orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) (02/27/86)
> From jj: > You know, Tim, over the years you've blamed Reagan for a lot > of things. No, make that EVERYthing. > It's very interesting how you are very careful to not acknowledge > when Reagan does something you agree with, now isn't it, or is it perhaps > that you don't notice, since you know beyond any shadow of a doubt that > the man is evil beyond imagnination? > > (ihnp4;allegra;research)!alice!jj 1) It is simply untrue that I have *never* praised Reagan for anything. I noted last year that I was shocked at the Treasury I tax reform plan because it seemed to be a very good tax reform which I could support. I have also praised Reagan at other times, when I thought praise was deserved. Unfortunately those times have been very few. 2)Obviously Reagan is *not* responsible for everything nor even for all the bad things done by his Administration. While Reagan may wholeheartedly support many horrible policies, it is other conservative groups and extreme right-wingers who provide the legions in his army. For example, the Committee to Promote the Future Danger was very successful in mobilizing the Military-Industrial Complex against the SALT II agreement and convincing the public that the Soviets had achieved some sort of strategic superiority. They helped create the public climate in which a militarist like Reagan could be elected. But Reagan is the public symbol of these policies. So long as he retains popularity he and his staff argue his policies should be supported. I am determined to see that they are *not* supported. To do so requires pointing out Reagan for what he is: namely a pathological liar. Reagan certainly *IS* responsible for his own lies and distortions and for his own budgets. Congress shares the blame for passing the 1981 tax giveaway bonanza and largely approving $1.2 trillion for the military. But it is absurd to argue, as Reagan himself and his defenders have tried to, that he shares no responsibility for the current monstrous deficits or the current acceleration in the nuclear arms race. Reagan is the first President in 20 years to achieve absolutely NO arms control agreements. During his 5 years the Soviets have deployed hundreds of new nuclear weapons - are we safer? He has piled up more debt than all previous Presidents combined. Should he be absolved from any responsibility for such results? tim sevener whuxn!orb
devonst@burdvax.UUCP (Tom Albrecht) (03/03/86)
In article <whuxl.1010> orb@whuxl.UUCP (SEVENER) writes: > >2)Obviously Reagan is *not* responsible for everything nor even > for all the bad things done by his Administration. While > Reagan may wholeheartedly support many horrible policies, > it is other conservative groups and extreme right-wingers > who provide the legions in his army. For example, the > Committee to Promote the Future Danger was very successful > in mobilizing the Military-Industrial Complex against the > SALT II agreement and convincing the public that the Soviets > had achieved some sort of strategic superiority. They > helped create the public climate in which a militarist like > Reagan could be elected. But Reagan is the public symbol > of these policies. So long as he retains popularity he > and his staff argue his policies should be supported. > I am determined to see that they are *not* supported. > To do so requires pointing out Reagan for what he is: > namely a pathological liar. Reagan certainly *IS* responsible > for his own lies and distortions and for his own budgets. Oh, get off it Tim. Cut the histrionics. Reagan is no pathological liar. He happens to disagree with your point of view. You want us to believe that the majority of Americans who voted for him in the last election were simply deceived and couldn't see through the lies? SALT II was a bad treaty. All as it did was to provide a basis for controlled escalation of the superpowers nulcear arsenals. An it gave the Soviets a decided advantage in this regard; the politburo doesn't have to contend with a congress that may cut defense funding at the drop of a hat. Fortunately, the Senate saw that the Soviets weren't 'Mr. Niceguy' after all and they didn't ratify the silly thing. The only thing worth working for is a verifiable arms reduction treaty. And that's what Reagan is doing. We have to keep an eye on those sneaky Communists or they'll try to get the best of us every time. > ... Reagan is the first President in > 20 years to achieve absolutely NO arms control agreements. > During his 5 years the Soviets have deployed hundreds of > new nuclear weapons - are we safer? SALT I is still in effect and both the Soviets and the US agreed to abide by the language of SALT II even though the thing was never ratified. So how come the Soviets are deploying new weapons if they're the peacelovers you make them out to be? Arms control agreements are no good if either side has no intentions of living up to them. And apparently the Soviets have no intention. > tim sevener whuxn!orb
tos@psc70.UUCP (Dr.Schlesinger) (03/05/86)
