Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/5/84; site psuvax1.UUCP Path: utzoo!lsuc!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!ukma!psuvm.bitnet!psuvax1!berman From: berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) Newsgroups: net.politics Subject: Re: Reagan a pathological liar:re to Cramer Message-ID: <2042@psuvax1.UUCP> Date: Thu, 27-Mar-86 17:26:02 EST Article-I.D.: psuvax1.2042 Posted: Thu Mar 27 17:26:02 1986 Date-Received: Sat, 29-Mar-86 09:44:16 EST References: <1016@whuxl.UUCP> <588@kontron.UUCP> <982@cybvax0.UUCP> <611@kontron.UUCP> <12486@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU> <627@kontron.UUCP Organization: Pennsylvania State Univ. Lines: 127 > > 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: > > > > > >[deleted a description of why Cramer couldn't stand Presidents Johnson > > > through Carter] > > > > One problem is that I remember more presidents (Ike and Jack) than you > > do. Another is that you have listed only the bad, and sometimes exaggerated > > that. But even by your showing, Ford and Carter still come out better. As > > far as Nixon and Johnson goes, Johnson was all you said. He also passed the > > basic civil rights legislation. Nixon was "not a crook" but also the author > > of detente and the China opening. Carter presided over economic problems which > > began before he took office, and which became worse for a time under Reagan. > > The "basic civil rights legislation" you describe, while laws that I can > approve of, led to affirmative action, of which I strongly disapprove. > Johnson's deficit spending to fight the Vietnam War had a lot to do with > the economic problems of the 1970s. Do you know where Regan's policies will lead in the future? You apply two different standards. > > > And Reagan's huge deficits will be with us when Reagan, Ford and Carter are > > all dead. And Reagan lost Marines in Lebanon, Carter brought people home from > > Iran. And Reagan is a lier, even if not a pathological one. He is the worst > > "Reagan's huge deficits" are jointly his responsibility and Congress'. The > President can't force Congress to appropriate money -- they have to vote to > spend it. Just as the current economic recovery isn't all Reagan's doing, > the deficits aren't either. > Aha, Johnson is responsible for deficits, but Reagan is not. Again, Reagan got better marks because of different standards. > Sorry, Carter didn't bring the hostages home from Iran. The Iranian Govern- > ment made *a point* of releasing them the day that Reagan took office to > show their contempt and hatred for Carter. What Reagan would do on Carter's place? Send the Navy? But at that time Iran was armed much better than Libia nowadays. And you have not said a word about Lebanon adventure: first claiming that the national interest would tremendously suffer without US armed presence, then the marvelous joint application of an obsolate battleship and Marines sitting idly on a beach, then the loss of Marines, then the withdrawal which left our claimed allies on Syrian mercy. To makes things look nice, there was also the Granada invasion and speeches 'America is standing tall again'. > > lier by far (worse than Johnson or Nixon even) since he is so good at it. He > > is also a warmonger. Or haven't you heard his threat to invade Nicaragua? I > > Ever hear about Johnson's start in politics throwing ballot boxes into a > river in Texas? I'm not arguing that Reagan's foreign policies necessarily > make sense -- just that they don't look so ridiculous compared to Johnson. > (And compared to John Kennedy, Reagan isn't a warmonger at all. Remember > the Cuban Missle Crisis?) You mean: Kennedy provoked a crises by putting missiles on Cuba? So possibly Carter was a warmonger because of Afganistan invasion? > > > could go on, but one last point: Reagan is terminally stupid. Even things he > > supports (the military) are likely to end up weaker in the long run because > > of his policies. Or what would you predict as the likely consequence of Gram- > > Rudman-Hollings together with fanatical support (even if other programs must > > suffer) of SDI? I could go on, but why bother? > > > > I'm not arguing FOR Reagan's policies -- I'm arguing that as Presidents > go, we've had plenty as bad or even worse. > > > Also, Nixon was not and is not a leftist. I am not likely to agree with > > your political opinions. You might at least leave me with the option of > > thinking that your opinions could be the result of intelligence or insight. > > Silly, stupid statements won't help do that. > > > > ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 > > ucbvax!weyl!gsmith "DUMB problem!! DUMB!!!" -- Robert L. Forward > > "Nixon was not and is not a leftist." You are talking about the President > that gave us: > > 1) wage & price controls > 2) recognized Communist China and started us down the road to > derecognizing Taiwan > 3) supported deficit spending with the assertion, "We are all Keynesians > now." > 4) introduced the revenue-sharing plan to give Federal tax money to the > states > 5) signed SALT I > 6) dramatically reduced military spending as a percentage of the Federal > budget > 7) signed a peace treaty with North Vietnam. > You seem to have the LaRouche definition of a leftist: a part of Rockeffeler- Communist conspiracy. In particular, what is so leftist in helping China to perpetuate bad relationship with USSR, or with signing treaties? And revenue sharing, is it one of Marx's tenets? Wasilewski, you read the communist classics, do they say anything about the revenue sharing? And for deficit spending, what were his deficits in todays (Reagan's) standards? > Now, I'm not going to claim that all of these actions were right or wrong. > I'm just pointing out that whatever Nixon claimed to be, his actions are > indistinguishable from those of someone like Jimmy Carter. > > My original comment on this subject was because someone asserted I was > having neurological problems when I said Reagan was the best President > I could remember. I don't expect everyone to agree with my assessment -- > I am a little irritated that people have elevated the several recent turkeys > who occupied the Oval Office to a position that makes Reagan look so much > worse. Cramer has a beatiful way of defending Reagan. His double standards are breathtaking. For example, smaller deficits under Nixon were worse than now, because Nixon quoted Keyness, and Reagan merely asked for cuts in budget which were impossible to accomplish. The difference is that whatever Reagan did wrong, he did not know what he was doing (unlike the evil predecessor who knew). Without knowledge one cannot sin, and thus Reagan stands for the most virtuous president in US history. Piotr Berman