals in the city and the suffering caused to others was neither here nor there We're still suffering here now thanks to her bastard son Blair carrying on her legacy. Without privatization your country would have continued its slow decline since WW2. Hell when one tries to revolutionize an economy there will be speed bumps and recessions (just like with Reagan), but in the end Thatcher put an end to loony Brit socialism that didn't work.

Originally posted by RIP Gip > Originally posted by Philip Collins> > > > Originally posted by RIP Gip> > > > > > > Originally posted by Pizda> > > > > > > > > > Originally posted by RIP Gip> > > > You may hate Reagan and Thatcher, but both the US and Britain were better off after these two leaders than before.> > > > > >

The eighties were fucking dire in England. Thatcher ripped the soul out of the country, Reagan has to be partly to blame as well.While I have sympathy for the family and maybe as a man he was a great guy but he was at best a 'B' list actor and president. If it weren't for Thatcher's economic policies, then England would have remained fookin dire. Bollocks! Thatcher's policies ripped the heart out of this country with her "there's no such thing as society" mentality. Her actions were designed to make a quick buck for her pals in the city and the suffering caused to others was neither here nor there We're still suffering here now thanks to her bastard son Blair carrying on her legacy. Without privatization your country would have continued its slow decline since WW2. Hell when one tries to revolutionize an economy there will be speed bumps and recessions (just like with Reagan), but in the end Thatcher put an end to loony Brit socialism that didn't work.

So the rest of us were just collateral damage then?

Originally posted by Hank Wiseass© > Originally posted by RIP Gip> > > > Originally posted by Philip Collins> > > > > > > Originally posted by RIP Gip> > > > > > > > > > Originally posted by Pizda> > > > > > > > > > > > > Originally posted by RIP Gip> > > > > You may hate Reagan and Thatcher, but both the US and Britain were better off after these two leaders than before.> > > > > > > > > >

The eighties were fucking dire in England. Thatcher ripped the soul out of the country, Reagan has to be partly to blame as well.While I have sympathy for the family and maybe as a man he was a great guy but he was at best a 'B' list actor and president. If it weren't for Thatcher's economic policies, then England would have remained fookin dire. Bollocks! Thatcher's policies ripped the heart out of this country with her "there's no such thing as society" mentality. Her actions were designed to make a quick buck for her pals in the city and the suffering caused to others was neither here nor there We're still suffering here now thanks to her bastard son Blair carrying on her legacy. Without privatization your country would have continued its slow decline since WW2. Hell when one tries to revolutionize an economy there will be speed bumps and recessions (just like with Reagan), but in the end Thatcher put an end to loony Brit socialism that didn't work.

So the rest of us were just collateral damage then? Well ultimately yes you were, along with all the union workers, especially those miners.

Shock as Liam agrees with Conor!

Well, sort of.

Amongst other things, one of Reagans legacies in unquestionably the fact that his adminstration funded and trained afghan freedom fighters, who sunbsequently turned into terrorists, formed al qaeda, and...

But, if the 80's were bad in England, what were the 70's like? At the risk of sounding a bit like tony blair, he was partly responsible for the end of boom and bust.

At least now he's not in any pain, as i hope we can all agree that the way he went is an awful way to go.

i think we can both enjoy this moment!

to the guy who is saying tatchers privatisation and "end of looney socialism" worked, then he should proberbally look more to theory than dogma, and also look up a few cold hard examples. If he can show how privatisation worked in the 80s in britain, than go right ahead.

Show me, for example, how Privatising British Rail was , in ANY sense a good move? It got sold off under typically capitalistic false pretences (bungled reports, etc), was underfunded by management working exclusively under the profit motive, crashed (in every way), and eventually got partially renationalised costing the taxpayer in excess of $15 BILLION ! AND !!!!! the state no longer holds direct control over a vital , piece of infrastructure, WHILE STILL PAYING FOR IT,,,,, AND the profits of branson, et al.

Show me how maggie and the despots made the world better. Believe me, im not dogmatic, and open to all ideas.i cannot see what,where,when,or why privatisation improved , but i can see who. please share them.(please leave out silly examples like government breweries).

maggie and the tories were also piss poor economic managers (even taking a "no such thing as society" free market view),case in point: British Steel.

Not to mention how her reactionary policies wound up tension on my own island (growing up in dublin in the 80s i know a personal story or 2 about that), there wouldnt be any "peace process" with marge in charge.

Not once will i excuse Wilsons economic management, doubtless this will be the centre of any reply tho :(

La Lotta Continua. How regan went was pretty shitty - true enough- not that he was helped by the "every sperm is sacred" brigade.

Indeed, to see a man like reagan (ie charismatic, active through old age etc) end up like he did should make the bush brigade and the loony religious lot wake up. I daresay it wont, as the american religious right will continue to show apalling levels of ignorance and disregard for peoples health.

Personally i dont think the idea of railway privatisation was a wholly bad idea, at least in theory. The fact is that the way it was carried out would make aloud blush. However, one cant disguise the fact that the problems with the trains today go back several decades. Tracks etc. The likes of jarvis et al just saw an opportunity to pour fuel on the fire.

I don't think any liberals want to see another Reagan ever again. The Reagan Revolution ended up shifting the moderate Republican party into a rightist Goldwater-esque party, and the lefty Dem.s shifted to the center (just look at Clinton in the 90's). On Fox News last night, Reverend Jerry Falwell was praising Reagan for about half an hour or so. Reagan is the man responsible for shifting America to the right, and he's the god for the modern American Republican party. I bet if you would insult Ronnie to a man from the Heritage Foundation, he'll maim you.

Originally posted by RIP Gip > Originally posted by Philip Collins> > > > Originally posted by RIP Gip> > > > > > > Originally posted by Pizda> > > > > > > > > > Originally posted by RIP Gip> > > > You may hate Reagan and Thatcher, but both the US and Britain were better off after these two leaders than before.> > > > > >

The eighties were fucking dire in England. Thatcher ripped the soul out of the country, Reagan has to be partly to blame as well.While I have sympathy for the family and maybe as a man he was a great guy but he was at best a 'B' list actor and president. If it weren't for Thatcher's economic policies, then England would have remained fookin dire. Bollocks! Thatcher's policies ripped the heart out of this country with her "there's no such thing as society" mentality. Her actions were designed to make a quick buck for her pals in the city and the suffering caused to others was neither here nor there We're still suffering here now thanks to her bastard son Blair carrying on her legacy. Without privatization your country would have continued its slow decline since WW2. Hell when one tries to revolutionize an economy there will be speed bumps and recessions (just like with Reagan), but in the end Thatcher put an end to loony Brit socialism that didn't work. Privatisation that allows a select few to make vast amounts of money from the rest of us. Services were sold off (ridiculously cheaply) to make a quick buck with the result that prices go up for the average punter and profits go into Fat Cats' pockets. "The weak get crushed as the strong grow stronger" as Paul Weller put it. Give me British Socialism over loony Thatcherism any day.

I'm not familiar with the rail privatisation and her mismanagement of finances, but I'm pretty darned sure that the British Telecom privatisation was a success, and didn't the service from Brit Telecom improve after privatisation? The Labour Party for the most part has kept Thatcher's free market policies, and it has been for the most part a large success hasn't it? Ireland has surely benefitted from Thatcher-like tax cuts; Ireland receives about a third of the US' investment (from companies like Dell and HP) into the EU nations, and hasn't Ireland's economy been much improved since? Maybe Thatcher mismanaged some situations, but well managed privatisation and supply side economics works (go ahead if you want to bring up Reaganomics).

Originally posted by Philip Collins > Originally posted by RIP Gip> > > > Originally posted by Philip Collins> > > > > > > Originally posted by RIP Gip> > > > > > > > > > Originally posted by Pizda> > > > > > > > > > > > > Originally posted by RIP Gip> > > > > You may hate Reagan and Thatcher, but both the US and Britain were better off after these two leaders than before.> > > > > > > > > >

The eighties were fucking dire in England. Thatcher ripped the soul out of the country, Reagan has to be partly to blame as well.While I have sympathy for the family and maybe as a man he was a great guy but he was at best a 'B' list actor and president. If it weren't for Thatcher's economic policies, then England would have remained fookin dire. Bollocks! Thatcher's policies ripped the heart out of this country with her "there's no such thing as society" mentality. Her actions were designed to make a quick buck for her pals in the city and the suffering caused to others was neither here nor there We're still suffering here now thanks to her bastard son Blair carrying on her legacy. Without privatization your country would have continued its slow decline since WW2. Hell when one tries to revolutionize an economy there will be speed bumps and recessions (just like with Reagan), but in the end Thatcher put an end to loony Brit socialism that didn't work. Privatisation that allows a select few to make vast amounts of money from the rest of us. Services were sold off (ridiculously cheaply) to make a quick buck with the result that prices go up for the average punter and profits go into Fat Cats' pockets. "The weak get crushed as the strong grow stronger" as Paul Weller put it. Give me British Socialism over loony Thatcherism any day. the thing you neglect is that when these select few make bundles of money, then their companies expand and thus are required to hire new people. Sure to make a buck many of these newly privatised companies were forced to fire waves of people, but once their profits stabilize and grow, then their operations expand and their hired workers increase in number. Hell Tony Blair kept Thatcher's economic policies.

