FSTDT Forums
Community => Society and History => Topic started by: Lt. Fred on April 20, 2014, 07:32:58 pm
-
"Racist crime policy"? Well, I have to give you credit here, you're half right. It's true that the "tough on crime" policies discriminated against black people, but it wasn't for the reasons you seem to think. Back then, it was common rhetoric among African-Americans that the government was willing to let them kill each other off. After all, most crime committed by black people is against other blacks. That's just the rule of demographics. This was intended to put black criminals away in order to help African-American communities. I agree that these policies are outdated and should be reexamined, but they weren't intended to keep the black man down.
This was explicitly racist and strongly opposed by the African-American community. It also didn't work. Fortunately, it won a bunch of votes, which is important.
"Terrible foreign policy"? Yeah, because Carter's was so great. I don't agree with everything Reagan did, but his foreign policy played a large part in ending the Cold War.
Jimmy Carter was an excellent president. Obviously, this has been forgotten for partisan reason, but it remains true. In foreign policy terms, Carter ended the Israel-Egypt conflicts, established at least rhetorically that human rights ought to be part of a responsible nation's foreign policy, negotiated the successful release of hostages from Iran and rebuilt the defence force post-Vietnam. He also in no way broke any laws, sold drugs or murdered people unlike Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Bush, Obama and Clinton.
Reagan's photo-ops had no effect on the course of the cold war except to increase the likelihood of holocaust and his votes.
"Insults and jokes"? What politician doesn't do that?
Indeed. Reagan was loved for it, though. Why? For what reason? He told off colour jokes and told the occasional hokey story, and therefore he's the "Great Communicator"? Bullshit.
I also have to concede your point on Iran-Contra. Even if he wasn't involved, it was still partly his fault for not keeping track of his own house. However, the same could be said about Obama.
Obama has neither sold drugs, nor sold weapons illegally nor had innocent civilians shot by the drug-dealing terrorist organisations he doesn't run. So, not like Reagan.
As far as I'm concerned, there are two possibilities regarding Iran-Contra
1) Ronald Reagan was never president and made no decisions. This is essentially his legal defence.
2) Ronald Reagan was one of the greatest criminals of the second half of the 20th century.
Reagan was not perfect by any means.
Probably the least president until Bush the Lesser.
-
Was there a point to this?
-
Was there a point to this?
Bear with me.
-
Was there a point to this?
Bear with me.
Wait, there's more?
-
The Cold War ending was mostly because the USSR collapsed from internal causes. Reagan just took credit for it.
-
Reagan was a douche.
I honestly don't have much else to say rather than "shouldn't this be in F&B?"
-
Reagan was a fundamentalist, racism-codifying, extremist douche who basically took glee in screwing over the mentally ill.
So, yeah, I'd say Reagan, were he alive, should stand trial for his crimes.
-
Clarification, please? "He also in no way broke any laws, sold drugs or murdered people unlike Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Bush, Obama and Clinton."
I don't recall Clinton pulling ANY bullshit other than getting a BJ, and even that wasn't illegal or law-breaking. Not classy or professional, but certainly not illegal.
-
Clarification, please? "He also in no way broke any laws, sold drugs or murdered people unlike Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Bush, Obama and Clinton."
I don't recall Clinton pulling ANY bullshit other than getting a BJ, and even that wasn't illegal or law-breaking. Not classy or professional, but certainly not illegal.
Clinton had, for example, Haiti invaded for overthowing their dictator. He also fired a cruise missile at a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan on the back of bullshit, and maintained crushing economic sanctions of Iraq without a proper reason and at the cost of untold tens of thousands of lives. This is a trend in the foreign policy of all big countries - I mean, it's not like Britain didn't do the same thing when they were Best Country - but Carter did a lot less of it. Too bad he lost in 1980, or the US might have actually had a semi-responsible foreign policy.
-
Huh. I don't recall any of that. Then again, I was pretty young when Clinton was in office. Fair enough, then. Appreciate that, Fred.
-
Clinton had, for example, Haiti invaded for overthowing their dictator.
Dictator? The election of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide is historically viewed as an honest election and he was overthrown in a coup only 8 months into his presidency. He engaged in many reforms in office, including initiating investigations into human rights violations and investigating the wealthy and powerful for corruption, drug trafficking in particular. He even tried to bring the military under civilian control. He was overthrown and replaced with a military junta that promptly targeted and killed Aristide's supporters after taking control.
Regardless of what you think of the United States invading a country in relation to a change in government, it was hardly the proud proletariat overthrowing a dictator. If anything, it was just the opposite.
