orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/06/86)
Clayton Cramer tried to defend Reagan's gross disregard for the truth
by simply lumping him with all politicians. Certainly one must
*always* be skeptical about politicians - they all tend to mislead
and be loose with the truth. But Reagan's distortions of the truth
are of a totally different character. The few examples I listed of
Reagan's distortions are simply a *few* of his more outlandish
misstatements of fact. Just last week one of Reagan's lies was
captured graphically on videotape, making it very hard to refute.
Here are excerpts from the report in the Newark Star-Ledger:
"Sons of bitches" said Reagan after reporters had been ushered
from the Cabinet Room where the President had been questioned
about the political turmoil in the Philipines.
Later, as he left for his Camp David retreat in Maryland,
Reagan was asked by reporters whom he had in mind, and he
replied, "I thought it was one of you saying it about us."
When that was greeted by a good-natured chorus of "No", the
President, smiling, said, "It wasn't me."
Aides said Reagan did not recall making the remark nor hearing
anyone else make it.
But the phrase was clearly audible on the sound system and
United Press International verified that it was Reagan who made
the remark by viewing a tape made available by CBS, the only
network that had a camera on Reagan at the time.
.....
Deputy White House press secretary Larry Speakes said,
"He doesn't recall saying it. If he said it," Speakes joked,
"he said, 'It's sunny and you're rich'.
It is typical that Reagan simply "doesn't remember" making such
a remark 5 minutes after it happened, and smiles as he lies
about having said it.
Sad to say I can only conclude the man is a pathological liar.
tim sevener whuxn!orbdrsimon@watlion.UUCP (Daniel R. Simon) (03/08/86)
In article <1016@whuxl.UUCP> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: >Just last week one of Reagan's lies was >captured graphically on videotape, making it very hard to refute. >Here are excerpts from the report in the Newark Star-Ledger: > > "Sons of bitches" said Reagan after reporters had been ushered > from the Cabinet Room where the President had been questioned > about the political turmoil in the Philipines. > Later, as he left for his Camp David retreat in Maryland, > Reagan was asked by reporters whom he had in mind, and he > replied, "I thought it was one of you saying it about us." > When that was greeted by a good-natured chorus of "No", the > President, smiling, said, "It wasn't me." > Aides said Reagan did not recall making the remark nor hearing > anyone else make it. > But the phrase was clearly audible on the sound system and > United Press International verified that it was Reagan who made > the remark by viewing a tape made available by CBS, the only > network that had a camera on Reagan at the time. > ..... > Deputy White House press secretary Larry Speakes said, > "He doesn't recall saying it. If he said it," Speakes joked, > "he said, 'It's sunny and you're rich'. > >It is typical that Reagan simply "doesn't remember" making such >a remark 5 minutes after it happened, and smiles as he lies >about having said it. >Sad to say I can only conclude the man is a pathological liar. > > tim sevener whuxn!orb Being Canadian, I normally stay out of these American political squabbles on the net, but this one was such a riot that I just had to step in. Also, I thought a little Canadian experience might be relevant. About 15 years ago, our former (thank goodness) Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, was overheard saying something rather unsavoury in the House of Commons. At the time, he insisted that his words were "Fuddle duddle", and if you asked him today, he probably would still insist that those were his exact words. At the time, it was considered an uproariously funny event, and tee-shirts and buttons displaying the alleged euphemism were ubiquitous. Of course, everybody knows what he REALLY said, and Mr. Trudeau, especially during the end of his "reign" (not a wholly inappropriate word) was far more unpopular than Reagan has ever been. Nevertheless, whatever anybody may have said about him (and some very nasty things were said, I can tell you), nobody, as far as I know, has ever accused him of being a pathological liar for refusing to admit that he used a dirty word in public. I know you don't like your President, Mr. Sevener, but even if you have never been caught saying something naughty where you oughtn't have, you could at least have the courtesy (if not the empathy) to let him deny his oopsie. After all, you'd do it for Gorbachev, I just know you would. Daniel R. Simon