Originally posted by Tristan > Originally posted by Philip Collins> > > > Originally posted by RIP Gip> > > > > > > Originally posted by Philip Collins> > > > > > > > > > Originally posted by RIP Gip> > > > > > > > > > > > > Originally posted by Pizda> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Originally posted by RIP Gip> > > > > > You may hate Reagan and Thatcher, but both the US and Britain were better off after these two leaders than before.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >

The eighties were fucking dire in England. Thatcher ripped the soul out of the country, Reagan has to be partly to blame as well.While I have sympathy for the family and maybe as a man he was a great guy but he was at best a 'B' list actor and president. If it weren't for Thatcher's economic policies, then England would have remained fookin dire. Bollocks! Thatcher's policies ripped the heart out of this country with her "there's no such thing as society" mentality. Her actions were designed to make a quick buck for her pals in the city and the suffering caused to others was neither here nor there We're still suffering here now thanks to her bastard son Blair carrying on her legacy. Without privatization your country would have continued its slow decline since WW2. Hell when one tries to revolutionize an economy there will be speed bumps and recessions (just like with Reagan), but in the end Thatcher put an end to loony Brit socialism that didn't work. Privatisation that allows a select few to make vast amounts of money from the rest of us. Services were sold off (ridiculously cheaply) to make a quick buck with the result that prices go up for the average punter and profits go into Fat Cats' pockets. "The weak get crushed as the strong grow stronger" as Paul Weller put it. Give me British Socialism over loony Thatcherism any day. the thing you neglect is that when these select few make bundles of money, then their companies expand and thus are required to hire new people. Sure to make a buck many of these newly privatised companies were forced to fire waves of people, but once their profits stabilize and grow, then their operations expand and their hired workers increase in number. Hell Tony Blair kept Thatcher's economic policies. They hire new people at a fraction of the cost of the old ones because their obligations are to shareholders not to their workers or their customers - they don't give a fuck whether their workers can survive on the low wages they pay hence jobs disappearing to the Third World purely because they can get away with paying less there. Once the select few make bundles of money their next objective is to just make more bundles of money. Just 'cos Blair kept Thatcher's economic policies doesn't mean they're right...any more than blindly following Dubya's lead like Thatcher followed Reagan's is right.

Hell Phil you make it sound so drastic! Aren't the people of the UK and the US better off than in the 1970's which is before privatisation?

Originally posted by Tristan Hell Phil you make it sound so drastic! Aren't the people of the UK and the US better off than in the 1970's which is before privatisation?

Can't speak for the US but I don't believe that the vast majority of people in this country are better off - we work longer hours than 30 years ago (if you've got a job that is) pay relatively huge amounts for a place to live and are taxed to the hilt - that's a few reasons why so many people in this country are emigrating or would wish to given the chance.

Isn't the question we should really be asking here is: do you blame Reagan/Thatcher, or do you blame the braindead fuckers who voted them in?

I have mixed feelings about the guy; when I was growing up he was "Uncle Ronnie", but when I began to learn just how far right he was I shudder to think we let our country be guided by his liver-spotted hand.

The fact is, love him or hate him, he was the guy on the job when Communism (a nice theory, but we might all agree doesn't work in the real world) began to collapse. Whether it would have imploded without him, we'll never know. I think it was interesting to see, a page or two back, someone from Eastern Europe praising him. Lets you know how well-regarded he was.

The guy did restore a lot of people's faith in America, but at the expense of people who politically were to the left of the Repubs. He left a legacy (intentional or not) of trying to intervene on behalf of sympathetic forces in countries which (while aligned with us in spirit) may not have been the best for their country. I think when you realize how much of a Reaganite Dubya is, and what he's done lately, it makes you wonder just how much we should revere the guy.

On the other hand, he didn't turn out to be the "man who would end the world" in a nuclear war. He ended up starting the process of ending the nuclear buildup, and his administration made close ties with the Soviets.

Also, the disease that struck him struck my great-grandmother, and I can testify to how hard it is to watch someone lose all sense of who they are. For that, I extend my sympathies to the Reagan family.

All in all, he was not our greatest president, but he did do some good things for the world and America. My first thought was "now the Repubs can deify him like they've always wanted to, like they used to do for the old Roman emperors when they came to power or died." I have the feeling, comical as it may be, that I'm not far off.

RIP Ronnie, even though you're a conservative

Originally posted by Doctor Clayhead Isn't the question we should really be asking here is: do you blame Reagan/Thatcher, or do you blame the braindead fuckers who voted them in?

Maybe we should blame failed socialist economic policy in the post war period.

Or maybe we should ask "why did the socialist economy fail", "Why did people vote right wing"? Both essentially the same question. Dont Just apply dogma to a question. question the terms of the question, and apply a dialectic.

BTW :Communism isnt Marxism, its bolshevism, maoism, stalinism, and not socialism, because socialism involves more than having a planned economy - it (like any economic system) has social and human consequences, which react within an economy. quite complex really. 7 years of reading around, ive failed to make up my mind, but is it fair to say capitalism has worked in a world where 2.8 Billion live on less than $2 a day in real terms?

A lesson In Reganomics- a.k.a Bushanomics, Torynomics, Tonyomics: By Conor

Ok : British Telecom :

Essentially privatised (like more or less all privatisation projects) under the old right wing guise of “liberalising” the Telecoms’ market to competition, driving prices down for the consumer, freeing the government of responsibility of a heavily unionised workforce. Everybody wins! But, of course, the Reality of what happened was different:

British Telecom was privatised in the early-mid 80s by the Tories, 80000+ jobs were shed within months, the Directors siphoned off in excess of £2million a year to line their pockets, the monies raised for the state went into the pockets of the rich, as Thatcher imposed one of the most regressive taxation policies in history, and the consumer didn’t even benefit. For most of the 80s the British Telecoms’ market was in fact a corporate monopoly. Only 2 companies – British Telecom and a subsidiary of Cable and Wireless were in a state of faux competition, cutting prices at a rate marginal to the expected values shouted about by conservatives and big business. Not until government regulators moved in during the 90s did that change, but we will see how successful they were.

In order to make BT attractive to the soft handed ,cigar smoking, lap dance loving dipsticks in the city, Thatcher left in elements of the British network under Exclusive control and Ownership of BT. For example the “local loops” (the line up to your door, in your housing estate, poles up to your cottage) are monopolised by BT, and as a result, not once in the 20 years of privatisation has Britain’s call charges come close to the European Average. BT, like ALL privatised companies has seen short term profiteering, lining executive pockets, and pleasing the City come ahead of delivering a good service to customers, business, etc, and , of course has flagged workers rights too. As a result of these factors, and the internationalisation of the neo liberal market model (a.k.a. “globalisation”-but I find that term misleading) BT is in £30BILLION DEBT, the customer isn’t happy, shareholders are jumping out, and inevitably the government will soon have to bail it out, with TAXPAYERS (i.e. consumers) money if it is to upgrade its Telecoms’ infrastructure (witnesses all us noolers are to the importance of that). These Taxpayers and Consumers Didn’t benefit from Priatisation, or (for the 90% who aren’t in millionaire land) Thatchers regressive tax cuts.

But the BT story isn’t exactly new, lets take the case of British Rail:

A bit of Backround. The British empire was legendary for its railways. As Tony Wilson said in the Film “When the Victorians built the railways, they didn’t just put up portacabins, they went to town”. Britain had the most extensive, and BEST railway network in the world. Progressive design from mechanical and civil engineering (Brinell to Tilting Trains), to Graphic and customer orientated design (Sheffield Foundries to Jock Kinneer , Kenneth Grange, and the Famous BR design Bureau). By the Late 80s British Rail needed Money. Years of underfunding under poor governance (by Labour and the Tories), coupled with extremely regressive Unions in a poisonous culture meant the Network needed an upgrade.

For example, the West Coast MainLine (WCML), the biggest, busiest line In Britain (Linking London With Manchester, splitting to Holyhead ,Liverpool ,Glasgow, and Edinburgh) needed new track, new signalling, new trains.

The government should have taken a progressive approach with unions (i.e. explain the situation, and negotiate with them), put around £3BN (of progressive tax) into proper pensions, severance payments, and an upgrade of the network, based on existing technologies and research.

But the Tories were in charge.

The promise was : we will sell off the railway, private money will put up the money, quash the unions, bring in expertise, upgrade the network and trains, and again (just like BT) everyone will win.

