If you ever decided to leave the USA, where would you go?

[jeffrey smith]

I hope JR still thinks so this fall, when BO's "Ready Reserve Corps" (ACORN reconstituted as "preservers of the peace," courtesy of the healthcare Obamanation) swing into action against "violent, radical" Tea Party folks at polling places in districts and states where incumbent liberals risk losing their seats. Not only will they be armed with tasers and other "peace-keeping" paraphernalia, but they also will probably confiscate (for "sake-keeping" aka alteration) electronic records in precincts where the heaviest anti-liberal vote is likely to take place.

REB

I hope your sources for this a little more reality based than WND.

Jeffrey S.

[Barbara Branden]

Tony "I’ll never forgive Reagan for denying us four more years of Carter. And we could have had eight of Mondale, to boot. Damn you Gipper!"

I'm with you, Tony. In 1964, I heard Reagan give his famous speech for Goldwater, and I said then: "When do I get to vote for this man for President?" I had to wait sixteen years, but it was worth it, But every once in a while -- not often -- there are issues I plain damn don't feel like arguing about. So I won't.

Barbara

[dan2100]

Oh, yes, the wonderful "progress" during the Reagan administration: the tax bite went up, government spending went up, the federal deficit went up, the War on Drugs was boosted enormously, and millions of dollars were squandered on a task force that recommended a federal crackdown on "pornography" despite the fact that the information the task force itself gathered together made it clear that such a step would be both unnecessary and counter-productive. On the other hand, Reagan was able to claim credit for the airline, trucking, and FCC deregulation actually undertaken by figures like Jimmy Carter and Teddy Kennedy. And he was also able to claim credit for the implosion of the Soviet Union that Ludwig von Mises had pointed out sixty years earlier was inescapable for purely economic reasons, irrespective of what any third rate blowhard "actor" might assert on behalf of his mindless military policies.

What a brilliant record of achievement! I am awestruck!

JR

JR -

I fear you responded before carefully reading what I wrote.

I said "some progress on some fronts." I did not say or imply anything like "a brilliant record of achievement."

Bill P

Calm your fears, Bill. I understood what you wrote perfectly. Where I do seem to have gone wrong is in supposing that heavy sarcasm would be an effective way of conveying to you my reaction to what you wrote. I'll try to make it a little plainer. I regard Ronald Reagan as the worst U.S. president since Abraham Lincoln, with the possible exceptions of George W. Bush, Woodrow Wilson, Harry S. Truman, Lyndon Baines Johnson, and Richard Milhous Nixon. I can think of nothing - absolutely nothing - he did as constituting "progress," if, by "progress" in this context, we mean discernible steps in the direction of smaller, less intrusive government and greater individual liberty.

JR

So, I will assume you are now writing what you mean. You regard Reagan, and all of those listed, as being each being clearly worse than:

Franklin Delano Roosevelt

Barack Hussein Obama

That's clear enough, though I certainly disagree with finding Reagan worse than FDR or BHO.

Bill P

While I might disagree about the actual ranking of Reagan compared with FDR -- in terms of which was the worse president -- do you believe Reagan deserves praise here? At best, he was great at duping some people into believing he was some sort of small government advocate. This did a double disservice to the nation and perhaps the world. First, it duped people who actually wanted smaller government into believing support for Reagan and the GOP would help that cause -- which the record of the Reagan Administration shows it didn't. If his administration did anything, it was increase the growth of government.

Second, it made those who were not necessarily small (or no) government advocates believe what small government was all about was whatever the GOP did and any failures or social problems that happened during this time, from homelessness to unemployment to huge deficits to recessions was blamed on having smaller government. After all, that's what Reagan and his croonies told everyone they had.

Also, in order to rank presidents on a scale from best to worst, we'd have to come up with standards to measure this. What would be your measure that would make Reagan look better?

Finally, where was progress made under Reagan? Jeff listed quite a few areas where Reagan made things much worse. Some of these, to me, are really bad and set the groundwork for the kind of casual fascism we have in America today, such as Gestapo-style police raids in drug law enforcement and the virtual elimination of the Fourth Amendment. I'm just wondering where you believe the trade-off is here. Did Americans gain freedom in some at the expense of the police running amok?