weemba@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Matthew P. Wiener) (03/09/86)
In article <7585@watlion.UUCP> drsimon@watlion.UUCP (Daniel R. Simon) writes: >> "Sons of bitches" said Reagan after reporters had been ushered >> from the Cabinet Room where the President had been questioned >> about the political turmoil in the Philipines. >> Later, as he left for his Camp David retreat in Maryland, >> Reagan was asked by reporters whom he had in mind, and he >> replied, "I thought it was one of you saying it about us." >> When that was greeted by a good-natured chorus of "No", the >> President, smiling, said, "It wasn't me." > >About 15 years ago, our former (thank goodness) Prime Minister, Pierre Trudeau, >was overheard saying something rather unsavoury in the House of Commons. At >the time, he insisted that his words were "Fuddle duddle", and if you asked >him today, he probably would still insist that those were his exact words. At >the time, it was considered an uproariously funny event, and tee-shirts and >buttons displaying the alleged euphemism were ubiquitous. And don't forget, Tim, Jimmy Carter might have said "I'll whip his ass." Let's see you post an article about how JC was a pathological liar too. ucbvax!brahms!weemba Matthew P Wiener/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/10/86)
> Clayton Cramer tried to defend Reagan's gross disregard for the truth > by simply lumping him with all politicians. Certainly one must Bullshit, Tim. Read what I wrote. I wasn't defending Reagan's disregard for the truth -- I was pointing out that he's a politician, and that some of your assertions of his dishonesty were incorrect. He's at least as honest as you are, Tim. I'm getting tired of your misrepresenting what people say -- especially when you misrepresent what I said. I did not "defend" Reagan -- I disagreed with you. > *always* be skeptical about politicians - they all tend to mislead > and be loose with the truth. But Reagan's distortions of the truth > are of a totally different character. The few examples I listed of No they aren't. They are completely typical. You just don't have the hatred for the others that you have for Reagan. (Does he remind you of your father?) > Reagan's distortions are simply a *few* of his more outlandish > misstatements of fact. Just last week one of Reagan's lies was > captured graphically on videotape, making it very hard to refute. > Here are excerpts from the report in the Newark Star-Ledger: > > "Sons of bitches" said Reagan after reporters had been ushered > from the Cabinet Room where the President had been questioned > about the political turmoil in the Philipines. > Later, as he left for his Camp David retreat in Maryland, > Reagan was asked by reporters whom he had in mind, and he > replied, "I thought it was one of you saying it about us." > When that was greeted by a good-natured chorus of "No", the > President, smiling, said, "It wasn't me." > Aides said Reagan did not recall making the remark nor hearing > anyone else make it. > But the phrase was clearly audible on the sound system and > United Press International verified that it was Reagan who made > the remark by viewing a tape made available by CBS, the only > network that had a camera on Reagan at the time. > ..... > Deputy White House press secretary Larry Speakes said, > "He doesn't recall saying it. If he said it," Speakes joked, > "he said, 'It's sunny and you're rich'. > > It is typical that Reagan simply "doesn't remember" making such > a remark 5 minutes after it happened, and smiles as he lies > about having said it. > Sad to say I can only conclude the man is a pathological liar. > > tim sevener whuxn!orb It is typical of slimy politicians of all sorts, and people in general, that they claim memory loss about embarassing statements. This doesn't make him a pathological liar -- just a typical dishonest person. Tim: Have you thought about therapy to resolve why your hatred for Reagan makes you treat him so differently from other people of comparable honesty and integrity?
orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (03/10/86)
> > I know you don't like your President, Mr. Sevener, but even if you have never > been caught saying something naughty where you oughtn't have, you could at > least have the courtesy (if not the empathy) to let him deny his oopsie. > After all, you'd do it for Gorbachev, I just know you would. > > > Daniel R. Simon No, I wouldn't do the same for Gorbachev. I thought it was pretty funny when he said he'd met with "Jesse James" about nuclear testing and Soviet Jews! It is as ludicrous to hear Soviet claims that they are "liberating Afghanistan" as it was to hear similar American claims about "liberating Vietnam" 20 years ago. Somehow it seems quite a feeble excuse to say that Reagan's claiming to propose only a 3% increase in money for the Pentagon when he is actually proposing 8% is "typical for American politics". It's like arguing that it was perfectly OK for Marcos to win a district 13,445 to 0 because Mayor Daley did similar tricks (never *so* blatant) in Chicago or that Tricky Dicky's dirty tricks, bugging his opponents political headquarters, putting enemies on a hit list for the IRS were just "politics as usual". Lying is lying and deceit is deceit and they are *wrong*. I could care less if Reagan swears and I would grant him the courtesy of lying about such a little thing if he would grant me and the American public the courtesy of stopping his lies about just about every major issue facing the nation. tim sevener whuxn!orb
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (03/12/86)
In article <588@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > You just don't have the hatred for the others that you have for Reagan. > (Does he remind you of your father?) > ... > Tim: Have you thought about therapy... Clayton, do you think you can outgrow the third grade taunts? You owe us all an apology for this sort of assinine tactic. > It is typical of slimy politicians of all sorts, and people in > general, that they claim memory loss about embarassing statements. > This doesn't make [Reagan] a pathological liar -- just a typical > dishonest person. All you've done here is claimed that both pathological liars and normal people share these characteristics. You haven't ruled out that Reagan is a pathological liar; indeed you haven't differentiated between pathological liars and normal people in any way. By this same sort of argument you'd probably refuse to recognize any diagnosis of mental disease which you didn't like. Personally, I don't think Reagan is a pathological liar: instead I think he is a skilled, manipulative, controlled liar. I don't like either type in the Oval office. I think that Reagan is worse than any other president in my lifetime (excepting perhaps Nixon.) For well-documented lies by Reagan, see "Reagan's Reign of Error", a paperback published before the '84 elections. -- "To save the world requires faith and courage: faith in reason, and courage to proclaim what reason shows to be true." Bertrand Russell in "The Prospects of Industrial Civilization". -- Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh
gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) (03/13/86)
Tim and Clayton Cramer are going at it. I've removed most of the posting, my reponse is a (sort of) defense of Tim Sevener. >> Clayton Cramer tried to defend Reagan's gross disregard for the truth >> by simply lumping him with all politicians. Certainly one must >Bullshit, Tim. Read what I wrote. I wasn't defending Reagan's disregard >for the truth -- I was pointing out that he's a politician, and that some >of your assertions of his dishonesty were incorrect. ... removed Clayton's response to Tim ... >> Sad to say I can only conclude the man is a pathological liar. >> >> tim sevener whuxn!orb >It is typical of slimy politicians of all sorts, and people in >general, that they claim memory loss about embarassing statements. >This doesn't make him a pathological liar -- just a typical dishonest >person. >Tim: Have you thought about therapy to resolve why your hatred for >Reagan makes you treat him so differently from other people of >comparable honesty and integrity? Actually, I don't think that Tim needs therapy. But it is interesting to note the strong emotional content of his postings. It is pretty clear that Tim hates good old Ronnie, on a personal level. This is a characteristic of propaganda, the inducement of hatred against a particular person. Contrarywise, this principle explains the 'cult of personality' most totalitarian regimes engage in. It's not the leader who matters, but if you HATE THE LEADER'S GUTS, how can you think about the country rationally? Tim Sevener please respond. My postings rarely make personal comments about individual leaders. Except in rare cases, I consider it propagandistic. I guess you could say that Tim is the victim of propaganda, left-wing in this case. That's why I decided to post some articles. Maybe Tim can be 'cured' ( :-) ). Maybe not, but at least we'll both have some fun discussing it all. Guy
sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) (03/14/86)