The BR top brass were sacked. Engineers who had moved into management and the oil industry (all Tory Insiders) were appointed to the board, BR works, Engineering Dept, Research (all very highly regarded –as a Mech Eng undergrad we are still told about these guys by our lecturers, in 2004) were all broken up. Their reports were shredded.

A private company called “RailTrack” was setup to manage the railway, with certain procedural, safety, and other parameters to be set over time by a government body. It was an open market On the network. Private companies bought railcars, setup routes in competition with each other, and the dream was set to go.

British Rail was privatised by a government obsessed with Victorian moral, Social, and Class values (Interestingly, NewLabour is too – check Gordon Browns obsession with words like “prudence”). Their approach to the railways wasn’t so Victorian though.

The WCML needed money, But the market, and RailTrack didn’t want to hear it. RailTrack compiled an engineering report into “Moving Block” , a totally unproved signalling used on 1 Paris metro line, and the London Docklands Loop. Demanding that the report say it work, the report said it would work, and, without wanting to subject people to a lengthy description of it, Moving Bloc couldn’t , and didn’t Work.

RailTracks’ international “Engineers” and “Experts” also miraculously found that Britain’s railways (including the WCML) only needed a safety check 50 % less often then under those grey, pipe puffing old nationalised hats. 5 substantial crashes on (2 rail, 2 signal related – or maybe 3 im not exactly sure), Hundreds of millions in compensa£ion , lost confidence and (dare we say it to the free marketeers) lost lives later, we also KNOW that to be false. They have gone back to the same level of checks since 2002.

The market had brief Confidence in RailTracks bullshit reports, but , again, due to its profit motive, fat cats, and disregard for anything other than short term profit, RailTrack went down the shitter, breaking contracts with RailCar operators (costing millions), underestimating, and therefore not planning for the WCML upgrade by, wait for it £8BILLION. Railtrack went into receivership in 2001.

The Government ends up paying Richard Brandsons Virgin Trains £125MILLION (im not sure of this exact figure, perhaps it was 200, but it was in excess of 100M) of (again, mainly PAYE and regressives) Taxpayers Money in fines induced under railtrack.

The government set up a nationalised operator for the track “Network Rail”, again underfunded and poorly run by a bunch of incompetents.

Network rail has picked up, among other Huge Debts, RailTracks £10 BILLION tab for the WCML upgrade. It would have save at least £10Bn overall had it stayed with nationalisation and there would be a better service today.

And who pays for that? Not the fatcats who privatised RailTrack, the Wealthy who enjoyed the associated TaxCuts around the time of privatisation (all cuts were biased hugely in their favour), the fund managers drinking cocktails and bonuses.

The Shareholders who lost, were predominantly Pensioners (more than 70% -doubtless some fat cats lost too, but It doesn’t seem to show judging by the wealth divide in the UK at the moment). The small time TaxPayers, the workers, the earners lost too. The BR top class Engineers lost, the BR Unionised workforce lost – jobs and more.

I think Tristan’s view of 80s Britain is informed more by DelBoys cigar n’FiloFax attitude and documentaries about Lamborghini driving 26 year old millionaires than the cold hard economic and social Facts of that period in that area. Im sure plenty of noolers living around Manchester ,or Glasgow for instance during the 80s will paint the picture better than Me, A kid living in holy catholic Ireland at the time

They may also tell you how the WCML is still (10 years on) causing disruption and coach transfers due to upgrade work at weekends.

Leave the Dogma out of this. Think of privatisation Theoretically, and not as Uncle Liam did, Literally. Don’t let dogma answer questions, but let Theory ask questions of questions. Is the corruption inherent in these privatised companies a case of a few once offs? Or a direct result of capitalistic objectives?

And a subject close to my feet : Ireland:

Ireland, on the surface (“on paper”) has benefited from Huge corporate tax cuts, Multinational investment, and “Globalisation”

In the real Measure of Globalisation (social, economic, cultural, etc) by “Foreign Policy ” Magazine (USA 2003) Ireland ranked as the “Most globalised country in the world” (UK: 9 USA:11 SPAIN:20). This is a long way from the economic Backwater I grew up in during the 1980s. GDP growth was up 9.3% each year since 1993. The reasons :

1)Corporate tax cuts: They all came, and they all went. Someone close to me, a trained Electronic Engineer has joined and been made redundant by 5 multinationals in 5 years. No Union Rights, No payoff, just a simple “goodbye”. The Corporations are leaving to lower taxed, lower weiged, lower environmentally controlled (if that’s possible!) countries in the global race to the bottom. The boom has not gone bust, but has been sinking year on year for the last 2 and a ½, and according to the central bank , is expected to into the future.

2)A highly trained workforce. The 90s saw the full fruits of a fully nationalised, and broadly well run Education System, (Nationalised in the 70s, although still occasionally interfered with by the Catholic Church – until then the primary “educator” in Ireland). Note I use the word “Trained” and not “Educated”. Anyone In Ireland who is educated has done so on a personal, Informal Basis. The State (like most) certainly doesn’t provide for it. Most of the writers we are famous left school early ,college early , and (usually the state). There is a Bust of James Joyce in my college – the authorities don’t mention he left after a couple of months, (It was 100% church controlled at the time), and soon fecked off to Paris.

3)Comparatively Shit running of the country in preceding decades. Families of 8 (due to an anti family planning / contraception / abortion / healthcare for mothers) approach from the church state lead to huge unemployment , and massive massive Emigration of uneducated Irish .

4)The EU gave Huge structural Funds, and wiped the church (officially, not practically) off the Irish radar. (Up until the mid 70s women had to leave the civil service once they had a child). Under the leadership of and old fashioned French Socialist, Jacques Delors, the EU DOUBLED the amount of Structural and Social funds, Ireland Benefited by around €12BN extra.

5)Social Partnership : The Trade Unions Entered social partnership with the state for 10 years and counting. No strikes as a payoff for more pay (in public and private sector), better conditions, and higher spending on social matters, incl healthcare and welfare. Yeah – you wont hear the neo cons bragg about that one! Im against partnership for reasons that would take more explaining another night J , but it undoubtably lead to a very attractive economic climate.

6)BIG GOVERNMENT ! yes, big , efficient government. Actively seeking inward investment by building factories ready to go for the Multinationals, setting up industrial development agencies (formally the IDA) developing social partnership, paying (at one stage, but not in the last year) 100% of 3rd level fees to ensure a well trained workforce, handling IMF debt payments in a by, among other things, Playing the market in a manner that a CEO of any company would be proud of (this is a market analysis, personally I don’t agree with a lot of it). Putting in Capital where the Labour was unemployed.

7)To a lesser extent, the Peace Process in Northern Ireland rubbed off well on the whole region.

8)A global economic boom. Irelands Economy is linked closer to that of the USA than any other in possibly the world, but certainly the EU. The Clinton years were good for the US, and subsequently the Irish Economy. The Bush years haven’t been so good!

So it was more than just cutting tax on the big boys that made Ireland do well in the Market, Not that the Neo Cons, will let you know.

Socially, after (and during) the Boom, Ireland is decrepit. It’s a state Ill be leaving not soon enough (2 years hopefully). Peoples sense of social Responsibility is Nil, Racism is rampant, according to the UN the Rich-Poor divide is the biggest of any state in Europe, Infrastructure and Social Projects are Mismanaged by a right wing government desperate to privatise it before GATS deadlines, the populace lacks any sense of Informed Judgement, nationalism is rampant thanks to a perennial feeling of historic struggle and a nationally clean conscience – (Ireland never had an empire-although it is part of one now, Irish people tend to be outrageously proud of their state), and a general lack of Culture that aspires to anything above the mediocrity of a couple of pints and rebble songs in a dank as fuck pub. Ireland has more playstations per capita than anywhere on earth – including Japan. In my opinion it has more shit bands , tv, and filmmakers too, but that’s just an opinion. To bring My own resentment into this, Ireland was poor in the 80s, but people did care about society, and big issues. Redsitribution and charity was rife (think live aid). People had little, paid big tax, and gave to the less fortunate. Now we have a collective sense of self centred values , money is the new church, and is a case of “fuck you” to anyone else. Our superstars are “entrepreneurs” who – it turns out via tribunals have fucked the taxpayer over at every attempt in order to but another London property portfolio or Portuguese (the new exile) mansion.

The boom has fucked our environment too. Unions are powerless, and workers less so. We have a puppet leadership.

Irelands urbanism is a visual catastrophe.

Dublin’s Urban Model is more LA than Madrid or Prauge.

Anyhow – bitter resentful rants aside - Most (not all) of my theoretical questions have led me down on the Left, and the Libertarian Left at that.

Cutting tax and spending doesn’t work : Economically OR socially.

It’s a way for the poor, or comparatively poor to pay for the rich, or comparatively rich.

