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? Reagan's character: What is one to make of Ronald Reagan's constant distortions and untruths? For example: "Trees pollute" "There are more forests now than in Washington's day" "The US unilaterally disarmed during the 70's" "The SS troops at Bitburg were victims " "A Jewish girl just bat mitzvahed suggested I lay a wreath at Bitburg" "There is no segregation in South Africa" "Sending Margaret Heckler to Ireland is a promotion" "There was violence and fraud from both sides in the Phillipines" etc, etc, etc ad nauseum a)Reagan is simply stupid and uninformed the problem with this explanation is that when Reagan's lies, distortions or made-up stories have been pointed out to be false or totally unsubstantiated, he goes right ahead and uses the very same story again. Over and over and over..... Is he *so* stupid that he can't even remember being corrected? I doubt it. b)Reagan is the typical lying politician given that Reagan's distortions *always* favor his own political ideology this has some plausibility. But then he *is* so sincere in saying it, he never expresses the guilt of the liar who knows he is lying. c)Reagan truly believes what he says this is probably true but then how does what he says so frequently conflict with the facts even when they are pointed out to him? My explanation is a combination of all three causes. Reagan is very ill-informed on very many issues but not necessarily stupid. However he is also a pathological liar, i.e. somebody who not only incessantly lies, but somebody who *believes* his own lies and made-up stories. The pathological liar can never be uncovered on a lie detector test (or by the shifty eye test) because he comes to believe his own lies. Reagan used to simply make-up play by play announcements on radio when the ticker-tape broke. He does the same with making up stories about teenage welfare mothers living high on the hog, or students on student aid living in luxury, or the "communist dictatorship" in Nicaragua. He makes up convenient fictions which accord with his narrowminded view of the world. Does this mean he is "evil"? Not necessarily. Certainly his *intentions* are good given his narrowminded view of the world - everything would be a paradise if one could really perform such miracles as quadrupling the military budget, cutting taxes and still balance the budget. Or if one could have a magic technological wand to make nuclear weapons obsolete. But this is the type of fantastic thinking that pathological liars and the deranged engage in. But should a nation be so deranged? These types of fantasy may be comforting but they are *dangerous*. While Reagan spins out such fantasies, both the US and the Soviet Union are building 5 new nuclear weapons every *day*. Reagan plans on building 17,000 more nuclear weapons in the next decade. (Scientific American, Nov. 1982, charts on projected weapons) The MX missile, the Trident D-5 missile are *first-strike* capable weapons which make the nuclear standoff even more precarious. While the world spends $900 billion this year on weapons people are starving, without shelter, and desperately poor throughout the world. I think supporting such a policy is morally wrong, just as it was wrong to support slavery and wrong to support segregation. Most especially to support these policies by a web of lies is particularly repugnant. The lies should be exposed. That is what my articles are intended to do. tim sevener whuxn!orb
cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) (03/02/86)
> > 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? > > Reagan's character: > What is one to make of Ronald Reagan's constant distortions > and untruths? For example: > "Trees pollute" Tim, they do. Reagan, as usual, garbled the facts, but essentially it is correct that trees and shrubs produce a class of air pollution called xylenes. They're are the reason the Great Smoky Mountains are smokey. This is one of the reasons that some Air Quality Managment Districts in California resisted installing vapor recovery nozzles before the state forced them -- 75% of the hydrocarbon emissions in some counties here are plants. > "There are more forests now than in Washington's day" Perhaps depends on the context in which it was said. Remember when the news media quoted Jesse Jackson as saying that acid rain was "chemical warfare" against Canada? Jackson said something considerably more sensible, but the thrill of an exciting quote caused the media to grossly misquote Jackson. How much more a President the news media disagree with 180 degrees? > "The US unilaterally disarmed during the 70's" Giggle, giggle. At best, I would call this hyperbole. > "The SS troops at Bitburg were victims " Depends whether they were draftees or not. > "A Jewish girl just bat mitzvahed suggested I lay a > wreath at Bitburg" > "There is no segregation in South Africa" > "Sending Margaret Heckler to Ireland is a promotion" > "There was violence and fraud from both sides in the Phillipines" > etc, etc, etc ad nauseum Probably true. News coverage I saw indicated that there were problems on both sides. (Marcos' side, much more than Aquino's side.) > My explanation is a combination of all three causes. Reagan is > very ill-informed on very many issues but not necessarily > stupid. However he is also a pathological liar, i.e. somebody > who not only incessantly lies, but somebody who *believes* his > own lies and made-up stories. The pathological liar can never > be uncovered on a lie detector test (or by the shifty eye test) > because he comes to believe his own lies. Reagan used to simply > make-up play by play announcements on radio when the ticker-tape > broke. He does the same with making up stories about teenage > welfare mothers living high on the hog, or students on > student aid living in luxury, or the "communist dictatorship" > in Nicaragua. He makes up convenient fictions which accord with > his narrowminded view of the world. Does this mean he is "evil"? > Not necessarily. Certainly his *intentions* are good given > his narrowminded view of the world - everything would be a > paradise if one