[dan2100]

Reagan was much worse than FDR because he loudly proclaimed his devotion to the principles of individual liberty and the free market while pursuing the policies of a business-as-usual statist - thus persuading countless millions of unthinking Americans that his policies were libertarian, free-market policies. He (and his mindless cheerleaders in the libertarian community) did more damage to the movement for individual liberty and free markets in the process than Woodrow Wilson, FDR, and LBJ put together.

Understood. While I don't go that far on the weight of rhetoric/legacy vs. solely policies, my ranking of him based just on his actions in office - e.g. bills signed or vetoed, treaties negotiated, military actions commanded, bills suggested to congress - is certainly higher than when also considering his legacy given his rhetoric and the result of people invalidly considering him a representative of free-market capitalism.

Okay. Let's look at that. Where do you think Reagan, in that respect, was any better than his predecessors and successors? To me, he looks like a president who did everything he could to increase the scope and power of the federal government -- involving ever more rights violations. The take of the federal government also grew as did its spending. Where do you believe Reagan did otherwise?

And just look at his military and foreign policy records. Getting involved in Lebanon (and getting US Marines killed in the process), the Iran-Iraq War (putting USN ships in harms way), and helping to bring together people who'd latter form the core of Al Qaeda. (I must admit, though, I would praise a president -- if any praise is ever due to someone who, as a matter of routine and the nature of his office, must violate individual rights -- for not getting involved in military actions in the first place. Of course, this is akin to Bastiat's what is "not seen" in economics. I reckon what could be looked at here are foreign conflicts where a sitting president resists any involvement, such as, perhaps, the Balkans conflict during the early 1990s.)

[Peter]

Everything that irritates us about others can lead us to an understanding of ourselves. -- Carl Jung

Jeffrey Smith wrote:

This is the difference between the Republican Party and the Democratic Party: The Republican Party likes to pretend that there are speed limits on the highway to hell.

End quote

Bill P wrote:

That's clear enough, though I certainly disagree finding Reagan worse than FDR or BHO.

End quote

I am seeing a clear, upward trend after JR’s nihilism.

Roger Bissell wrote:

Perhaps JR is suggesting, in his own roundabout way, that BHO's blatant, over-the-top power grabs and dissing of free enterprise are actually going to be better for the cause of liberty (by provoking people to become consistent, radical advocates of freedom) than were Reagan's lip service to freedom combined with essentially status quo statist policies.

end quote

Barbara Branden quoted a facetious Tony:

Tony "I’ll never forgive Reagan for denying us four more years of Carter. And we could have had eight of Mondale, to boot. Damn you Gipper!"

and then Barbara wrote:

I'm with you, Tony. In 1964, I heard Reagan give his famous speech for Goldwater, and I said then: "When do I get to vote for this man for President?" I had to wait sixteen years, but it was worth it, But every once in a while -- not often -- there are issues I plain damn don't feel like arguing about. So I won't.

End quotes

Ah, we are back to sanity. Thank you guys!

I am reading about Ayn Rand’s strong support of Blue Blood, country club Republican Wendell Willkie over FDR. Does JR remember any history? Does he know nothing about the Progressive movement in America? The Republican was clearly a better choice, as was Reagan over anybody else. When I read some of these comments about Republicans I wonder, “What universe do these crack-pots live in?”

About the only leading Republican worse than say, John F. Kennedy, would be John McCain. And since then, all Republicans have been better than the Democrat candidate. McCain was clearly preferable over BHO.

However, if I have a choice between a Tea Party candidate and a Republican I will vote for the Tea Party. The exception might be if the Republican is decent and the Tea Party candidate has no chance of winning. I stopped voting for the Libertarian in close elections, so that my vote is not wasted.

Idealistic Principles matter, but I would vote Republican in “The Tea Party having no chance of winning” instance simply because a continuing Democrat majority, WILL destroy our country. We will still be here but it won’t be the same country. And I do not think those last statements are hyperbole.

However, my money will be going to where my principles are located: to the Tea Party Candidate. Whenever possible I will support, DURING THE REPUBLICAN PRIMARY, the Tea Party Candidate over the less reputable Republican.

To the Nihilistic Nay Sayers I say, So what are you going to do? Anything? Nothing? Will you ever build anything? Or do you just destroy? Are you actually going to leave on the next ship for Nirvana? Not bloody likely!

Playing "What If" is fun but it just isn't worth arguing about Dan. I remember this same argument about Rush Limbaugh, and I sent you a page of his Pro-Liberty topics from his show, and I had two more pages to prove my point.