I am open to opinions though, but will apply theory to it. You have yet to give me an example of conservatism or Privatisation working – even in Market Terms , but we have seen that Neo-Conservatism works in Market, but not in a Humanitarian or Social Sense, or over a long term within a market analysis. Please Reply in a constructive , non pejorative manner, dealing with the basis of the issues dealt with above. This took me the bones of 2 hours, a lot of remembering, and a webpage or 2 and 3 books(for more exact figures) to compile.

Think : Not all Nationalised companies are poorly run (e.g. Spanish Railways), some are (e.g. Irish Rail, pre ‘90). Surely it is governments ultimate responsibility to Run them well in the Public interest?

Not all Privatised Companies (i.e. formally nationalised) are well run (Many examples, see above), some are well run (Im open to suggestion, Im sure they exist though), but, the key difference is that ALL are run with the profit motive first, and social (or broader economic) responsibility further down the list of priorities. Private Interest in the Consumer is “how much can we make” (and that isn’t always in the most moral, but the most “liberal ” way), Private interest in the Worker is “how little can we pay, and how” private interest in taxation follows that it sets for the worker. As an aspiring (believe it or not), soon to be petit – bourgeoisie (very) small businessman, I realise this.

2.8 Billion Live on less than $2 a day. The Market, Reganomics DEMANDS that (Neo Cons Admit as much, exact instances of this available on request, if I can muster looking at this Screen again). Think of that. Its not a relative, but a real figure.

Maybe try it out? I sure as hell wont.

Another View

KILLER, COWARD, CONMAN - GOOD RIDDANCE, RONNIE REAGAN MORE PROOF ONLY THE GOOD DIE YOUNG Sunday, June 6, 2004 by Greg Palast

You're not going to like this. You shouldn't speak ill of the dead. But in this case, someone's got to.

Ronald Reagan was a conman. Reagan was a coward. Reagan was a killer.

In 1987, I found myself stuck in a crappy little town in Nicaragua named Chaguitillo. The people were kind enough, though hungry, except for one surly young man. His wife had just died of tuberculosis.

People don't die of TB if they get some antibiotics. But Ronald Reagan, big hearted guy that he was, had put a lock-down embargo on medicine to Nicaragua because he didn't like the government that the people there had elected.

Ronnie grinned and cracked jokes while the young woman's lungs filled up and she stopped breathing. Reagan flashed that B-movie grin while they buried the mother of three.

And when Hezbollah terrorists struck and murdered hundreds of American marines in their sleep in Lebanon, the TV warrior ran away like a whipped dog ... then turned around and invaded Grenada. That little Club Med war was a murderous PR stunt so Ronnie could hold parades for gunning down Cubans building an airport.

I remember Nancy, a skull and crossbones prancing around in designer dresses, some of the "gifts" that flowed to the Reagans -- from hats to million-dollar homes -- from cronies well compensated with government loot. It used to be called bribery.

And all the while, Grandpa grinned, the grandfather who bleated on about "family values" but didn't bother to see his own grandchildren.

The New York Times today, in its canned obit, wrote that Reagan projected, "faith in small town America" and "old-time values." "Values" my ass. It was union busting and a declaration of war on the poor and anyone who couldn't buy designer dresses. It was the New Meanness, bringing starvation back to America so that every millionaire could get another million.

"Small town" values? From the movie star of the Pacific Palisades, the Malibu mogul? I want to throw up.

And all the while, in the White House basement, as his brain boiled away, his last conscious act was to condone a coup d'etat against our elected Congress. Reagan's Defense Secretary Casper the Ghost Weinberger with the crazed Colonel, Ollie North, plotted to give guns to the Monster of the Mideast, Ayatolla Khomeini.

Reagan's boys called Jimmy Carter a weanie and a wuss although Carter wouldn't give an inch to the Ayatolla. Reagan, with that film-fantasy tough-guy con in front of cameras, went begging like a coward cockroach to Khomeini pleading on bended knee for the release of our hostages.

Ollie North flew into Iran with a birthday cake for the maniac mullah -- no kidding --in the shape of a key. The key to Ronnie's heart.

Then the Reagan roaches mixed their cowardice with crime: taking cash from the hostage-takers to buy guns for the "contras" - the drug-runners of Nicaragua posing as freedom fighters.

I remember as a student in Berkeley the words screeching out of the bullhorn, "The Governor of the State of California, Ronald Reagan, hereby orders this demonstration to disburse" ... and then came the teargas and the truncheons. And all the while, that fang-hiding grin from the Gipper.

In Chaguitillo, all night long, the farmers stayed awake to guard their kids from attack from Reagan's Contra terrorists. The farmers weren't even Sandinistas, those 'Commies' that our cracked-brained President told us were 'only a 48-hour drive from Texas.' What the hell would they want with Texas, anyway?

Nevertheless, the farmers, and their families, were Ronnie's targets.

In the deserted darkness of Chaguitillo, a TV blared. Weirdly, it was that third-rate gangster movie, "Brother Rat." Starring Ronald Reagan.

Well, my friends, you can rest easier tonight: the Rat is dead.

Killer, coward, conman. Ronald Reagan, good-bye and good riddance.

Greg Palast is author of the New York Times bestseller, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. www.GregPalast.com

I'm not going to respond to each point of your thorough post Conor right now because I should be getting back to studying for my physical biochemistry final tomorrow , but I just read a snippet about your talk about British Telecom, and I read that 80,000 jobs were cut once it privatized. Now did BT hire new people afterwards; if it expanded its operations in the recent past, did it hire new people. Ultimately did new people get hired after the newly privatized BT cut its production costs by firing 80K employees in order to start running a profit? I'll read the rest later, but can you give me experiences where these BT exec.s lined their own pockets? My experience is that usually privatization usually involves massive layoffs, factory closings, massive cost cutting in order to achieve a profit, and then when the company begins running a profit the company will begin expanding its operations, opening new facilities (factories, offices, etc.) in which new people will have to be hired).

Also one question I have is, what would have happened to the UK if the post-war socialist policies continued? Would the British economy gradually have declined to a degraded state where the nation would have been forced to cut jobs for the sake of not losing too much money?

Tomorrow 'round noon (after my final) here I'll read the rest and respond.

As i said in an earlier post, if the god he believed in exists, the man is going down down down and those flames are growing higher.

Originally posted by Hank Wiseass© Another ViewKILLER, COWARD, CONMAN - GOOD RIDDANCE, RONNIE REAGANMORE PROOF ONLY THE GOOD DIE YOUNGSunday, June 6, 2004by Greg PalastYou're not going to like this. You shouldn't speak ill of the dead. But in this case, someone's got to.Ronald Reagan was a conman. Reagan was a coward. Reagan was a killer. In 1987, I found myself stuck in a crappy little town in Nicaragua named Chaguitillo. The people were kind enough, though hungry, except for one surly young man. His wife had just died of tuberculosis. People don't die of TB if they get some antibiotics. But Ronald Reagan, big hearted guy that he was, had put a lock-down embargo on medicine to Nicaragua because he didn't like the government that the people there had elected.Ronnie grinned and cracked jokes while the young woman's lungs filled up and she stopped breathing. Reagan flashed that B-movie grin while they buried the mother of three.And when Hezbollah terrorists struck and murdered hundreds of American marines in their sleep in Lebanon, the TV warrior ran away like a whipped dog ... then turned around and invaded Grenada. That little Club Med war was a murderous PR stunt so Ronnie could hold parades for gunning down Cubans building an airport.I remember Nancy, a skull and crossbones prancing around in designer dresses, some of the "gifts" that flowed to the Reagans -- from hats to million-dollar homes -- from cronies well compensated with government loot. It used to be called bribery.And all the while, Grandpa grinned, the grandfather who bleated on about "family values" but didn't bother to see his own grandchildren.The New York Times today, in its canned obit, wrote that Reagan projected, "faith in small town America" and "old-time values." "Values" my ass. It was union busting and a declaration of war on the poor and anyone who couldn't buy designer dresses. It was the New Meanness, bringing starvation back to America so that every millionaire could get another million."Small town" values? From the movie star of the Pacific Palisades, the Malibu mogul? I want to throw up.And all the while, in the White House basement, as his brain boiled away, his last conscious act was to condone a coup d'etat against our elected Congress. Reagan's Defense Secretary Casper the Ghost Weinberger with the crazed Colonel, Ollie North, plotted to give guns to the Monster of the Mideast, Ayatolla Khomeini. Reagan's boys called Jimmy Carter a weanie and a wuss although Carter wouldn't give an inch to the Ayatolla. Reagan, with that film-fantasy tough-guy con in front of cameras, went begging like a coward cockroach to Khomeini pleading on bended knee for the release of our hostages. Ollie North flew into Iran with a birthday cake for the maniac mullah -- no kidding --in the shape of a key. The key to Ronnie's heart.Then the Reagan roaches mixed their cowardice with crime: taking cash from the hostage-takers to buy guns for the "contras" - the drug-runners of Nicaragua posing as freedom fighters. I remember as a student in Berkeley the words screeching out of the bullhorn, "The Governor of the State of California, Ronald Reagan, hereby orders this demonstration to disburse" ... and then came the teargas and the truncheons. And all the while, that fang-hiding grin from the Gipper. In Chaguitillo, all night long, the farmers stayed awake to guard their kids from attack from Reagan's Contra terrorists. The farmers weren't even Sandinistas, those 'Commies' that our cracked-brained President told us were 'only a 48-hour drive from Texas.' What the hell would they want with Texas, anyway? Nevertheless, the farmers, and their families, were Ronnie's targets. In the deserted darkness of Chaguitillo, a TV blared. Weirdly, it was that third-rate gangster movie, "Brother Rat." Starring Ronald Reagan. Well, my friends, you can rest easier tonight: the Rat is dead. Killer, coward, conman. Ronald Reagan, good-bye and good riddance.Greg Palast is author of the New York Times bestseller, The Best Democracy Money Can Buy. www.GregPalast.com

This is slanted utter crap full of bombast with no backbone. This looks at some isolated incidents and tries to put a blanket statement on the great president Reagan. This quite reminds me of a Moore docu... erm... mockumentary.