>/* orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) / 1:32 pm Mar 10, 1986 */ >Somehow it seems quite a feeble excuse to say that Reagan's claiming >to propose only a 3% increase in money for the Pentagon when he is >actually proposing 8% is "typical for American politics". >It's like arguing that it was perfectly OK for Marcos to win >a district 13,445 to 0 because Mayor Daley did similar tricks >(never *so* blatant) in Chicago or that Tricky Dicky's dirty tricks, >bugging his opponents political headquarters, putting enemies on >a hit list for the IRS were just "politics as usual". Which is it -- "typical" or "perfectly OK" ? It seems to me that the first of these two phrases means normative, the second, ethical. Are these two meanings that easy to confuse. >I could care less if Reagan swears and I would grant him the courtesy >of lying about such a little thing if he would grant me and >the American public the courtesy of stopping his lies about >just about every major issue facing the nation. "Just about?" -- That's got to be at least 50%. How about a list? > tim sevener whuxn!orb Mike Sykora
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/17/86)
> In article <588@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > You just don't have the hatred for the others that you have for Reagan. > > (Does he remind you of your father?) > > ... > > Tim: Have you thought about therapy... > > Clayton, do you think you can outgrow the third grade taunts? > You owe us all an apology for this sort of assinine tactic. > This is no "third grade taunt" -- I honestly believe that Sevener's quite obsessive hatred of Reagan to the point that he is UNABLE to see that Reagan is like most other politicians smacks of someone who needs to resolve his emotional problems. Reagan is not someone I would trust to tell the truth -- he's told plenty of lies. But he's no different than a lot of other politicians in that respect. Where are Sevener's postings about them? I maintain that Sevener is obsessive about Reagan. > > It is typical of slimy politicians of all sorts, and people in > > general, that they claim memory loss about embarassing statements. > > This doesn't make [Reagan] a pathological liar -- just a typical > > dishonest person. > > All you've done here is claimed that both pathological liars and > normal people share these characteristics. You haven't ruled out that > Reagan is a pathological liar; indeed you haven't differentiated between > pathological liars and normal people in any way. By this same sort of > argument you'd probably refuse to recognize any diagnosis of mental disease > which you didn't like. > Sevener's original posting indicated that Reagan denying an embarrassing statement marked Reagan as a pathological liar. My response was to make it clear that this is a common action -- to claim that Reagan's actions in that particular case makes Reagan a pathological liar is not true. > Personally, I don't think Reagan is a pathological liar: instead I think > he is a skilled, manipulative, controlled liar. I don't like either type > in the Oval office. I think that Reagan is worse than any other president > in my lifetime (excepting perhaps Nixon.) > I think Reagan is the best President I can remember. (I would say he is doing a mediocre to fair job.) > > Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh Clayton Cramer
tos@psc70.UUCP (Dr.Schlesinger) (03/18/86)
See the book **Reagan's Reign of Error** -- regrettably can't recall author. Published ca. 1984, widely available paperback, with each instance of blatant lies documented in fairly normal manner, except that some of the more prolific repetitions are summarized. Reagan's lying also seems to be a completely accepted fact among newsmen who have covered him... they sort of chuckle and laugh it off... all of them by now semm to know of some incidents personally, and that generally means instances where RR seems to have been informed by his staff what the truth was, and fairly soon thereafter again persisted in retelling the whopper. tom Schlesinger Plymouth State College Plymouth, N.H. 03264 decvax!dartvax!psc70!psc90!tos
gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) (03/19/86)
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.) I think your memory may be going bad. Have you seen a neurologist lately? ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 Fifty flippant frogs / Walked by on flippered feet And with their slime they made the time / Unnaturally fleet.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/19/86)
> 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.) > > I think your memory may be going bad. Have you seen a neurologist lately? > > ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 > Fifty flippant frogs / Walked by on flippered feet > And with their slime they made the time / Unnaturally fleet. The Presidents I remember: 1. Johnson: a scheming, lying warmonger -- who wasn't even very good at fighting a war. 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. 3. Ford: a well-meaning sort who thought that WIN buttons (Whip Inflation Now) were going to do something about inflation. 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. I stand by my statement.