Reagan good. Tea Parties good. Rush good. Progressives bad. Even a cave man could figure it out.

I agree with Barbara. Of course there are deficiencies in republicans but they are better than democrats. I am sure we could also find deficiencies in Tea Party candidates but that does not stop a clear headed person from voting for them.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

Dan wrote:

Okay. Let's look at that. Where do you think Reagan, in that respect, was any better than his predecessors and successors?

End quote

I don’t want to dive into political minutia, Dan, so I will simply make my case by quoting the man himself. How could the mind that thought these things be anything but good?

All of the following quotes are from President Ronald Reagan.

“Some people wonder all their lives if they've made a difference. The Marines don't have that problem.”

“One way to make sure crime doesn't pay would be to let the government run it.”

“Government always finds a need for whatever money it gets.”

“I know in my heart that man is good. That what is right will always eventually triumph. And there's purpose and worth to each and every life.”

“We don't have a trillion-dollar debt because we haven't taxed enough; we have a trillion-dollar debt because we spend too much”

“The most terrifying words in the English language are: I'm from the government and I'm here to help.”

“Democracy is worth dying for, because it's the most deeply honorable form of government ever devised by man.”

“Government exists to protect us from each other. Where government has gone beyond its limits is in deciding to protect us from ourselves.”

“Today, if you invent a better mousetrap, the government comes along with a better mouse.”

“Man is not free unless government is limited.”

“Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction”

“Heroes may not be braver than anyone else. They're just braver five minutes longer.”

“They say hard work never hurt anybody, but I figure why take the chance

“Before I refuse to take your questions, I have an opening statement.”

“We need you, we need your youth, your strength, and your idealism, to help us make right what is wrong.”

“Each generation goes further than the generation preceding it because it stands on the shoulders of that generation. You will have opportunities beyond anything we've ever known.”

“Let us be sure that those who come after will say of us in our time, that in our time we did everything that could be done. We finished the race; we kept them free; we kept the faith.”

“These young Americans sent a message to terrorists everywhere. . . . You can run but you can't hide.”

“Peace is not absence of conflict, it is the ability to handle conflict by peaceful means.”

“When you can't make them see the light, make them feel the heat.”

“To sit back hoping that someday, some way, someone will make things right is to go on feeding the crocodile, hoping he will eat you last -- but eat you he will.”

“There are no easy answers' but there are simple answers. We must have the courage to do what we know is morally right.”

“Life is one grand, sweet song, so start the music.”

I know it's hard when you're up to your armpits in alligators to remember you came here to drain the swamp. (February 10, 1982)”

“There are no such things as limits to growth, because there are no limits to the human capacity for intelligence, imagination, and wonder”

“There are no constraints on the human mind, no walls around the human spirit, no barriers to our progress except those we ourselves erect.”

And I guess everyone remembers the one about tearing down that wall, Dan.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[jriggenbach]

Does JR remember any history? Does he know nothing about the Progressive movement in America?

Yeah, JR knows a thing or two about American history (including the part where the Republican Party foists the Progressive movement on unsuspecting Americans). He even wrote a book about it, published nearly a year ago by the Mises Institute. What have you done, besides splatter various message boards with your ignorance?

JR

[Aaron]

Okay. Let's look at that. Where do you think Reagan, in that respect, was any better than his predecessors and successors?

OK. I obviously don't praise Reagan like is common among Republicans or even many Objectivists, and see the things he did wrong; but I can also see where he got some things right too. E.g.:

- accelerated the elimination of oil+gas price controls. congress+Carter had already passed+signed such deregulation, but for some reason had time delays to implementation, which RR eliminated.

- reduction of marginal income tax rates. yes, this was effectively countered by increases in social security tax rates, but that does not change that this particular change was positive.

- proposing and negotiating the START bilateral arms reductions with USSR (though this was not complete til Bush I). getting rid of thousands of nuclear warheads, on both sides, is a huge step forward to reducing the likelihood of annihilation. I do give RR and Bush I major credit for this (likewise for their Russian counterparts - and for Obama and Medvedev now for the new START treaty).

Aaron

[Aaron]

Dan wrote:

Okay. Let's look at that. Where do you think Reagan, in that respect, was any better than his predecessors and successors?

End quote

I don’t want to dive into political minutia, Dan, so I will simply make my case by quoting the man himself. How could the mind that thought these things be anything but good?