CLOCKWORK C...what a bloody good POST.Very thought provoking and informative.Well done!

If socialist policies (although thats taking a loose intrupertation of the word "socialist") continued in britain after the 70s, doubtless the economy would have collapsed.

WHY ?

question the simple answers (aha - a postmodern socialist )

the market places parameters upon society and governments social spending. britain was in huge debt throughout the 70s as a result of both labour and tory government.

by the mid 70s, the imf was moving in, the government needed more money (why again? as as socialist i must question this, but again the answers are comparatively complex) the neo cons in the imf said "no more money till you slash spending and top rates of tax"

its a familiar old story. that labour government failed in many ways in real socialist and certainly in free maket economic terms.

the first priority of any board is to fence in their own cash. year 2000 (latest available accounts) BT board share £2.2M salaries (they do little in the way of work) £1.3M bonouses AND have huge options.

the first priority of any privatised company is to shed staff. of course BT diddnt loose 80000 odd staff in under a year, it got rid of them, and replaced them with low pay ununionised temps.

regan was all those things in the pallast artcle and more. to me a good guy is more than a parrot for misplaced loyalty a big grin , and a tearful eye

jimmy carter was the last president of any honour or standing. ill be sorry when he dies.

Question:

How did you manage to get that post up without it deleting itself? I always lose long posts, hence why i type them in word.

Nice to see that someone finally acknowledges the problems of the republic of ireland. Racism is of course rampant, yet no one is allowed to mention it. I find it tremendously ironic when irish people call certain races (in the north at least, romanians are currently fashionable to slag off) "scroungers". I think it was john hume who states that for the first time in history there is now immigration to Ireland rather than emmigration. It is also my belief that racism (whether it was cloaked or not is open to interpretation) was the cause of the no vote in December 2001.

Moving on. Today i recieved a marvellous book. The Black Book of Communism. Not an ideological book as such, but a tome documenting crimes, human rights violations etc etc committed by Communist regimes worldwide. Despites reagans failings, and there are many, we should be at least grateful that his policies caused the collapse of a number of these regimes that committed these atrocities.

Of course, he put in power some despicable regimes, but thats another story...

Originally posted by Tristan This is slanted utter crap full of bombast with no backbone. This looks at some isolated incidents and tries to put a blanket statement on the great president Reagan. This quite reminds me of a Moore docu... erm... mockumentary.

Or as we call it on Planet Earth, the truth.

:barf: Ronald Reagan.

Oh dear, it looks like I've just splashed a copious amount of vomit on our dear departed fasc, or beav, or gimp, or whatever it is we call the wrinkled old corpse.

Anyway, good riddance Ronnie, and save some room on the spit for Maggie, Augusto, and the rest of the gang.

And yet another tribute....

Ronald Reagan, 1911-2004 Goodbye and Good Riddance By PHIL GASPER

Ronald Reagan has finally died at age 93. Predictably, politicians from both major parties have issued gushing tributes to this venal and vicious man, who was happy to slash workers' wages, see families thrown onto the street, support sadistic death squads and bomb other countries, if this was in the interests of the American ruling class.

Meanwhile, if recent history is any guide, the mainstream media will steer well clear of providing an accurate portrayal of Reagan, the man and the president. Last year, in a stunning act of cowardice, CBS canceled its much-publicized "docudrama" about Ron and Nancy, The Reagans, caving in to a campaign by the Republican National Committee, right-wing radio hosts, Fox News and conservative Internet sites. The movie was instead shown later to a much smaller audience on the Showtime cable network.

Conservatives attacked the film for portraying Reagan as homophobic, and Nancy as a domineering wife and mother who pulled the strings behind the scenes while abusing her children. They were apparently even more incensed that James Brolin, husband of liberal icon Barbra Streisand, played the part of Reagan.

While The Reagans was undoubtedly a monumental example of third-rate TV schlock, examples cited by conservatives of substantial inaccuracies didn't hold up. One complaint was that the movie showed Reagan ignoring the AIDS crisis because of its association with gay sex, and telling his wife, "They that live in sin shall die in sin."

But in real life, Reagan refused to mention AIDS publicly for six years, under-funded federal programs dealing with the disease and, according to his authorized biography, said, "Maybe the Lord brought down this plague," because "illicit sex is against the Ten Commandments."

C. Everett Koop, Reagan's surgeon general, later revealed, "because transmission of AIDS was understood primarily in the homosexual population and in those who abused intravenous drugs, the advisors to the president took the stand, they are only getting what they justly deserve."

In the movie, Nancy slaps her 5-year-old daughter, Patti. In real life, Patti wrote, "I first remember my mother hitting me when I was eight. It escalated as I got older and became a weekly, sometimes daily, event."

In the movie, Nancy insists, "Ketchup is a vegetable! It is not a meat, right? So it is a vegetable." In real life, Reagan directed the Department of Agriculture to classify ketchup as a vegetable in September 1981 in an attempt to slash $1.5 billion from the federal school lunch program.

Conservatives also criticized the movie for what it did not include. "Does it show he had the longest and strongest recovery in postwar history?" asked Reagan's White House press secretary Marlin Fitzwater.

But Reagan's economic policies were a disaster for working-class Americans. Reagan presided over the worst recession since the 1930s, and economic growth in the 1980s was lower than in the 1970s, despite the stimulus of military Keynesian policies, which created massive federal budget deficits and tripled the federal debt. By the end of the decade, real wages were down and the poverty rate had increased by 20 percent.

The real problem with The Reagans was not that it was too critical of the Reagan presidency, but that it was largely uncritical. According to The New York Times, the movie "paints [Reagan] as an exceptionally gifted politician and a moral man who stuck to his beliefs, often against his advisers' urgings."

Reagan was many things, but "gifted" was not one of them. "Poor dear," remarked British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, his closest international ally, "there's nothing between his ears." As for a "moral man," Reagan's morality included union busting--beginning with his dismissal of striking air traffic controllers in 1981--an unprecedented war on the poor, opposition to civil rights and support for apartheid South Africa. The "moral" Reagan trained and supported terrorists, including the Nicaraguan contras ("the moral equal of our Founding Fathers") who killed over 30,000 people, and Islamic radicals in Afghanistan who later formed the al-Qaeda network.

Reagan was also a liar. In November 1986, he publicly denied that his administration had been illegally selling arms to Iran and using the proceeds to fund the contras. One week later he was forced to retract this statement, but denied that the sale was part of a deal to free U.S. hostages. The following year, Reagan admitted that there had been an arms-for-hostages deal, but denied he knew anything about it.

In 1992, that too proved to be a lie when former Defense Secretary Caspar Weinberger was compelled to release notes from a January 1986 meeting revealing, "President decided to go with Israeli-Iranian offer to release our 5 hostages in return for sale of 4,000 TOWs to Iran by Israel."

The man whose administration spearheaded class warfare on behalf of the rich, dragged American politics to the right, and rebuilt US imperialism after the Vietnam debacle, is dead. Good riddance.

What is the average unemployment rate in the UK, France and Germany?

. Hell when one tries to revolutionize an economy there will be speed bumps and recessions (just like with Reagan)

I'm more than happy to concede that Conor and Hank have put forward strong opinions , some of which I share , and that they've done it in one case with the required venom and in another with an eloquence the subject deserves , well done Conor a pleasure to read and informative .