-
Clarification, please? "He also in no way broke any laws, sold drugs or murdered people unlike Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Bush, Obama and Clinton."
I don't recall Clinton pulling ANY bullshit other than getting a BJ, and even that wasn't illegal or law-breaking. Not classy or professional, but certainly not illegal.
Also, pretty sure what happened in Iran-Contra was illegal as fuck.
And there's probably about a dozen other things he did that we're illegal.
-
Clarification, please? "He also in no way broke any laws, sold drugs or murdered people unlike Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Bush, Obama and Clinton."
I don't recall Clinton pulling ANY bullshit other than getting a BJ, and even that wasn't illegal or law-breaking. Not classy or professional, but certainly not illegal.
After all these years I still fail to see why that blow job didn't fall under workplace sexual harassment. The president got a BJ from an intern; you could make a case for it being an abuse of authority and his being deserving of removal even without her co-operation. Even if you couldn't make the case, it holds a lot more water than the whole 'he lied about it' that they focused on.
-
Clarification, please? "He also in no way broke any laws, sold drugs or murdered people unlike Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Bush, Obama and Clinton."
I don't recall Clinton pulling ANY bullshit other than getting a BJ, and even that wasn't illegal or law-breaking. Not classy or professional, but certainly not illegal.
After all these years I still fail to see why that blow job didn't fall under workplace sexual harassment. The president got a BJ from an intern; you could make a case for it being an abuse of authority and his being deserving of removal even without her co-operation. Even if you couldn't make the case, it holds a lot more water than the whole 'he lied about it' that they focused on.
My guess is that it's a perception thing: a lot of people laugh off sexual harassment, but perjury is another matter entirely.
-
Fred, you're half right about Carter. He's a good man, I respect him, and in my opinion, he gets a lot of flack he doesn't deserve. However, the fact is that he was a failure as a president. Also, he wasn't quite the peacenik you seem to imagine he was. It was he, not Reagan, who started sending aid to the Afghan resistance. And before you say anything about the Taliban, they were only one of several resistance groups supported by the US, and they didn't come to power until 1996. Really, it was Clinton's fault for not stopping their rise to power.
-
However, the fact is that he was a failure as a president.
I just don't think is a defensible view. The only thing he did as President that was substantially a failure was his failure to win votes for reelection. If that's how you judge presidents - and that's a stupid way - fair enough.
Also, he wasn't quite the peacenik you seem to imagine he was. It was he, not Reagan, who started sending aid to the Afghan resistance.
I'm not saying Carter was a pacifist, or anything like it. He has some skeletons in his closet - nut less than most. Afghanistan is obviously controversial, but there are a few others.
Unlike, say, Ronald Reagan it would take more than a few days for a war crimes tribunal to convict him (and probably couldn't in any case). That's what I'm saying. That isn't true of any other president since 1952. Reagan's trial would last twenty minutes.
And before you say anything about the Taliban, they were only one of several resistance groups supported by the US, and they didn't come to power until 1996. Really, it was Clinton's fault for not stopping their rise to power.
Clinton's one of those responsible, though I'd give a good helping to Bush. A commonly-held myth is that the US withdrew aid to the forces opposing the Taliban - the US had supplied almost no resources to Massoud at any point. What in fact happened was that the US continued and stepped up their support for the Taliban through the early and mid 90s.
Clarification, please? "He also in no way broke any laws, sold drugs or murdered people unlike Nixon, Reagan, Bush, Johnson, Kennedy, Eisenhower, Bush, Obama and Clinton."
I don't recall Clinton pulling ANY bullshit other than getting a BJ, and even that wasn't illegal or law-breaking. Not classy or professional, but certainly not illegal.
After all these years I still fail to see why that blow job didn't fall under workplace sexual harassment. The president got a BJ from an intern; you could make a case for it being an abuse of authority and his being deserving of removal even without her co-operation. Even if you couldn't make the case, it holds a lot more water than the whole 'he lied about it' that they focused on.
It's the hypocrisy that gets me. You have a bunch of guys who themselves abuse their authority in exactly that way every day of their lives demanding for his impeachment. Newt Gingritch is a good example. Totally corrupt - and led the anti-Clinton campaign.
By all means prosecute Clinton, after Reagan, Bush, Gingritch, ect. Selective prosecution is, obviously, arbitrary law.
Clinton had, for example, Haiti invaded for overthowing their dictator.
Dictator? The election of President Jean-Bertrand Aristide is historically viewed as an honest election and he was overthrown in a coup only 8 months into his presidency.
Knew I should have looked up the damn history. Fair cop to this, I screwed up.