Because he hypocritically didn't follow through on the words. Reagan talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk. That's the whole point.

Aaron

[dan2100]

Dan wrote:

Okay. Let's look at that. Where do you think Reagan, in that respect, was any better than his predecessors and successors?

End quote

I don't want to dive into political minutia, Dan, so I will simply make my case by quoting the man himself. How could the mind that thought these things be anything but good?

Because he hypocritically didn't follow through on the words. Reagan talked the talk, but didn't walk the walk. That's the whole point.

Exactly. Some people are duped by rhetoric -- even some people here -- and fail to see the disconnect.

It's funny to see how some believe Reagan and the GOP are strident advocates of liberty and free markets. What the heck happened all these years when the Republicans had actual power -- whether under the various Republican presidents or even the more recent case when they had control of the Congress for over a decade and then the presidency for much of that time? Instead of reducing the size and scope of government, cutting spending and public debt, and embracing free markets, they went whole hog and pulled a Ronald Reagan -- talked about markets and freedom all while doing everything possible to ramp up government control.

I find it hilarious that like Charlie Brown, certain people here seem to think the GOP is really going to let them kick that football.

[dan2100]

Does JR remember any history? Does he know nothing about the Progressive movement in America?

Yeah, JR knows a thing or two about American history (including the part where the Republican Party foists the Progressive movement on unsuspecting Americans). He even wrote a book about it, published nearly a year ago by the Mises Institute. What have you done, besides splatter various message boards with your ignorance?

JR

If he is interested in rectifying his ignorance of your work here, he might start with this excerpt from your recent book:

http://mises.org/daily/3848

I doubt he will. Note the title: "The Myth of the 'Old Right.'"

Also, he and others might consider Herbert Spencer on much the same topic in 19th century Britain -- "The new Toryism" online at:

http://app.libraryofliberty.org/?option=com_staticxt&staticfile=show.php%3Ftitle=330&chapter=119742&layout=html&Itemid=27

A few minutes reading and thought would show people that history seems to be repeating itself here. People who are basically pro-freedom get tricked, time and again, to support basically anti-freedom parties or movements -- making a sort of Faustian pact that can only help the anti-freedom side. This has worked well in the US for the GOP which is basically a plutocratic statist party that has only rhetorical interest in freedom and free markets. It can count on misguided people to vote for and otherwise support it despite its actual policies and track record.

(And the alternative here is not to support the Democrats. The alternative is to just stop supporting the GOP. Electoral politics is not the or the only path to a free society. But even if it were one path among many, not supporting anti-freedom parties should be the first step along that path.)

[algernonsidney]

Perhaps JR is suggesting, in his own roundabout way, that BHO's blatant, over-the-top power grabs and dissing of free enterprise are actually going to be better for the cause of liberty (by provoking people to become consistent, radical advocates of freedom) than were Reagan's lip service to freedom combined with essentially status quo statist policies.

REB

In a way, that's exactly what BHO is doing. I assume you know that Atlas Shrugged sold more copies in 2009 than any previous year. I don't think would have happened without an Obama presidency.

[algernonsidney]

I don't want to dive into political minutia, Dan, so I will simply make my case by quoting the man himself. How could the mind that thought these things be anything but good?

Peter Taylor

I will remind that there is also a man who wrote an essay called "Gold and Economic Freedom" back in the 1960's. He went to work for government and spent more time in Washington than Reagan did. Like Reagan, he showed everyone who sincerely believes in free markets that he was/is nothing but a complete fraud.

Stalin and Hitler could have said all those things, too. Saying those things does not make one a capitalist.

It is time to stop quoting Reagan and listening to his speeches. It is time to look at his record and look at what he actually did during his eight years as President. He did absolutely nothing.

[dan2100]

I don't want to dive into political minutia, Dan, so I will simply make my case by quoting the man himself. How could the mind that thought these things be anything but good?

Peter Taylor

I will remind that there is also a man who wrote an essay called "Gold and Economic Freedom" back in the 1960's. He went to work for government and spent more time in Washington than Reagan did. Like Reagan, he showed everyone who sincerely believes in free markets that he was/is nothing but a complete fraud.

Stalin and Hitler could have said all those things, too. Saying those things does not make one a capitalist.

It is time to stop quoting Reagan and listening to his speeches. It is time to look at his record and look at what he actually did during his eight years as President. He did absolutely nothing.