It is common knowledge among reporters and even many of Reagan's own people that Reagan throughout his political career has told anecdotes and cited Reader's Digest and Human Events tales, which purport to quote Lenin, refer to supposed welfare disasters, etc. Hundreds of these have been researched and found to be lies. In most cases Reagan has continued to use them after being informed they were untrue. An entire book of them has been published, with citations, titled **Reign of Error** I believe, and unfortunately I can't recall author at this moment. In any case, Reagan's whoppers are surely not differences of opinion or of viewpoint. The man not only has lied his entire life, but knows that his professional actor's presence sells the lines just as any script is made convincing to the audience. And I've come to the conclusion that this is why the American people love him so much: the one thing they can't stand is being told the truth when it reflects unpleasantly upon themselves. And perhaps that applies to all people and is therefore an Achilles heel of democracy. Tom Schlesinger Plymouth State College Plymouth, N.H. 03264 decvax!dartvax!psc70!psc90!tos
gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) (03/06/86)
"Achieving" arms control agreements is not a mark of success for a President's foreign policy. Achieving GOOD, VERIFIABLE arms control agreements that are in the interest of the PEOPLE of the US is. Contrarywise, achieving bad, unverifiable agreements that are inimical to the interests of the people of the US is an ANTI-GOAL. Additionally, the approval of "world opinion", whatever that is, is NOT A CONCERN, unless it is in the interest of the PEOPLE of the US. Get it? The President is not in office to please the Russians, or anyone else except the PEOPLE of the US. Gee, this posting sure is funny. No appeals to "knowledge" (usually defined as what the NY TIMES thinks is so), no concern over what the Russians, or other nations think. Who is the US government set up for anyway? How many people voted for you in the last election, Tim? Why do you always use emotionally loaded language in your postings? Are you a "pathological" propagandist or are you afraid that rational discussion isn't supportive of your position? I'm going to go way out on a limb and make a prediction. The general world situation is getting worse before it gets better. Within 20 years Ronald Reagan will be seen as a rather kindly old fellow who tried to protect the US in a somewhat naive and idealistic manner. The American people aren't buying it Tim. They never have and they never will. Maybe the Communists will succeed in exterminating us as they have tried to do to so many others. But the PEOPLE, that's right, the PEOPLE of this country hate and fear Communism. And it is a well-founded and proper hate and fear. That is the normal reaction to evil. What is your reaction, Tim? That's ok, I can read (hear?) you now. You oppose ALL evil, the evil of the US and the evil of the USSR (and its various minions). WHAT A CROCK!!!!!!!!!! Guy
mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (03/14/86)
In article <703@mtuxn.UUCP> gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) writes: >as they have tried to do to so many others. But the PEOPLE, that's >right, the PEOPLE of this country hate and fear Communism. And it is >a well-founded and proper hate and fear. That is the normal reaction >to evil. > >Guy Communism is evil? I hear this kind of rhetoric all over, and I've never really understood it. Communism is an economic system. It is not necessarily totalitarian - any more or less than capitalism is. So, Guy, please enlighten me - how is communism "evil". Remember to restrict yourself to communism - not to totalitarianism - they are separate issues, and evil totalitarian governments are quite common amongst non-commies, too. It seems to me that communism is just an economic system - and an inferior one at that. In a non-biased comparison with capitalism, it loses every time in just about every respect. If it were not supported by a totalitarian government, it would have died out amongst developed nations long ago. It seems to me that the only people *really* interested in communism are poor people who have been continually screwed by the upper classes. I don't think we need to fight communism - we just need to hold it up next to capitalism and let people judge. (I was just watching a Russian TV program on PBS - they were celebrating the manufacture of the 4 millionth refrigerator in the USSR. The only reason they were so proud of it was that they didn't know how many refrigerators *we* have produced.) It is totalitarianism and censorship that we need to fight. I can't really even see the USSR as communist - the just have different Czars now, but it's still a pretty aristocratic place. When people like Reagan make the implicit assumption that we must fight communism, I wonder two things: 1) why? what if the Nicaraguans *want* to be communists? Who are we to tell them what form of government they can choose for themselves? Does their embrace of communism necessarily mean that they are a threat to us, or are allied with Moscow? Why can't we deal with them in whatever form of government they choose? and 2) does he *mean* communism, or does he mean totalitarianism. Unfortunately, I think he usually means totalitarianism, but only of the commie type - the other type is just fine. Anyway, Guy, I really *am* interested in hearing your explanation of exactly what it is about communism that's *evil*. Please tell us. -- --MKR Sometimes even the President of the United States must have to stand naked. - Dylan
sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) (03/18/86)
As I, and, I believe, many others understand it, Socialism is the economic system, and Communism is Oligarchical and, effectively, Totalitarian Socialism. In addition, the word Communism connotes Atheism to many, hence the contempt. Mike Sykora
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/19/86)
> In article <703@mtuxn.UUCP> gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) writes: > >as they have tried to do to so many others. But the PEOPLE, that's > >right, the PEOPLE of this country hate and fear Communism. And it is > >a well-founded and proper hate and fear. That is the normal reaction > >to evil. > > > >Guy > > > Communism is evil? I hear this kind of rhetoric all over, and I've > never really understood it. Communism is an economic system. It is not > necessarily totalitarian - any more or less than capitalism is. So, Guy, > please enlighten me - how is communism "evil". Remember to restrict > yourself to communism - not to totalitarianism - they are separate issues, > and evil totalitarian governments are quite common amongst non-commies, > too. > > It seems to me that communism is just an economic system - and > an inferior one at that. In a non-biased comparison with capitalism, it > loses every time in just about every respect. If it were not supported > by a totalitarian government, it would have died out amongst developed > nations long ago. It seems to me that the only people *really* interested Communism is tied to totalitarianism for the following reasons: 1. Marx taught that "a dictatorship of the proletariat" would bring about Communism. Does this sound non-totalitarian? 2. In a communist society, all the means of production are owned by the people. In a socialist society, all the means of production are owned by the state. A printing press is definitely a means of production. So are movie cameras, and radio stations, and television stations. So are places where people live or meet to discuss their differences with the rest of the society. Would you care to tell me how a political opposition movement can express its standpoint, can hold meetings, in fact, can do ANYTHING AT ALL in a society where the People or the State control or own everything necessary to dissent? Where all jobs are given out by one institution? The collective ownership makes totalitarianism possible -- the fear of change makes it inevitable. > in communism are poor people who have been continually screwed by the > upper classes. I don't think we need to fight communism - we just need to If they only people interested in communism are poor people, why are all the communists I've ever met in this country from the upper classes? Without exception, every one has been from a home that I would consider wealthy. I remember talking to a guy several years ago, who had just graduated from college. He mentioned that his older brother was involved in one of the communist party groups (RCP, I think). I said, "Your father must be very wealthy." This guy's response was, "How did you know that?" > hold it up next to capitalism and let people judge. (I was just watching > a Russian TV program on PBS - they were celebrating the manufacture of > the 4 millionth refrigerator in the USSR. The only reason they were so > proud of it was that they didn't know how many refrigerators *we* have > produced.) > > It is totalitarianism and censorship that we need to fight. I > can't really even see the USSR as communist - the just have different > Czars now, but it's still a pretty aristocratic place. When people > like Reagan make the implicit assumption that we must fight communism, > I wonder two things: 1) why? what if the Nicaraguans *want* to be > communists? Who are we to tell them what form of government they can > choose for themselves? Does their embrace of communism necessarily mean Totalitarian states don't allow this choice -- and the repression of the press in Nicaragua shows that the Sandinistas don't trust the population to agree with them. > that they are a threat to us, or are allied with Moscow? Why can't we > deal with them in whatever form of government they choose? and 2) does > he *mean* communism, or does he mean totalitarianism. Unfortunately, I > think he usually means totalitarianism, but only of the commie type - the > other type is just fine. > Totalitarianism of any sort is wrong -- totalitarianism allied with the Soviet Union is both wrong and a national security problem for the U.S. I don't think that Reagan thinks non-communist thugs are OK -- just not a threat to the U.S. Clayton E. Cramer "A new way of thinking -- beyond gravity."
gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) (03/24/86)
I was asked why I referred to Communism as evil. I will post a longer response, but I take the word Communism to mean the form of government espoused by the "Communist Party" of whatever. More details to follow. Guy
mrgofor@mmm.UUCP (MKR) (03/25/86)
In article <623@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: >> In article <703@mtuxn.UUCP> gdf@mtuxn.UUCP (G.FERRAIOLO) writes: >> >as they have tried to do to so many others. But the PEOPLE, that's >> >right, the PEOPLE of this country hate and fear Communism. And it is >> >a well-founded and proper hate and fear. That is the normal reaction >> >to evil. >> > >> >Guy >> >> >> Communism is evil? I hear this kind of rhetoric all over, and I've >> never really understood it. Communism is an economic system. It is not >> necessarily totalitarian - any more or less than capitalism is. So, Guy, > >Communism is tied to totalitarianism for the following reasons: > >1. Marx taught that "a dictatorship of the proletariat" would bring about >Communism. Does this sound non-totalitarian? > Sounds kind of democratic, depending on how you define "proletariat". >2. In a communist society, all the means of production are owned by the >people. In a socialist society, all the means of production are owned >by the state. A printing press is definitely a means of production. So >are movie cameras, and radio stations, and television stations. So are >places where people live or meet to discuss their differences with the >rest of the society. Would you care to tell me how a political opposition >movement can express its standpoint, can hold meetings, in fact, can do >ANYTHING AT ALL in a society where the People or the State control or >own everything necessary to dissent? The fact that US schools are owned by the government does not mean that those schools are not used for political meetings by people who disagree with official government policies. In a democratic government, abuses of power (such as denying dissent) can be rectified by not re-electing the offenders. I will agree, though, that if the government does not allow dissenters to meet, they will have a hard time organizing enough to pull it off. But the ownership of means of dissent does not necessarily imply the denial of the use of those means by dissenters. >Where all jobs are given out by >one institution? The collective ownership makes totalitarianism possible -- >the fear of change makes it inevitable. Yes, I think communism, by its centralized nature, *does* lend itself to authoritarianism and repression, but it does not necessarily guarantee it. The state controls the means of production, so the question then becomes: who controls the state. I think it is entirely possible that the means of production can be controlled centrally, as long as the controlling body is pluralistic. An example (although perhaps not the best for my argument :-)) is public utilities in the US - they control all of the means of energy production, but their governing boards are pluralistic and responsive (sometimes) to the will of the people. Your cynical assertion that centralized power leads to repression may be correct, and I often think it is, but I remain not totally convinced. > >> in communism are poor people who have been continually screwed by the >> upper classes. I don't think we need to fight communism - we just need to > >If they only people interested in communism are poor people, why are all >the communists I've ever met in this country from the upper classes? Guilt complexes - they usually think that they will be doing the downtrodden poor a favor by promoting communism. Besides, American communists are a joke - the only way you really get a communist revolution is when the proletariat revolt. >> It is totalitarianism and censorship that we need to fight. I >> can't really even see the USSR as communist - the just have different >> Czars now, but it's still a pretty aristocratic place. When people >> like Reagan make the implicit assumption that we must fight communism, >> I wonder two things: 1) why? what if the Nicaraguans *want* to be >> communists? Who are we to tell them what form of government they can >> choose for themselves? Does their embrace of communism necessarily mean > >Totalitarian states don't allow this choice -- and the repression of the >press in Nicaragua shows that the