dyer@vaxuum.DEC (Official Mail of the 1984 Olympics) (04/13/84)
Reagan and Truth_______________________________________________________________ > I seem to recall that Reagan stated, when he took office, that the economy > would get worst before it got better. You recall wrong. Reagan has consistently explained everything hap- penning to the economy in such a way that he would look good. There was a surge in the economy between his being elected and his taking office. He said that business was improving in anticipation of the wonderful changes he had in store for the economy. After he took office, and Wall Street was slumping a bit, *then* he started with the "we have to all make sacrifices for the long-term blah blah blah..." Right now, everything's just rosy! The employment rate is going up at a great rate, according to Reagan. Of course, he doesn't mention that this surge in employment is due to people who lost their jobs in the recession finding work again. Nor does he mention that the lowered infla- tion is a result of the same recession. Nor does he mention that the "re- covery" has been bought with tomorrow's money; rather he blames the huge deficit on Congress, whose arms he twisted to get his budget passed. Reagan's disregard for the truth is disgusting. No other president has been documented to have lied as much as he. Not only the economy, but on practically every issue we find the Reagan Administration operating on a basis of dishonesty. Why do we stand for this? <_Jym_> | Jym Dyer | Nashua, NH | ...{allegra,decvax,ucbvax}!decwrl!rhea!vaxuum!dyer |
flinn@seismo.UUCP (E. A. Flinn) (04/13/84)
I understand that every time the White House tells a lie, Nixon gets a royalty.
karl@osu-dbs.UUCP (Karl Kleinpaste) (04/16/84)
---------- From: dyer@vaxuum.DEC > I seem to recall that Reagan stated, when he took office, that the economy > would get worst before it got better. You recall wrong. Reagan has consistently explained everything hap- penning to the economy in such a way that he would look good. ---------- No, actually, he recalls almost correctly. Feel free to vent your opinion about Reagan's honesty in general, but he *did* warn people that things would be getting worse for a while. However, I don't believe it was when he took office, but rather during the campaign. I brought this up a couple of months ago, and I can't remember now which network it was where I saw this, but one of the major news organizations picked up a couple dozen references to this during the height of the unemployment problem. (If you didn't see my comments then, it may have been in net.flame; I don't really remember now.) --- "Confusion will be my epitaph." -- King Crimson, 1969 Karl Kleinpaste @ Bell Labs, Columbus NOTE NEW ADDRESS --- accessible as cbosgd!osu-dbs!karl but *much* better as {cbosgd,rlgvax,ihnp4}!cbrma!kk
scw@cepu.UUCP (04/17/84)
>I understand that every time the White House tells a lie, >Nixon gets a royalty. Touche!!! Tell me please, every time that the CBO tells a lie does Teddy get one? -- Stephen C. Woods (VA Wadsworth Med Ctr./UCLA Dept. of Neurology) uucp: { {ihnp4, uiucdcs}!bradley, hao, trwrb, sdcsvax!bmcg}!cepu!scw ARPA: cepu!scw@ucla-locus location: N 34 06'37" W 118 25'43"
dyer@vaxuum.DEC (Official Mail of the 1984 Olympics) (04/22/84)
Re: Reagan and Truth___________________________________________________________ [I seem to be having some difficulty posting this. Maybe it'll go through *this* time!] > First, Mr. Dyer, how about giving us a documented sample of Regean's lies. > No generalizations spouted off second hand from some disgruntled prof at > your school, just hard evidence. First, Mr. Wheeler, I'm not in school. I'm from a poor family and I can't afford it. Reagan's across-the-board cuts in financial aid have resulted in a loss of aid for everyone, the "truly needy" included. Reagan maintains that these cuts don't effect the "truly needy." Lie number one. You can't seriously believe that Reagan has a grip on reality! My God, there's even a book out called "There He Goes Again: Ronald Reagan's Reign of Error," which documents quite a few of his lies. Surely you've seen some of the articles written in political periodicals that mention Reagan's disregard for truth; I've seen at least five! You want some examples? o Most people remember a certain scene in the Carter/Reagan debates when Reagan blurted out the immortal phrase, "there you go again;" calling Carter a liar. Carter had said that Reagan was opposed to Medicaid in 1965. Reagan said that Carter had his facts wrong. Carter did not. Reagan lied. o Who can possibly forget Reagan's first "White Paper," re- leased in Februrary of 1981; the report that showed a commu- nist under every rock in Central America? The conclusions of this paper have been shown to have little support from the evidence supplied to back it up. Reagan ended up ad- mitting that the paper didn't prove what it claims to prove, yet he maintained that the paper's conclusions were valid. o In his 1976 campaign book, Reagan stated that recession and its attendant unemployment would be a necessary step for an economic recovery. In his 1980 campaign, he said that he would never use unemployment to improve the economy. 1982 and 1983 proved otherwise. o There are a number of cases where Reagan has tried to block or gut bills as they went through congress, then made a pub- lic/media event out of approving the same bills if it turns out to be politically expedient. Anyone who follows the news closely knows this. One specific example is the Civil Rights Act: After trying very hard to take the teeth out of this bill (it was up for renewal), Reagan invited civil rights leaders and, of course, the press to witness him signing the bill as he spoke of the great strides for civil rights that he was all for. Need more? Buy the "Reign of Error" book. Good stuff. > Thank you for your cooperation, and I am sure you have not paid one whit of > attention to what I am saying. So, go right on with your paranoid diatribes. > I have the feeling that if God were a Republican, you gentlemen would vote > for Satan. I'm trying to envision a Jehovah/Bush ticket. It isn't easy for me, though based on Mr. Wheeler's defense of everything Reagan does, it appears that he may believe that Reagan *is* God, or at least chosen by God. His op- ponent then, by defintion, must be Satan! On what grounds, Mr. Wheeler, do you make your statement that I would vote for Satan if the Republicans ran him? You know practically nothing about me; in particular, you know absolutely nothing about my views on partisian pol- itics (which are not very hospitable). Are you so closed-minded, Mr. Wheeler, that you cannot envision an individual with (heaven forbid!) independent thoughts? You are so quick to assume that I'm anti-Republican to the extent that I would overlook the merits of an individual who happens to be in the Republican party. I'll have you know that I tried to register Republican in 1980 to vote for John Anderson. Do you think that I'm criticizing Reagan solely because he's a Repub- lican? If so, *you* are the one who isn't paying "one whit of attention to what I am saying." I criticize Reagan on the basis of his deeds. I criticized Carter on the same grounds. Believe it or not, I even criticize Soviet leader- ship! Gosh, if I'm not a Republican or a Democrat or a Communist, I must not exist, huh? <_Jym_> | Jym Dyer | Nashua, NH | ...{allegra|decvax}!decwrl!rhea!vaxuum!dyer |