Great example! Let's add to this, after he left the Fed, Greenspan also, after years of pretending to be for free markets while using the Fed to help out politically connected firms and the federal government, actually blamed the economic meltdown on free markets rather than admitting his inflationist policies might actually have caused most of the mess.

[sbeaulieu]

Tough choice...

Comes down to New Zealand, Spain or Netherlands.

~ Shane

What do you like about Spain and the Netherlands?

I was a military brat, spending most of my childhood around Madrid. The city life was nice...culture is great. Even got to meet the queen during an art expo when I was in 5th grade. My father married a local, so I still have family there (though I've not seen them since '87). The people were wonderful, hospitable...and I speak Castllian, so I could get by.

As for the Netherlands, it seems like such a laid-back country. I tried to get stationed there for my first assignment out of basic training. No luck. I still want to visit there some day.

~ Shane

[9thdoctor]

Barbara Branden quoted a facetious Tony:

Tony "I’ll never forgive Reagan for denying us four more years of Carter. And we could have had eight of Mondale, to boot. Damn you Gipper!"

and then Barbara wrote:

I'm with you, Tony. In 1964, I heard Reagan give his famous speech for Goldwater, and I said then: "When do I get to vote for this man for President?" I had to wait sixteen years, but it was worth it, But every once in a while -- not often -- there are issues I plain damn don't feel like arguing about. So I won't.

End quotes

Ah, we are back to sanity. Thank you guys!

Tony? It’s 9th or ND, alas no one (save me) uses The Doctor, and no, there’s no need to start. It’s pretty silly.

<object width="640" height="385"><param name="movie" value="

name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="

type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="640" height="385"></embed></object>

I like how with this name fluff-up Peter said something positive about one of my contributions. It’s like he just flunked the Pepsi challenge. You just agreed with crazy face!

Back to Reagan, we have to remember he was stuck with a Democratic Congress, which could explain the spending, deficits and lack of progress in moving away from economic statism. I think you could make the case that Reagan tried to “walk the walk” on his rhetoric. The war on drugs and the alliance with the religious right are his most grievous faults, where he clearly deserves blame. Reportedly he wasn’t even religious himself.

In his memoir, Greenspan wrote something along the lines of: anyone willing to do the things needed to become president should be automatically disqualified. And he noted that it was not entirely a joke. Maybe that’s the way to look at Reagan’s pandering to the Falwell’s. I still think another Carter term would have been much worse, both short and long term.

[Peter]

Ninth Doctor is Tony? Who knew? Why don’t you sign your letters, Tony? Tony I do agree with you. That video of Doctor Who jumped around a bit. I really liked that blond with the sexy lips. Can you introduce me to her? She reminds me of Duffy.

Dan wrote:

If he is interested in rectifying his ignorance of your work here, he might start with this excerpt from your recent book.

End quote

Teddy Roosevelt started the Progressive Movement. His party was called The Bull Moose Party, not the Republican Party. Dan, don't let Junior lead you astray.

From Wikipedia.

In the United States, the Progressive Party of 1912 was a political party created by a split in the Republican Party in the presidential election of 1912. It was formed by Theodore Roosevelt when he lost the Republican nomination to the incumbent President William Howard Taft and pulled his delegates out of the convention. The party is colloquially also known as the Bull Moose Party, after the party's emblem and after Roosevelt's boast that he was "as strong as a bull moose" . . . . Social progressivism, which states that governmental practices ought to be adjusted as society evolves, forms the ideological basis for many American progressives.

End quote

It’s those yahoos who disregard the Constitution because it is an impediment to their redistribution of wealth who are evil, not Ronaldus Maximus (Ronald Reagan.) No one claims Reagan was perfect.

(Now I am speaking to JR.) Junior? Come on! Who is the strange dog crossing the tracks to an Objectivist site, and then pooping on the lawn? You should stay in your dark corner, where “the owners” must treasure your drooling presence, and where they chained you to obscurity. Stay Junior! Stay!

The witty and improving Dan Ust wrote:

I find it hilarious that like Charlie Brown, certain people here seem to think the GOP is really going to let them kick that football.

End quote

Ouch, Dan. That is an embarrassing comparison. It will be a battle, “But the times they are a changing’ .” Along with Glenn Beck and others I want to change a terrible wrong.

I am with you in NOT supporting “ The Republicans.” I may support *a republican* over a Democrat if no Tea Party candidate is available.