Sandinistas don't trust the population >to agree with them. > But they already made the choice - that's what the Sandinista revolution was about. I keep hearing from people who have visited Nicaragua recently that the Sandinistas have the overwhelming support of their population. You know, even in the USA, there are those who think the world would be better off if we didn't have to put up with certain groups expressing their ideas. For example, Jerry Falwell thinks that gays should not express their reasons for their lifestyle on TV, and the fact that they have been allowed to do so has contributed to the decay of the moral fabric of US society, ultimately to lead to the destruction of all of us. I disagree strongly with him, but that's just my opinion. I believe that the open expression of ideas will lead to the people being able to weigh those ideas based upon their merit, and ultimately the best course will be followed. But that is the American way, and while I think it is the best way, I'm not sure it can be forced upon people, it has to be the will of the people. But if the will of the people is to entrust a small group with the power to run the country and keep the peace, it is beyond our rights to over-rule them. I think that they will eventually find out that it is a bad idea, but they have to learn that lesson for themselves. We are trying to spare them some of the nasty problems we encountered as we learned those lessons, and that is a noble cause. I question, however, that it will work. It's like a parent trying to teach his kid a lesson through words, many times the kid just has to make the mistakes personally to learn the lessons. Our present form of government has been reached after thousands of years of cultural development in this direction. Democracy requires tolerance of other peoples' ideas and a responsibility of the people to make informed decisions. I often think that the US has only just barely matured to the point where democracy can survive - I'm not at all convinced that any third world countries' cultures have the required characteristics. There are many countries where a strong government that makes all the decisions for the populace is required - a democracy simply won't work because the people have not developed the sophistication to make the decisions for themselves. >> that they are a threat to us, or are allied with Moscow? Why can't we >> deal with them in whatever form of government they choose? and 2) does >> he *mean* communism, or does he mean totalitarianism. Unfortunately, I >> think he usually means totalitarianism, but only of the commie type - the >> other type is just fine. >> > >Totalitarianism of any sort is wrong -- totalitarianism allied with the >Soviet Union is both wrong and a national security problem for the U.S. I agree 100%. >I don't think that Reagan thinks non-communist thugs are OK -- just not >a threat to the U.S. That's where I disagree - I think they *are* a threat by virtue of the fact that they provide fertile ground for communist revolution. When the US backs a cruel dictator that the people try to overthrow, we should not be surprised when the opposition turns to the only other source of weapons and support - the USSR. We inadvertently support anti-US revolutions by allying ourselves with evil dictators like the Shah, Marcos (boy were we lucky - for once I think Reagan played it right), Pinochet, Diem, Somoza, etc. The people hate the dictators, not the US, but because we support the dictators, we become the peoples' enemy. Perhaps what we should be doing in Nicaragua is *helping* the government to be more responsive to the needs of its people and disapproving of its repressive aspects rather than trying outright to overthrow it and therefore guaranteeing the animosity of its people. > >Clayton E. Cramer > -- --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
apak@oddjob.UUCP (Adrian Kent) (03/27/86)
In article <3630070@csd2.UUCP> sykora@csd2.UUCP (Michael Sykora) writes: >In addition, the word Communism connotes Atheism to many, hence the >contempt. >Mike Sykora What brand of bigotry causes you to regard atheism with contempt? What form of misinformation causes you to believe that `many' share your views? Even Charismatic Ubizmatists regard (admittedly patronisingly) atheists as averagely moral and respect-worthy humans, who simply have erroneous beliefs about the workings of the cosmos. ak