But the arrogance of that qouted line above .... How dare you refer to the loss of a persons livelihood as a fuckin speed bump . I could give you instances of the effect of redundancy on real people , my wife ( who worked for Mercury , then Cable + Wireless and lately CWC ( the caribean arm of Cable + Wireless , though she works from Miami and the UK )could tell you how it feels to inform a man, of the same generation as her Father, that he is redundant and the feeling of self loathing when the man breaks down in front of you , she could tell you many things , as could my Brother , Sister and step-sister . We could tell you a lot of things Tristan , yet I fear your beliefs and opinions run to deep , so I'll just hope that your system brings you the same kinda security as we all hope for , and if you do happen to hit a speed bump , I for one would not gloat or mock , I've seen what happens to strong personalities and the last thing they needed was sympathy , or gloating ...... or being told they'd hit a speed bump .

On a less political note , best wishes for your tests/exam

Gary

I think it deserves mentioning that the Tories inflicted their damage on Britain with something like 35% support. The entire north of England and Scotland and Wales would have elected Labour. Democracy in action? They managed to do this largely thanks to a huge propoganda machine, 95% of our press were in their camp and they spent a small fortune employing the Saachis. Twats!

Liam: copy and paste from word. Its best working offline if it’s a long one (and for a terrible speller like myself, word is a godsend)

The No vote in December 2001 was more economic than racial. I didn’t agree with most others reasons for voting no. What was frightening was the way it was re run within a year. “democracy my arse”.

The authoritarian nature of Bolshevism / Stalinism/ et al, inevitably results in terrible crimes, murders, etc (if I had a tenner for every hour of debating that particular point with my Trotskyite friends), I still don’t see classical Marxism based on a libertarian model doing the same.

The question Im asking at the moment is “can socialism as an economic model work within a non authoritarian social model, or if in an authoritarian model, one that is socially responsible and accountable “?

The same question must be asked of capitalism though. We live in aggressively authoritarian times in an economic, and implicitly social sense. People tend to forget that. Right-Wingers across the globe talk about freedom in terms exclusively of “positive freedoms” (the freedom TO) while all their policies lead humanity away from the slightly more complex nature of “negative freedoms” (freedom FROM). Their mantra: “people are free to prosper” (in market terms) ignores the fact that people are not free from abject poverty, and it’s hard to get on in market terms if you are born in the 3rd world (id say impossible).

I think Regans role in the downfall of authoritarian socialism (communism) is hugely overrated. He watched it implode after decades of economic pressure via the arms race (which he sped up-true enough, but look at the consequences of that! ). Justification for the mess in south America, Iraq, The mid east, Afghanistan, and the propagation of terrorism that ultimately led to september11 that was part of US foreign policy is usually given by Neo-Cons today as being a policy to defeat communism, but the reality is far from that. I can elaborate, maybe at a later date, but not now. The new enemy “Terrorism” is seen as justification for rolling back on more social gains, and trampling on more people. I fear that mess may take another 50 years to clear up.

The example of China collapsing quietly (but very slowly) is a good (not perfect) model for dealing with abusive totalitarian states in my opinion. No missiles fired, no statues covered with US flags, just a quiet admittance and lots of diplomacy (remember AlGore was criticised to no end for talking with the commies by Bush/Cheney2000).

And the tributes keep rolling in...

Juan Cole: 'Ronald Reagan, de-mythologized' Date: Tuesday, June 08 @ 09:51:14 EDT

By Juan Cole, History News Network

I did not say anything about Ronald Reagan's death on Saturday. The day a person dies he has a right to be left alone.

But yesterday is now history, and Reagan's legacy should not pass without comment.

Reagan had an ability to project a kindly image, and was well liked personally by virtually everyone who knew him, apparently. But it always struck me that he was a mean man. I remember learning, in the late 1960s, of the impact Michael Harrington's The Other America had had on Johnson's War on Poverty. Harrington demonstrated that in the early 1960s there was still hunger in places like Appalachia, deriving from poverty. It was hard for middle class Americans to believe, and Lyndon Johnson, who represented many poor people himself, was galvanized to take action.

I remember seeing a tape of Reagan speaking in California from that era. He said that he had heard that some asserted there was hunger in America. He said it sarcastically. He said, "Sure there is; they're dieting!" or words to that effect. This handsome Hollywood millionnaire making fun of people so poor they sometimes went to bed hungry seemed to me monstrous. I remember his wealthy audience of suburbanites going wild with laughter and applause. I am still not entirely sure what was going on there. Did they think Harrington's and similar studies were lies? Did they blame the poor for being poor, and resent demands on them in the form of a few tax dollars, to address their hunger?

Then when he was president, at one point Reagan tried to cut federal funding for school lunches for the poor. He tried to have ketchup reclassified as a vegetable to save money. Senator Heinz gave a speech against this move. He said that ketchup is a condiment, not a vegetable, and that he should know.

The meanness was reflected, as many readers have noted, in Reagan's "blame the victim" approach to the AIDS crisis. His inability to come to terms with the horrible human tragedy here, or with the emerging science on it, made his health policies ineffective and even destructive.

Reagan's mania to abolish social security was of a piece with this kind of sentiment. In the early twentieth century, the old were the poorest sector of the American population. The horrors of old age--increasing sickness, loss of faculties, marginalization and ultimately death--were in that era accompanied by fear of severe poverty. Social security turned that around. The elderly are no longer generally poverty-stricken. The government can do something significant to improve people's lives. Reagan, philosophically speaking, hated the idea of state-directed redistribution of societal wealth. (His practical policies often resulted in such redistribution de facto, usually that of tossing money to the already wealthy). So he wanted to abolish social security and throw us all back into poverty in old age.

Reagan hated any social arrangement that empowered the poor and the weak. He was a hired gun for big corporations in the late 1950s, when he went around arguing against unionization. Among his achievements in office was to break the air traffic controllers' union. It was not important in and of itself, but it was a symbol of his determination that the powerless would not be allowed to organize to get a better deal. He ruined a lot of lives. I doubt he made us safer in the air.

Reagan hated environmentalism. His administration was not so mendacious as to deny the problems of increased ultraviolet radition (from a depleted ozone layer) and global warming. His government suggested people wear sunglasses and hats in response. At one point Reagan suggested that trees cause pollution. He was not completely wrong (natural processes can cause pollution), but his purpose in making the statement seems to have been that we should therefore just accept lung cancer from bad city air, which was caused by automobiles and industry, not by trees.

In foreign policy, Reagan abandoned containment of the Soviet Union as a goal and adopted a policy of active roll-back. Since the Soviet Union was already on its last legs and was not a system that could have survived long, Reagan's global aggressiveness was simply unnecessary. The argument that Reagan's increases in military funding bankrupted the Soviets by forcing them to try to keep up is simply wrong. Soviet defense spending was flat in the 1980s.

Reagan's aggression led him to shape our world in most unfortunate ways. Although it would be an exaggeration to say that Ronald Reagan created al-Qaeda, it would not be a vast exaggeration. The Carter administration began the policy of supporting the radical Muslim holy warriors in Afghanistan who were waging an insurgency against the Soviets after their invasion of that country. But Carter only threw a few tens of millions of dollars at them. By the mid-1980s, Reagan was giving the holy warriors half a billion dollars a year. His officials strong-armed the Saudis into matching the U.S. contribution, so that Saudi Intelligence chief Faisal al-Turki turned to Usamah Bin Laden to funnel the money to the Afghans. This sort of thing was certainly done in coordination with the Reagan administration. Even the Pakistanis thought that Reagan was a wild man, and balked at giving the holy warriors ever more powerful weapons. Reagan sent Orrin Hatch to Beijing to try to talk the Chinese into pressuring the Pakistanis to allow the holy warriors to receive stingers and other sophisticated ordnance. The Pakistanis ultimately relented, even though they knew there was a severe danger that the holy warriors would eventually morph into a security threat in their own right.

Reagan's officials so hated the Sandinista populists in Nicaragua that they shredded the Constitution. Congress cut off money for the rightwing death squads fighting the Sandinistas. Reagan's people therefore needed funds to continue to run the rightwing insurgency. They came up with a complicated plan of stealing Pentagon equipment, shipping it to Khomeini in Iran, illegally taking payment from Iran for the weaponry, and then giving the money to the rightwing guerrillas in Central America. At the same time, they pressured Khomeini to get US hostages in Lebanon, taken by radical Shiites there, released. It was a criminal cartel inside the US government, and Reagan allowed it, either through collusion or inattention. It is not a shining legacy, to have helped Khomeini and then used the money he gave them to support highly unsavory forces in Central America. (Some of those forces were involved after all in killing leftwing nuns.)

Although Reagan's people were willing to shore up Iranian defenses during the Iran-Iraq War, so as to prevent a total Iraqi victory, they also wanted to stop Iran from taking over Iraq. They therefore winked at Saddam's use of chemical weapons. Reagan's secretary of state, George Schultz, sent Donald Rumsfeld to Baghdad twice, the second time with an explicit secret message that the U.S. did not really mind if Saddam gassed the Iranian troops, whatever it said publicly.