could really perform such miracles as > quadrupling the military budget, cutting taxes and still balance > the budget. Or if one could have a magic technological wand > to make nuclear weapons obsolete. But this is the type of > fantastic thinking that pathological liars and the deranged > engage in. But should a nation be so deranged? > These types of fantasy may be comforting but they are *dangerous*. I hate to disappoint you, but the ideas President Reagan expresses have substantial support in America. I support some of the ideas above (and retch). I guess democracy just isn't a very reliable system for making decisions. :-) Don't worry, I'm sure your buddies in the Kremlin will run America much better. > While Reagan spins out such fantasies, both the US and the Soviet > Union are building 5 new nuclear weapons every *day*. Reagan plans How many nuclear weapons are being removed from service at the same time? My understanding is that total megatonnage has declined on both sides by 30% over the last ten years. (Number of weapons has increased, but the weapons being built are of lower yield than weapons being retired from service.) I realize that presenting all the facts isn't your style, Tim (people might think for themselves and come to different conclusions.) > on building 17,000 more nuclear weapons in the next decade. > (Scientific American, Nov. 1982, charts on projected weapons) > The MX missile, the Trident D-5 missile are *first-strike* capable > weapons which make the nuclear standoff even more precarious. > While the world spends $900 billion this year on weapons > people are starving, without shelter, and desperately poor > throughout the world. It's a waste -- but remember, all of that money isn't wasted. A lot of goes back into the economy. The money is taken in taxes, paid to defense contractors, who pay it to employees, who buy houses, and groceries, and personal computers, and give it to charitable organizations. Just think Tim, defense spending is just like WPA! Think of all the good the government does preparing to kill a billion people. :-) In truth, the money is NOT as well spent as a real WPA style system, but don't delude yourself that it's spent a lot worse -- and don't delude yourself that if the money weren't spent on defense it would be available for the Welfare State. Those days are PAST. Too many of us grew up hungry and poor to believe that everyone needs a free ride. > I think supporting such a policy is morally wrong, just as it > was wrong to support slavery and wrong to support segregation. > Most especially to support these policies by a web of lies > is particularly repugnant. The lies should be exposed. > That is what my articles are intended to do. > tim sevener whuxn!orb Your tone and unwillingness to present all the facts make Reagan look more credible. A little more calmness would help. (And maybe a little more willingness to see Reagan's substantial evils in the entire class of politicians -- including the left.)
lazarus@brahms.BERKELEY.EDU (Andrew J &) (03/07/86)
In article <550@kontron.UUCP> cramer@kontron.UUCP (Clayton Cramer) writes: > >> "The US unilaterally disarmed during the 70's" > >Giggle, giggle. At best, I would call this hyperbole. > No, although this is hyperbole, Reagan (and his employee Pat Buchanan) insist on suggesting that the Democrats did (and still wish to) make America weak. You would think that RR would have better arguments for the $400 hammers -- not to mention entire weapons systems that screw up like the Sgt York, the Aegis, the Bradley -- than accusing his opponents of lack of patriotism, but he doesn't. >> "The SS troops at Bitburg were victims " > >Depends whether they were draftees or not. > I don't believe there were any draftees in the elite SS. >> "A Jewish girl just bat mitzvahed suggested I lay a >> wreath at Bitburg" No rebuttal offered here to RR's willingnes to stand complaints on their heads. >> "There is no segregation in South Africa" No rebuttal here (of course!) >> "Sending Margaret Heckler to Ireland is a promotion" Well, it was the courteous thing to say.... >> "There was violence and fraud from both sides in the Phillipines" >> etc, etc, etc ad nauseum > >Probably true. News coverage I saw indicated that there were problems >on both sides. (Marcos' side, much more than Aquino's side.) > Hmmm. Notice how the State Dept quickly moved the Administration away from this position. I haven't heard of *any* fraud on the Aquino side, and incredibly massive fraud from Marcos's. Any contrary evidence would be appreciated. >> My explanation is a combination of all three causes. Reagan is >> very ill-informed on very many issues but not necessarily >> stupid. However he is also a pathological liar, i.e. somebody >> who not only incessantly lies, but somebody who *believes* his >> own lies and made-up stories. The pathological liar can never >> be uncovered on a lie detector test (or by the shifty eye test) >> because he comes to believe his own lies. Reagan used to simply >> make-up play by play announcements on radio when the ticker-tape >> broke. He does the same with making up stories about teenage >> welfare mothers living high on the hog, or students on >> student aid living in luxury, or the "communist dictatorship" >> in Nicaragua. He makes up convenient fictions which accord with >> his narrowminded view of the world. Does this mean he is "evil"? >> Not necessarily. Certainly his *intentions* are good given >> his narrowminded view of the world - everything would be a >> paradise if one could really perform such miracles as >> quadrupling the military budget, cutting taxes and still balance >> the budget. Or if one could have a magic technological wand >> to make nuclear weapons obsolete. But this is the type of >> fantastic thinking that pathological liars and the deranged >> engage in. But should a nation be so deranged? >> These types of fantasy may be comforting but they are *dangerous*. > >I hate to disappoint you, but the ideas President Reagan expresses >have substantial support in America. I support some of the ideas >above (and retch). I guess democracy just isn't a very reliable >system for making decisions. :-) Don't worry, I'm sure your buddies >in the Kremlin will run America much better. > I can't say this clearly enough: IDEAS are not substitutes for facts. A vote that the earth is flat does not make it so. When the ideas are less tangibly false (e.g. Aquino's side in the elections perpetrated fraud) they serve to distort and confuse. Suggestions that I support the Kremlin can be sent to /dev/null. andy
