Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site kontron.UUCP
Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!bellcore!decvax!decwrl!pyramid!voder!kontron!cramer
From: cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer)
Newsgroups: net.politics
Subject: Re: Reagan a pathological liar:re to Cramer
Message-ID: <654@kontron.UUCP>
Date: Wed, 26-Mar-86 13:01:19 EST
Article-I.D.: kontron.654
Posted: Wed Mar 26 13:01:19 1986
Date-Received: Sat, 29-Mar-86 09:40:52 EST
References: <1016@whuxl.UUCP> <588@kontron.UUCP> <982@cybvax0.UUCP>
Organization: Kontron Electronics, Mt. View, CA
Lines: 126

> In article <627@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes:
> > > In article <611@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP writes:
> > > >I think Reagan is the best President I can remember.  (I would say he is
> > > >doing a mediocre to fair job.)
> > 
> > The Presidents I remember:
> 
> [Four, one-sentence, subjective characterizations.]
> 
> > I stand by my statement.
> 
> You know, this isn't even good enough to qualify as pseudointellectual.
> 
> How can you imagine it possible to encompass and summarize entire regimes
> in one sentence each for the purposes of making a value judgement?
> However valid your opinion might be, your argument consists of nothing
> better than bumper-sticker thinking.
> 
You call my statements "one-sentence, subjective characterizations".
They are subjective -- so are your characterizations, and so are Sevener's.
I notice that your fluff pieces are two-sentence.  If this is such a bad
thing, why are your responses not significantly more detailed?

> Rather than COMPARE any of these presidents to Reagan, you've only
> enumerated a few things about them which you didn't like.  Where is
> the comparable list for Reagan?  What about the things they did that you
> liked?
> 
I have not argued for Reagan being a great President.  See what I originally
called him: "mediocre to fair".

> Nor is your list of characterizations particularly accurate.  Calling
> Nixon a leftist is about the most ludicrous thing I've heard in years.
> 

See my posting on Nixon's actions.

> Frankly, I'd say your admiration for the Great Communicator is presented
> here in an argument as shoddy as the worst Reaganisms.
> 
Admiration?  How do you get admiration from calling him a "mediocre to fair"
President?  You and Sevener seem to have a problem with seeing the world
in binary terms.  Good vs. Evil, Black vs. White.  Sounds like a President
that don't particularly like, doesn't it.

> Finally, a few words about the accomplishments of some of the past presidents,
> in things where Reagan doesn't measure up.
> 
> > 1. Johnson: a scheming, lying warmonger -- who wasn't even very good at
> > fighting a war.
> 
> Johnson was responsible for the greatest improvements in civil rights
> since Women's Suffrage.  While he may not have initiated the legislation,
> he carried through on the enforcement and made desegregation real.  Without
> this unpopular action, it would be hypocritical to criticize South African
> racism today.
> 
> > 2. Nixon: a dishonest leftist (remember wage & price controls?) who engaged
> > in political repression (remember the Enemies' List?) and because of his
> > unwillingness to resign when Watergate started to consume all of his and
> > Congress' time, played a role in the takeover of South Vietnam and Cambodia
> > by the Communists.
> 
> I'll let someone else say something nice about Nixon.  He's always been an
> irrationally emotional subject with me, since it was my body he might have
> sent to Vietnam.  If have been presidents worse than Reagan, he's on my list.
> However, characterizing wage and price controls as "leftist" is absurd:
> examples of these abound throughout history, in a multitude of governments.
>  
I'm glad you admit that you are "irrationally emotional" about Nixon.  (It's
certainly not easy to like the creep.)

I'm also glad that you admit that Nixon is perhaps in the same category as
Reagan.  My original posting was to suggest that we've had Presidents as
bad or worse than Reagan -- not that Reagan is a great President.  Thanks
for agreeing with me.

Wage and price controls are leftist -- by anyone's definition.

> > 3. Ford: a well-meaning sort who thought that WIN buttons (Whip Inflation
> > Now) were going to do something about inflation.
> 
> An innocuous president, as opposed to Reagan's irritation.
> 

Remember the Mayaguez?  That's innocuous?

> > 4. Carter: a President who presided over the devastation of the American
> > economy (although not entirely his fault, just as the current healthy
> > economy is not entirely to Reagan's credit), ignored the intelligence
> > reports about the dangers to the American Embassy in Iran until it was
> > too late, and maintained the petroleum price controls which crippled the
> > economy until 1981.
> 
> The president who had to persevere during the greatest stresses to the
> American economy since the depression: the drastic increases in cost of
> energy, and the burgeoning competition from Japan, Korea, Taiwan, etc.
> in major industries: steel, automobiles, clothing, consumer products, etc.

The drastic increase in energy costs is because Carter continued the 
price controls on petroleum products started by that leftist Nixon.  It is
no coincidence that petroleum product prices have been declining since 
shortly after Reagan took office and decontrolled the oil industry.

Inflation and associated high interest rates were probably the single 
largest factor in the 1970s problems.  These actions are partly the result
of huge war deficits run up by Johnson and Nixon, and the huge social 
services deficits run up by Ford and Carter, and partly the money supply
policies of the Federal Reserve Board.  Carter wasn't entirely responsible
for the economy (just as Reagan isn't entirely responsible for the current
deficits), but he wasn't just a helpless actor on the stage, either.

> Great gains in environmental quality were made during his term, by
> proper funding of and enforcement through appropriate agencies.  For example,
> because of his support of environmental law, quite a few rivers are now
> safe for both fish and humans again.
> -- 
> 
> Mike Huybensz		...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh

I won't claim that environmental quality was the major factor in damaging
American industry, and I won't claim that *some* sort of action wasn't
necessary, but environmental improvements are at least part of the reason
that American industry got hit hard by competitors in the Far East.

Clayton E. Cramer