I only saw Reagan once in person. I was invited to a State Department conference on religious freedom, I think in 1986. It was presided over by Elliot Abrams, whom I met then for the first time. We were taken to hear Reagan speak on religious freedom. It was a cause I could support, but I came away strangely dissatisfied. I had a sense that "religious freedom" was being used as a stick to beat those regimes the Reagan administration did not like. It wasn't as though the plight of the Moro Muslims in the Philippines was foremost on the agenda (come to think of it, perhaps no Muslims or Muslim groups were involved in the conference).

Reagan's policies thus bequeathed to us the major problems we now have in the world, including a militant Islamist International whose skills were honed in Afghanistan with Reagan's blessing and monetary support; and a proliferation of weapons of mass destruction, which the Reagan administration in some cases actually encouraged behind the scenes for short-term policy reasons. His aggressive foreign policy orientation has been revived and expanded, making the U.S. into a neocolonial power in the Middle East. Reagan's gutting of the unions and attempt to remove social supports for the poor and the middle class contributed to the creation of an America where most people barely get by while government programs that could help create wealth are destroyed.

Reagan's later life was debilitated by Alzheimer's. I suppose he may already have had some symptoms while president, which might explain some of his memory lapses and odd statements, and occasional public lapses into woolly-mindedness. Ironically, Alzheimer's could be cured potentially by stem cell research. In the United States, where superstition reigns over reason, the religious Right that Reagan cultivated has put severe limits on such research. His best legacy may be Nancy Reagan's argument that those limitations should be removed in his memory. There are 4 million Alzheimers sufferers in the U.S., and 50 percent of persons living beyond the age of 85 develop it. There are going to be a lot of such persons among the Baby Boomers. By reversing Reaganism, we may be able to avoid his fate.

Reprinted from History News Network: http://hnn.us/articles/5544.html

Colin Shea: 'He was a madman' Date: Tuesday, June 08 @ 09:57:10 EDT

By Colin Shea, The Prague TV Zine

Ronald Reagan is dead, and the world is no worse off for it. At the best of times, he was an ineffectual dunce. At the worst, he was a dangerous madman who threatened humanity's very survival. He destroyed any residual respect for the presidency left over from Nixon, his moral predecessor. He created unprecedented deficits while simultaneously gutting the principles of the New Deal and the Great Society. He presided over a White House famously unable to govern properly because of his abysmal ignorance and tolerance of a Byzantine mess of corrupt internal fiefdoms.

His endless rotation of advisers was a contemptible assortment of thieves, quacks, hypocrites and imbeciles who regularly broke the law of the land, lied shamelessly to Congress and the American people, and hopelessly ensnared themselves in ugly webs of shady and illicit dealings. Reagan claimed to be leading a conservative revolution, but he left the presidency with America mired in debt, more authoritarian, militarized and centralized than ever before, and with a foreign policy that was the laughing-stock of the civilized world.

It was morning in America, but the dawn was black indeed. A black dawn where Christian greed was celebrated over Commie compassion, where a family man could now walk out of church and taunt a homeless family, secure in the knowledge that their poverty was their own fault.

A black dawn where a lie, repeated five times, could become a simple truth. A black dawn where the Attorney General could commit crime after crime without consequence, where the National Security Advisor could sell weapons to terrorists in order to finance more terrorists, where B-grade science fiction movies served as policy papers and C-grade farce served as the script for governance in the halls of power of the mightiest nation the world has ever known.

As I write, the man is being canonized as a saint by the press and the political establishment. The bright moments are being recalled: the fall of the Soviet Union, the monumental arms reduction treaties, the resurgence of conservatism as a credible political philosophy. The stupendously dangerous "evil empire" days of the early 1980s, when as a child I lay in quivering fear of imminent nuclear immolation, are conveniently forgotten. The astonishing case of White House amnesia seen during the Iran-Contra hearings is mostly topic non grata. That's a pity, since I would enjoy seeing rerun footage of a smoke-wreathed, imperturbable Poindexter murmuring cryptic non-responses like some sort of Delphic oracle, and Ed Meese, hissing and spitting and snarling like a disemboweled jackal. Together they managed to say "I don't know" 524 times in seven days of collective testimony in a reprise of every college student's worst classroom humiliation nightmares.

Mining Nicaraguan harbors, a violation of federal law and an act of war, is nowhere mentioned. Micheal Deaver's indictment on multiple counts of perjury is just a dull footnote, as are Paul Thayer's years in the pen for obstruction of justice. I doubt there will be speculation as to whether William Casey was fortunate to croak when he did, thus being spared the ignominy of being frog-marched out of CIA headquarters in handcuffs. Elliot Abrams, one of the darlings of the current Administration, will probably not be seen "acknowledging" that "misleading Congress may have been a mistake", not to mention 'misplacing' ten million dollars which mysteriously ended up in a Swiss bank account instead of financing Central American death squads like it was supposed to.

I doubt we'll see Ed Meese, putative Attorney General, claiming that "the Supreme Court does not set the supreme law of the land", or James Watt stating blithely during his confirmation hearings that conservation ought not be a priority since he didn't know "how many generations we can count on before the Lord returns." Not to mention Alexander Haig, gripping the podium like an amphetamine-crazed baboon, screaming at reporters that he was "in charge" after the assassination attempt on Reagan.

Then there's George Senior. Toasting Ferdinand Marcos for his "adherence of democratic principle... and processes". When he wasn't being forced to fire practically his entire campaign staff amid allegations of anti-Semitism, he was dishing it out himself. "I hope I stand for anti-bigotry, anti-Semitism, antiracism". He also wanted to be remembered for "a complete and total ban on chemical weapons. Their destruction forever," though it is more likely he will be remembered for casting several tie-breaking Senate votes to resume production of nerve agents. After the USS Vincennes blew an Iranian airliner out of the sky, killing nearly 300 people, he set the standard for accepting responsibility in that and future Republican Administrations with his memorable howl "I will never apologize for the United States! I don't care what the facts are!"

The Reagan Revolution looked as though it was on its way to becoming a Nixon-esque fiasco by 1986. Countless members of the Administration were languishing in prison, fleeing to Paraguay, or being consumed in the toxic flames of Iran-Contra. Even the chittering rats of the Republican-owned Senate had to abandon Old Dutch's leaking ship of state over South Africa when he started yammering about how "they have eliminated the segregation we once had in our own country". They say a person's character is defined by the company he keeps, and Reagan's gamut of buddies from Ed Meese to Ferdinand Marcos to the savage apartheid enforcers of South Africa did the man no favors.

There are those who say that the end justifies the means, that these criticisms pale into insignificance next to the achievement of winning the Cold War and toppling the Berlin Wall. Like Ahmed Chalabi, he is one of the great "heroes in error". But touch the excuse, and it rings equally hollow as Chalabi's. Like Hussein's Iraq, the fearsome Soviet behemoth was a crippled husk by the 1980s, already in its death throes. The best that can be said for Reagan is that he may have slightly accelerated its demise: at worst, he may have veered crazily close to nuclear holocaust and wrecked the American economy for no reason at all. It was not Reagan who won the Cold War for America, but Stalin. As with so much of his career, Reagan was just an empty vessel acting out a script written long before.

Some say it is cruel and needless to assault the legacy of a crippled old man who ultimately wanted the best for his nation. But to spare him this would be to show compassion he never demonstrated himself. Time and again, he insisted the homeless somehow wanted to sleep on sidewalk grates; that the poor, the hungry, the indigent were there because of their own laziness. In the strange, refracted light of Reagan's black dawn, soup kitchens were full because eating food there is "easier than paying for it"; his 155 billion dollar deficit was the result of some demonic collusion between Congress and the press; a gaggle of drug-smugglers and assassins in the Nicaraguan jungle were the moral equivalent of the Founding Fathers; and trading arms for hostages to the same people who had just killed hundreds of marines in Beirut was somehow, inexplicably, something completely other. No one, including the Vice President and the presidential spokesman could say exactly what it was, but it sure wasn't that.

Truth be told, I could forgive the old man all of this. But what I will never forgive him is that, in spite of all this, in the face of overwhelming evidence that he should have been run out of town like a syphilitic dentist, he left office with the highest approval ratings of any president, ever. (Leaving aside Roosevelt croaking in the arms of his mistress in a hot tub, god bless the old man's lecherous soul).

The true crime ensconced within this astonishing bit of black magic was the genesis of the monstrous creature that is the modern Republican Party. It has been "morning in America" ever since Reagan's genial smile flooded our living rooms with warmth twenty five years ago, and our minds have steadily softened in tandem with his. Joe Six Pack fervently believes that if he just lands that third job or gets the right break, that Hummer will soon be his. The blacks have all conveniently been turned into felons and thrown off the voter rolls. Hundreds of billions wash through the Pentagon in a grotesque charade of crony capitalism, and whenever the ammo surplus builds up too high we go out and find some pathetic, wretched excuse for a country to bomb to smithereens so we can plant the flag in the smoldering ruins and congratulate ourselves on transplanting democracy.