mrh@cybvax0.UUCP (Mike Huybensz) (03/21/86)
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. 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? Nor is your list of characterizations particularly accurate. Calling Nixon a leftist is about the most ludicrous thing I've heard in years. Frankly, I'd say your admiration for the Great Communicator is presented here in an argument as shoddy as the worst Reaganisms. 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. > 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. > 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. 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
mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (03/21/86)
In article <611@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> In article <588@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: ...some third-grade taunts... >> Clayton, do you think you can outgrow the third grade taunts? >> You owe us all an apology for this sort of assinine tactic. Yeah, at least make them tourist-grade, or even business-coach, taunts. :-) > >This is no "third grade taunt" -- I honestly believe that Sevener's >quite obsessive hatred of Reagan to the point that he is UNABLE to >see that Reagan is like most other politicians smacks of someone who >needs to resolve his emotional problems. Reagan is *not* like most other politicians. I lived in Calif. while he was Guv, and I have retained the ability to read all through his campaigns and residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave. I will agree that most politicians lie - that's the name of the game. But none approaches Reagan in terms of quantity or quality of lies. > >Reagan is not someone I would trust to tell the truth -- he's told plenty >of lies. But he's no different than a lot of other politicians in that >respect. Where are Sevener's postings about them? I maintain that >Sevener is obsessive about Reagan. However, most other politicians are not PRESIDENT. Big difference. > >I think Reagan is the best President I can remember. (I would say he is >doing a mediocre to fair job.) Obviously Johnson is as far back as you can remember. :-) Let's see... Carter (bad economics - otherwise fairly good), Ford (hahahahah), Nixon (hard not to come off better than Tricky Dick), Johnson (good on Civil Rights - screwed up on Vietnam to the extent that he nullified his good works). -- --MKR "The majority of the stupid is invincible and guaranteed for all time. The terror of their tyranny, however, is alleviated by their lack of consistency." - Albert Einstein
gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) (03/22/86)
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: > >1. Johnson: a scheming, lying warmonger -- who wasn't even very good at >fighting a war. > >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. > >3. Ford: a well-meaning sort who thought that WIN buttons (Whip Inflation >Now) were going to do something about inflation. > >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. > >I stand by my statement. 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. 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 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 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? 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
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/24/86)
> In article <611@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > > > Clayton, do you think you can outgrow the third grade taunts? > > > You owe us all an apology for this sort of assinine tactic. > > > > This is no "third grade taunt" -- I honestly believe that Sevener's > > quite obsessive hatred of Reagan to the point that he is UNABLE to > > see that Reagan is like most other politicians smacks of someone who > > needs to resolve his emotional problems. > > "I honestly believe that Cramer's quite obsessive hatred of Sevener to the > point that he is UNABLE to see that Sevener is like most other posters > smacks of someone who needs to resolve his emotional problems." > Sevener is not like most other posters -- most posters on this net have varying degrees of dislike and disapproval of Reagan (I'm not sure there are any who strongly approve of Reagan). Most posters at least recognize that Reagan's faults are not unusual. > > Reagan is not someone I would trust to tell the truth -- he's told plenty > > of lies. But he's no different than a lot of other politicians in that > > respect. Where are Sevener's postings about them? I maintain that > > Sevener is obsessive about Reagan. > > Reagan is leader of the most powerful nation in the world. I'd say > consideration of his character is quite important. Diversion of the > discussion to an ad-hominem attack on Sevener is not important, and > merely a rhetorical ploy to discredit valid arguments. > I agree consideration of his character is important -- and I'm not saying that he's a wonderful person -- certainly not someone I would have picked for the job. But Sevener's obssession about Reagan to the exclusion of other politicians is utterly absurd. Also, my original response to Sevener's original posting (long ago) pointed out that some of Reagan's "lies" were in fact not lies -- garbled and confused, but not lies. (Trees & pollution, for example.) > > > All you've done here is claimed that both pathological liars and > > > normal people share these characteristics. You haven't ruled out that > > > Reagan is a pathological liar; indeed you haven't differentiated between > > > pathological liars and normal people in any way. By this same sort of > > > argument you'd probably refuse to recognize any diagnosis of mental disease > > > which you didn't like. > > > > Sevener's original posting indicated that Reagan denying an embarrassing > > statement marked Reagan as a pathological liar. My response was to make > > it clear that this is a common action -- to claim that Reagan's actions > > in that particular case makes Reagan a pathological liar is not true. > > The great frequency and disregard for being exposed of Reagan's lies might > be a good criterion of pathology. While Tim didn't raise this point > explicitly, it is implicit in psychology that there is a continuous > grade between normal and pathological. Your argument is much like this > hypothetical defense of the sanity of David Berkowitz (the Son of Sam killer): > "Heck, lots of people claim to hear voices; I can name any number of > evangelists who claim to talk to god." > -- > > Mike Huybensz ...decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!cybvax0!mrh "[D]isregard for being exposed" is characteristic of much of the population of this country, and I presume, any other. I think you are going to need a lot of straitjackets -- and some other system besides democracy for running this place.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/24/86)
> 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 I couldn't stand Presidents Johnson > > through Carter] > >I stand by my statement. > > 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. > 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. 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. > 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?) > 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. 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.