mahoney@bartok.DEC (03/11/86)
---------------------Reply to mail dated 7-MAR-1986 19:37--------------------- I am sick of reading about Ronald Reagan being a pathological liar. He is not a pathological liar. I do not support Ronald Reagan (I voted for Mondale) or his programs. He is above all a politician and a calculating one at that. The lies or mistruths that he tells are probably those that the most Presidents would tell unfortunately. Let us look how Lyndon Johnson got Goldwater branded a hawk. *The Goldwater story for those who don't know* Senator Goldwater was asked about what he would do in Vietnam. Goldwater said that if you are going to fight the war fight to win. If it is neccessary to use the bomb then use it. If you are not going to fight to win then we should get out of the Vietnam altogether and forget about it. Lyndon and company left the last part out when ever they talked about this. Thus they made it look as though Goldwater was a hawk and they were peaceniks. Now we all remember what dear President Johnson did in Vietnam. * end of Goldwater story. Does this make Johnson a pathalogical liar or a cold calculating individual. I tend towards the cold calculating individual. How about how Kennedy talked about the Diems and other fun persons in Vietnam. Richard Nixon and how he kept telling people that he was getting our boys home and kept escalating the war. I purpose the problem is not so much with Reagan as with the type of person we as Americans elect. This not meant as an attack on Americans more as an attack on human nature. Humans tend not to like to hear the truth if it is bad so if someone tells them something nice well it makes them feel better. So politicians tend to tell people not lies but bent truths so it will make things more palitiable and in that way they stay elected. (The problem politicians run into is the press who tend to unbend these truths and thus they look bad.) It is this cycle they get into that is very hard to get out of and thus they can go overboard. As an end I do not condone this and this is obviously not true for all politicians. Most people have told some short of lie in their life so as not to hurt someone this is an expansion of that. I personally think it is wrong but only the American people can do something about. (fortunately they can) Brian Mahoney
silber@uiucdcsp.CS.UIUC.EDU (03/12/86)
Just to clear up a point about the Bitsburg incident. By 1944, both the Waffen SS and the Wehrmacht (regular army) were drawing troops from the same manpower pool. The SS tended to get the better troops, but most of the enlisted men and a fair number of NCO's and officers were either transfers from the Wehrmacht or draftees. Those divisions which fought on the Eastern front tended to behave worse, even in France, than those which had not, and the older divisions, and volunteer units (from Norway, the Ukraine, and the Baltic) tended to behave badly too. The behavior of the 9th and 11th SS Panzer divisions during Operation Market Garden was exemplary. I don't know which divisions had men buried at Bitburg, so I can't make any judgement there. Ami Silberman "The only sure things are death and taxes, and many people cheat on the later..."
slk@mit-vax.UUCP (Ling Ku) (03/14/86)
In article <1623@decwrl.DEC.COM> mahoney@bartok.DEC writes: > >---------------------Reply to mail dated 7-MAR-1986 19:37--------------------- > > This not meant as an attack on Americans more as an attack on human nature. >Humans tend not to like to hear the truth if it is bad so if someone tells >them something nice well it makes them feel better. So politicians tend to May I suggest that while this is true, American is afflicted with a higher degree of gullibility than most other people. Maybe we are too well fed and secure, we just can't imagen how people in the third world lives. I bet Reagan can't believe there are non-communist third world countries who are much worst to live in then developed communist countries (like USSR). >tell people not lies but bent truths so it will make things more palitiable >and in that way they stay elected. (The problem politicians run into is the >press who tend to unbend these truths and thus they look bad.) It is this >cycle they get into that is very hard to get out of and thus they can go >overboard. > > As an end I do not condone this and this is obviously not true for all >politicians. Most people have told some short of lie in their life so as >not to hurt someone this is an expansion of that. I personally think it >is wrong but only the American people can do something about. (fortunately >they can) > > Brian Mahoney This problem is more true in the US then in most other democratic countries. In other countries, politicians lie just as much but the people elect them in spite of their lies, not because of it. The most blatant lies mostly deals with foreign policies. Lies (lets say disinformation) about domestic policies are trickier, since they are much scrutinized by the Congress and the press. The reason why our politicians can get away with a lot of these lies is that the US populace is not very informed about international affairs. There is really no solution to this problem unless people in this country realize our well being relies as much on other people as they rely on us. There is a feeling here (not the net, but in general) that no matter how much we (our DoD, State Dept, President) blunders and mess other people up, we will be OK, we will still be the strongest, the richest, the free-est .. people in the world. I hope it doesn't take a war that devastates the continental US before people understand that the US, while strong, is not invincible. -- Siu-Ling Ku {decvax, harvard}!mitvax!slk slk%vax@mit-mc.ARPA