Trust Busting Teddy or Ronald Reagan? Jeremiah Wright or Secularism? Marx or Madison? Obama or Paul Ryan? The bad guy is statism. Country Club Republicans are an impediment, but the Progressive Totalitarians are the enemy. I (shudder) agree with JR too. No more fake patriots.

Chris Baker wrote:

In a way, that's exactly what BHO is doing. I assume you know that Atlas Shrugged sold more copies in 2009 than any previous year. I don't think would have happened without an Obama presidency.

End quote

I am in total agreement with that but I do not agree with you that Reagan did nothing and was polls opposite from the founding fathers.

Rush roared for two years that Obama’s election would cause a back lash, and that McCain’s defeat would be a blessing. Has a peaceful revolution started?

On the last page of last weeks, treasured Limbaugh Letter is a combination caricature of Gollum and President Obama. Brrrr! BHO (pronounced Boo!) looks creepy, with those serpent’s teeth. Remember Middle Earth? The Elfin Kind, Hobbits, Humans and the tree like Ents combined to slay the Orcs and The Dark Lord, Sauron.

If such disparate elements as Tolkien’s can unite, why can’t those who propose limited to little Government, (to the fictional Anarchic NONE) combine?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[Peter]

The bragging Nine Inches wrote from the set of his newest show, “Californication:”

Back to Reagan, we have to remember he was stuck with a Democratic Congress, which could explain the spending, deficits and lack of progress in moving away from economic statism. I think you could make the case that Reagan tried to “walk the walk” on his rhetoric.

End quote

Tony, I did not mean to demean your official portrait out of meanness. With your mouth wide open and laughing like that, it did not remind me of “Howard Roark laughed.”

I concur with your view of Reagan. Remember and never forget the long shadow of Tip O’Neil. Nor do I greatly fault Dubya Bush for much of the same reasons. He was always trying to get elected to a second term, and then he was saddled with a Ted Kennedy, Kerry majority Congress.

I just received a call at 8:20 pm EST from the Maryland Republican Party in conjunction with the Republican National Committee. It’s now official. I told them no more dough, though I may contribute to an individual Republican. I told them I was now a member of The Tea Party.

I won’t officially resign with the election board because then I could not vote in the primary. I hung up before I started expounding on Delaware’s Republican Mike Castle (right next door. I am a mile from the border) and his voting record of voting 62 percent of the time with the Democrats. And he said he voted against ObamaCare but he will not vote to repeal it, I kid you not.

Screw um’

sbeaulieu (Shane) wrote:

I was a military brat, spending most of my childhood around Madrid. The city life was nice...culture is great. Even got to meet the queen during an art expo when I was in 5th grade. My father married a local, so I still have family there (though I've not seen them since '87). The people were wonderful, hospitable...and I speak Castilian, so I could get by . . . As for the Netherlands, it seems like such a laid-back country. I tried to get stationed there for my first assignment out of basic training. No luck. I still want to visit there some day.

end quote

Was your Dad in the US Military? My Dad was a career naval officer and we got as far as Antarctica, New Zealand, Hawaii and Japan, whereas my Uncle Pete, also a career US naval officer, was assigned to the formerly named, French West Africa, Naples, Italy and Greenland. When I was in the Army I went to Free Korea. People who do not belong, have no idea how wonderful it is to be called a "military brat." We revel in the title. After Lavar Burton was interviewed after joining the cast of Star Trek the next generation, I said to my wife, "He's a military brat." she wanted to know how could I know. Did I read that? No, I said. I can just tell.

I remember in the Patrick O’Brien novels, Doctor Muritan spoke Catalon, not Castilian if I remember correctly. Is Castilian European Spanish? I know some California street Spanish.

Now that I am retired and doing OK, I may travel. Where to go?

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor

[anthony]

9th, or "Tony", if you prefer,

You know it's a serious fraud to assume someone else's identity- but I'm feeling benevolent today, and won't press the matter.

Not that I can blame you, naturally; who wouldn't want to be known as "Tony"? With such a reputation !

Tony

[dan2100]

I like how with this name fluff-up Peter said something positive about one of my contributions. It's like he just flunked the Pepsi challenge. You just agreed with crazy face!