gsmith@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Gene Ward Smith) (03/26/86)
In article <646@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> >> >I think Reagan is the best President I can remember. (I would say he is >> >> >doing a mediocre to fair job.) >The "basic civil rights legislation" you describe, while laws that I can >approve of, led to affirmative action, of which I strongly disapprove. So what? Do you want Jim Crow back? This point isn't very pointed. >Johnson's deficit spending to fight the Vietnam War had a lot to do with >the economic problems of the 1970s. True. Bonzo doesn't have the excuse of a war. >> 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. His share of responsibility is by far the greatest. Reagan used every ounce of his formidable persuasive power to cut taxes. He went over the heads of Congress, making a direct appeal to the populace which put Congress in an untenable position. He has arm-twisted successfully for increased defense spending -- his "I am a budget cutter, the Democrats are the only big spenders" line of BS is the stuff people have been calling "lies". Without Reagan, the doubling of the deficit WOULD NOT have happened. "Reagan did it" is an over-simplification, but a useful one. It is (I am being arbitrary here, obviously) 90% true. And he has NO excuse. No WW II. No great depression. >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. Carter worked out the deal. He deserves the credit -- not Bonzo, who took office that same day as you yourself pointed out. This is silly. That the Ayatollah didn't like Carter counts in Carter's favor as far as I am concerned. >> 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 Missile Crisis?) Of course I do. JFK had a problem, and he successfully dealt with it -- not all saber-rattling, but partly behind the scenes negotiation. Not all to his discredit as far as I can see. As far as Johnson is concerned, I wish someone had thrown him into a river in Texas. I remember reading campaign literature in 1964 from the Goldwater people, saying that Johnson was a crook who stole votes. This wasn't good, as I was already convinced that Goldwater was a right-wing looney tune who would get us into war in Southeast Asia. Well, hindsight is 100%. Fortunately, I wasn't old enough to vote in 1964. But LBJ at least did some positive things, which various people have been pointing out. What is Bonzo's record of accomplishment? >> 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. You've backed down a little, I see. Will you be content with saying that Bonzo is about as awful as Johnson and Nixon? >> 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. >> >"Nixon was not and is not a leftist." You are talking about the President >that gave us: [LIST OF ALLEGEDLY "LEFTIST" STUFF] >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. OK. My silliness in saying you needed to see a doctor cancels out yours in saying Nixon is a leftist. He isn't and you don't. And Reagan is a very annoying kind of turkey to some people, like me, who remember him selling Twenty Mule-Team Borax and get driven nuts when simplistic, stupid sell-jobs of EXACTLY the same kind are used to try to convince me to buy his policies. I take it as a personal insult to my intelligence, I guess. ucbvax!brahms!gsmith Gene Ward Smith/UCB Math Dept/Berkeley CA 94720 Imagine what the world would be like if football was a worthy ritual performed in stadiums but mathematics was a misunderstood activity ignored by almost all.
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/26/86)
> 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
mc68020@gilbbs.UUCP (Tom Keller) (03/27/86)
Mr. Cramer, if you honestly believe that Nixon was a leftist, than I suggest
that you go to Illinois and join your political soul-mate, Lyndon LaRouche.
You two obviously think (if we can loosely apply that word here) along the
same lines.
--
====================================
Disclaimer: I hereby disclaim any and all responsibility for disclaimers.
tom keller
{ihnp4, dual}!ptsfa!gilbbs!mc68020
(* we may not be big, but we're small! *)berman@psuvax1.UUCP (Piotr Berman) (03/28/86)
> > 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