Bush II is Reagan redux in its most awful sense. The bald-faced lies without any hope or even attempt for justification, a servile and simpering press, a public which forgives and forgets and yes, even loves while their leaders deliver powerful kicks to their genitals again and again and again. Cross-eyed apocalyptic madmen once again roam the halls of power while slimy political hacks sharpen hooked knives in back rooms. Both had to make obligatory pilgrimages to Bob Jones University to kneel at the altar of Nixon's 'Southern Strategy' and claim, oh no, it's not about racism at all, it's about state's rights and religious freedom. Nudge nudge, wink wink. Katherine dear, did you finish scrubbing the Florida voter rolls yet?

The same well-honed policy apparatus is in place once more: Bush's "blind man in the room full of deaf people" is today's equivalent of Reagan generating policy ideas from trashy sci-fi novels. Don Quixote tilting at windmills had nothing on these guys. Just as Reagan was prepared to throw away a decade of arms control for the sake of his non-existent space lasers, Bush insists on implementing a non-functioning missile shield to defend against a non-existent missile threat. Reagan's doomed American medical students and Cuban military airfields on Granada set the stage for the desert mirage of Iraqi WMD. And whether it's Iran-Contra or Abu Ghraib that's the cause of enraged Congressional scrutiny, both Reagan and Bush have the sense to hunker down in the undisclosed location and shrug. "Hey, don't look at me! I'm just the President - these guys don't tell me anything!"

But for all that, even Reagan had some limits. He funded nun-killing death squads from El Salvador to South Africa, but even he couldn't stomach Ariel Sharon tearing through Lebanon and engineering made-for-TV massacres of women and children. But he set the stage for those who could, and now the 'hard boys' are back in the saddle, calling all the shots. Sharon can wade in blood if he wants, while the American people sit back and write checks to pay for the bulldozers squashing peace activists and razing refugee camps.

Ronald Reagan was not a great man. He was a dangerous and incompetent president who brought dishonor and disgrace to his office and to his country. The adulation and reverence being heaped on him today is an obscene affront to truth, history, and the millions who are worse off today because of him. The modern Republican Party's new "muscular conservatism" - with its nutty imperial dreams, voodoo economics, a worldwide gulag archipelago, contempt for the Constitution and the rule of law, and blind and bumbling ignorance of fact and history - is his creation. And so in this time of crisis, we must not let our memory of Reagan be shrouded in sentimentalism and glory. He takes with him to his grave ineluctable responsibilities he would never accept during his tenure, or indeed his life. The seeds he sowed so long ago have come to monstrous fruition. Let us use this poignant moment not to create a false and unworthy idol in the pantheon of American democracy, but to carefully consider how we have come to this dreadful pass, and whether and how we may yet turn back.

Copyright 2004 Prague TV and Colin Shea

Reprinted from Prague TV: http://prague.tv/zine/article.php?name=he-was-madman

Originally posted by Tristan The Reagan Revolution ended up shifting the moderate Republican party into a rightist Goldwater-esque party, and the lefty Dem.s shifted to the center (just look at Clinton in the 90's).

whoa, there! those who revere goldwater (buchanan, etc.) are virulently opposed to the war in iraq (unlike most republicans in washington today)! there's a split in the republican party now between 'paleos' and 'neos,' much like there was in the '50s and '60s between the 'old' and 'new' left over communism. still, reagan's pretty much revered by both 'wings' of the right.

Goldwater is not a religious right wing nut that perverts the GOP. He was pretty damn libertarian and if you would actually do some reading on the man you prefer him as POTUS over both Bushs, Carter, Johnson, Clinton, Nixon and Reagan. But if you are a supporter of the Welfare State, perhaps he was not for you. But if you like honest politicians Goldwater should be on your list.

Barry got fucked by Johnson's negative campaiging.

less government, no Christian socialism, less welfare lower taxes, more freedom, get a fucking job

Originally posted by twist Goldwater is not a religious right wing nut that perverts the GOP.

hence one of the divisions between paleo-conservatism and neo-conservatism. as for my statement that buchanan 'reveres' goldwater, that's probably misguided, but they are both traditional conservatives, i.e., they would be outside today's 'mainstream.'

hope your post wasn't directed at me, as we're making the exact same point!

I was skimming through this thread rather fast after a few beers. Should be a DUI test.

Final Twisted Thought

Looking at my SS card (Social Security not Waffen) I can still read "contras suck" that I wrote on it during my college years. Yes, I voted against him. And I still find his secret foreign policy wrong. But I also remember the sense of relief we had when he took office, gave America a blief that the damage done to our economy during the Carter years would end. Gave us a sense of pride in our military after the humilitations of Viet Nam and the failed hostage rescue attempt. Perhaps he was the only GOP president to actually reduce the size of government. And helping to end the USSR, uniting Germany, freeing Poland and others cannot be ignored.

Finally, during the worst time to be an American and watch the news since the early 70s, just when it could not get any worse--naked gay tricks with Iraqi prisoners, Americans being hacked to death by criminal Iraquis and the reports of attacks on our soldiers who are trying to rebuild Iraq into a peaceful democratic society, Reagan gave his final gift to us. His death, if for a few moments that are quickly evaporating, took our attention away from the daily bullshit of current events.

BTW, Princess Di had much more media coverage. But Reagan is clearly beating Sinatra and the last episode of friends.

And if the media had any credibility they would be asking Jello Biafra what his thoughts are.

Originally posted by twist I was skimming through this thread rather fast after a few beers. Should be a DUI test.Final Twisted ThoughtLooking at my SS card (Social Security not Waffen) I can still read "contras suck" that I wrote on it during my college years. Yes, I voted against him. And I still find his secret foreign policy wrong. But I also remember the sense of relief we had when he took office, gave America a blief that the damage done to our economy during the Carter years would end. Gave us a sense of pride in our military after the humilitations of Viet Nam and the failed hostage rescue attempt. Perhaps he was the only GOP president to actually reduce the size of government. And helping to end the USSR, uniting Germany, freeing Poland and others cannot be ignored.Finally, during the worst time to be an American and watch the news since the early 70s, just when it could not get any worse--naked gay tricks with Iraqi prisoners, Americans being hacked to death by criminal Iraquis and the reports of attacks on our soldiers who are trying to rebuild Iraq into a peaceful democratic society, Reagan gave his final gift to us. His death, if for a few moments that are quickly evaporating, took our attention away from the daily bullshit of current events.BTW, Princess Di had much more media coverage. But Reagan is clearly beating Sinatra and the last episode of friends.And if the media had any credibility they would be asking Jello Biafra what his thoughts are.

I wont even bother. I guess its just in some people

try to garnish your opinions with some facts.

i hear hitler gave germany a sense of purpose, restored national pride.

also : TRISTAN ?

Comparing Reagan to Hilter?? Better lay off the Guiness, m8. How's the Irish economy?

but more importantly what happened to heaven 17

Originally posted by Clockwork C > Originally posted by twist> I was skimming through this thread rather fast after a few beers. Should be a DUI test.> > Final Twisted Thought> > Looking at my SS card (Social Security not Waffen) I can still read "contras suck" that I wrote on it during my college years. Yes, I voted against him. And I still find his secret foreign policy wrong. But I also remember the sense of relief we had when he took office, gave America a blief that the damage done to our economy during the Carter years would end. Gave us a sense of pride in our military after the humilitations of Viet Nam and the failed hostage rescue attempt. Perhaps he was the only GOP president to actually reduce the size of government. And helping to end the USSR, uniting Germany, freeing Poland and others cannot be ignored.> > Finally, during the worst time to be an American and watch the news since the early 70s, just when it could not get any worse--naked gay tricks with Iraqi prisoners, Americans being hacked to death by criminal Iraquis and the reports of attacks on our soldiers who are trying to rebuild Iraq into a peaceful democratic society, Reagan gave his final gift to us. His death, if for a few moments that are quickly evaporating, took our attention away from the daily bullshit of current events.> > BTW, Princess Di had much more media coverage. But Reagan is clearly beating Sinatra and the last episode of friends.> > And if the media had any credibility they would be asking Jello Biafra what his thoughts are.

I wont even bother. I guess its just in some people

try to garnish your opinions with some facts.

i hear hitler gave germany a sense of purpose, restored national pride.

"Facts are stupid things."

-Ronald Reagan

Facts are stubborn things. He fucked up the quote, Reagan did.

What was that Talking Heads song? The world moves on a woman's hip....

Originally posted by twist Comparing Reagan to Hilter?? Better lay off the Guiness, m8. How's the Irish economy?

But I diddnt! just making the point that national pride is pretty dangerous (and, in my opinion, totally stupid too).