Back to Reagan, we have to remember he was stuck with a Democratic Congress, which could explain the spending, deficits and lack of progress in moving away from economic statism. I think you could make the case that Reagan tried to "walk the walk" on his rhetoric. The war on drugs and the alliance with the religious right are his most grievous faults, where he clearly deserves blame. Reportedly he wasn't even religious himself.

Isn't it true that the Democrats never had a veto-proof majority? And didn't he have majority in the Senate during his first two years in office? If so, you claims here kind of fall flat on this. In my reading, Reagan was mostly if not totally rhetoric on the issue of smaller government, more freedom, and lower taxes. Reagan was, in my mind, a great public relations man. It's too bad he used his talents for evil.

In his memoir, Greenspan wrote something along the lines of: anyone willing to do the things needed to become president should be automatically disqualified. And he noted that it was not entirely a joke. Maybe that's the way to look at Reagan's pandering to the Falwell's. I still think another Carter term would have been much worse, both short and long term.

I, too, read Greenspan's auto-hagiography. It's basically his tale of how he and his friends did everything right and whatever mistakes were made could be excused away. Reagan's appointment of Greenspan was actually another Reagan mistake -- another one the country and world had to live right up to the current financial meltdown.

As for four more years of Carter, I don't know. Maybe some of the libertarian and classical liberal types would have become more organized and gotten more sympathy if Carter put ever more statist policies in place. Carter, too, one must remember, didn't invent all this stuff and, as Jeff Riggenbach pointed out, his administration spearheaded deregulation. He also appointed Paul Volcker. It does seem, from my reading, that Volcker's policies checked inflation and probably those along with deregulation -- remember Nixon went as far as comprehensive price (including wages) controls -- had more to do with economic recovery than anything Reagan did. (Maybe it's to Reagan's credit that he didn't strong-arm Volcker into lowering interest rates. Of course, I'm not applauding central banking or high interest rates here. The best policy would've been, then and now: get rid of the Fed and the federal government.)

[Aaron]

As for four more years of Carter, I don't know.

He was a major mixed bag too:

-- formation of Dept of Energy, Dept of Education

++ elimination of Civil Aeronautics Board, Interstate Commerce Commission

+/- introduced/eliminated oil/gas price controls

++ pardoned Vietnam draft dodgers

-- reinstatement of selective service registration (which had been ended by Ford)

- began aid to mujahadin in Afghanistan

++ SALT II arms reduction

Overall I'd say less bad than Reagan, if that's saying much.

Aaron

[Roger Bissell]

:faceless:

As for four more years of Carter, I don't know.

He was a major mixed bag too:

-- formation of Dept of Energy, Dept of Education

++ elimination of Civil Aeronautics Board, Interstate Commerce Commission

+/- introduced/eliminated oil/gas price controls

++ pardoned Vietnam draft dodgers

-- reinstatement of selective service registration (which had been ended by Ford)

- began aid to mujahadin in Afghanistan

++ SALT II arms reduction

Overall I'd say less bad than Reagan, if that's saying much.

Aaron

On the other other hand, Carter introduced the Presidential mis-pronunciation of "nuclear" as NEW-key-ler, which was later taken as a standout item in the mountain of evidence of George W. Bush's lack of intelligence, while Carter -- alleged to have been the most intelligent, excellent, and moral President in the 20th century -- was and continues to be given a pass for it. As was John Kerry, who unfortunately did not beat Bush in 2004 (thus setting the stage for Obama), for his howler, "Jen-jiss Khan."

As for deregulation of the airlines, didn't Teddy Kennedy play a major role in that? Perhaps it was intended to "give them enough rope," so that they could eventually be completely taken over, on the rationale that they couldn't properly handle the freedom to govern themselves. (As he obviously believed about the healthcare industry.)

And lest we forget, it was that quintessential bad boy, Richard Milhaus Nixon, who ended the draft. It took him several years to make good on his 1968 campaign promise, but he did. That certainly offsets or mitigates a lot of his other statist crap, in my mind.

REB

[dan2100]

As for four more years of Carter, I don't know.

He was a major mixed bag too:

-- formation of Dept of Energy, Dept of Education

++ elimination of Civil Aeronautics Board, Interstate Commerce Commission

+/- introduced/eliminated oil/gas price controls

++ pardoned Vietnam draft dodgers

-- reinstatement of selective service registration (which had been ended by Ford)

- began aid to mujahadin in Afghanistan

++ SALT II arms reduction

Overall I'd say less bad than Reagan, if that's saying much.

Aaron

On the other other hand, Carter introduced the Presidential mis-pronunciation of "nuclear" as NEW-key-ler, which was later taken as a standout item in the mountain of evidence of George W. Bush's lack of intelligence, while Carter -- alleged to have been the most intelligent, excellent, and moral President in the 20th century -- was and continues to be given a pass for it. As was John Kerry, who unfortunately did not beat Bush in 2004 (thus setting the stage for Obama), for his howler, "Jen-jiss Khan."

I'm much more worried about rights violations than pronunciation, especially when it comes to heads of state.

As for deregulation of the airlines, didn't Teddy Kennedy play a major role in that? Perhaps it was intended to "give them enough rope," so that they could eventually be completely taken over, on the rationale that they couldn't properly handle the freedom to govern themselves. (As he obviously believed about the healthcare industry.)

From what I've read on deregulation, part of it was that Carter appointed people who were outsiders -- and not industry insiders -- to head up some of the positions. I'm not sure of Kennedy's role in this, but I think if we're going to judge by results rather than rhetoric that the result was a more free market in energy and transportation.

And lest we forget, it was that quintessential bad boy, Richard Milhaus Nixon, who ended the draft. It took him several years to make good on his 1968 campaign promise, but he did. That certainly offsets or mitigates a lot of his other statist crap, in my mind.

It is, I agree, a plus for him. Objectivists also played a role in this -- as Jeff Riggenbach pointed out elsewhere. However, stopping violating rights in one area does not erase rights violations in others.

Reagan also criticized selective service registration but did nothing, in office, to end it and later kept the program going. Add to this, he also started, if my memory's correct prosecutions against those who resisted the policy. The number of prosecutions was, of course, tiny, but that doesn't excuse this.

[9thdoctor]

Isn't it true that the Democrats never had a veto-proof majority? And didn't he have majority in the Senate during his first two years in office?

Spending bills have to originate in the House. Reagan made the same kinds of “I will not sign this budget bill” threats every president makes, and ultimately caved. Not until Clinton vs. Gingrich did we see the Government “shut down” by this kind of dispute.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_federal_government_shutdown_of_1995

As for four more years of Carter, I don't know. Maybe some of the libertarian and classical liberal types would have become more organized and gotten more sympathy if Carter put ever more statist policies in place.

Contrafactual history is always speculative, so there’s little point debating this. Carter was very unpopular in the end, and he lost in a landslide. So Ford probably would have beaten him too, but would Ford have been better than Reagan?

[Peter]

Dan Ust wrote:

Reagan also criticized selective service registration but did nothing, in office, to end it and later kept the program going.

End quote

Party platforms are intentions. Political speeches tell us expectations. The execution of those intentions and intentions may not be achievable., but they mean a lot to a nation’s morality, profitability, direction and morale. And they get my vote.

Would you rather have an avowed Marxist-Socialist who taught Marxist street thug law at Harvard (as proof, Glenn Beck had a zoom-in of what Obama had on his blackboard) as President or an avowed Laissez-Faire, limited government, pro-individual rights President like Ronald Reagan? Nit pick all you want, but you would be insane or horribly misled to select BHO.

As Roger mentioned with Nixon, you get a two edged sword. You get a rapprochement with China to open its borders and to counteract the Soviet Union verses the dirty tricks. You get the end of the draft and the Vietnam War verses the implementation of wage and price controls. Was America duped? Was Nixon “the great deceiver?” Sometimes those snake oil selling individuals do come around but I think Americans knew Dick Nixon but still voted for him over the more overtly leftist Democrat candidates.

Ninth Doctor wrote:

Spending bills have to originate in the House. Reagan made the same kinds of “I will not sign this budget bill” threats every president makes, and ultimately caved. Not until Clinton vs. Gingrich did we see the Government “shut down” by this kind of dispute.

End quote

“Ultimately caved.” What a horrible verdict. Philosophical idealism is long term and slow acting. Intentions may not equal execution, but Politics is the only game in town to quickly counteract evil trends. And politics is a hard ball game.

I would truly have loved to see Ron Paul elected President. He would not only have shut down government, vetoed most spending, but he would also have been adamant in his disregard of the criticism. He would have told the Democrats, and John McCain and Lindsey Graham, “Go to hell!” I wonder if Mitt Romney or Paul Ryan have the “balls?” Pardon my French.

Semper cogitans fidele,

Peter Taylor