I think thats the whole problem. We spend too much on defense and not enough on healthcare. We are spending $5 Billion on Iraq a month! That is an outragous waste.

Well, in my opinion our defense budget is inflated yes. However, if we stop spending on defense being the "world police" we are, things might not go so well. What happens if N. Korea invades the south if China goes after Taiwan. If Iran decides it wants Iraq or Libya goes nuts again. Were the only nation with the ability and willingness to project power on a scale large enough to repulse those situations. If there was a way to spend less on defense and make sure all Americans had healthcare, id be all for it.

And we can re-argue Iraq on every thread on this board, on the info we had (which turned out to be false) we had no choice to "liberate" Iraq. If we had known what we know now that decisigon to invade Iraq was dead wrong. Also i'm hearing that the Bush adminstration tried to fix the evidence, and if this turns out to be proved with hard evidence he needs to be impeached asap.

Fortunately, the American public was not as stupid as Bush thinks they are.

Yeh, thats why we re-elected the guy. We just wanted to make fun of his funny accent.

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Chewie_NZ, Italian Guy

I stand by my words, True communism is legitamate it is in most cases because its brought on by popular movement. Russian Revolution, Chinese Red Movement etc. Those were popular (meaning by the people) movements.

Despotism is illegitmate because it is not brought on by popular movement but by coup de etat, by military forces. As what happened recently in Madagascar. That government is illegal as it didnt have the support of the people.

Again and for the 100th time I am not defending communism in the least. Its a matter of definition thats all.

#1. They were brought on by a minority of the people that soon built an oppressive regime where no real election were would be held in the next decades at the expense of the people. Is this legimate?

#2. Do you really believe that the communist regimes in the USSR or China at any point in history enjoyed the support of the people? What on earth makes you believe so?

100% Agree...

I think thats part of the problem. We must be doing something that pisses everybody off at us. It is simply impossible to have so many enemies around the world for no reason other than 'envy'. I think US Foreign policy is to blame. If treated the world a tiny bit better we might not need such a huge military. As (I believe) Ike said "every tank built, ship launched, aircraft flown, leaves a hungry person unfed, a naked man unclothed".

As for Iraq. I am not a pacifist. But I have an acute nose for BS. I smelled a rat from the very beginning. Bush talk about mushroom clouds was drivel, because I knew that even if Saddam had the bomb (highly unlikely), he had no way of deploying it against us.

The only good thing I can say about Bush is that he'll keep late night comedy going for 3 more years...


I am certain the evidence was doctored (Downing Street Memo) and I am also certain the the NEOCONS in Congress, even with a videotaped confession, would never impeach Bush. Its very depressing...

Originally Posted by mmarsh

Gladus

You call that a source

A SINGLE survey run by the Federalist Society and the Wall Street Journal. Both of which are extremely conservative. Is that your idea of "unbias scholors". Yes it claimed to sample from both sides but its not scientific and frankly I start to smirk when conservatives start to claim "fair and balanced". WSJ nor the Federalist society is not exactly known for its liberal commentary. In my sources I included both the WSJ AND the Washington Post, which is liberal.
Your own survey states right of the top that only 78 of 130 responded. thats means 50% people didnt participate. In other words, Roughly 50% margin of error. That makes the stat useless. My sources were about 3-4%. So to summerize you have a single source, sponsered by conservatives with an extremely absurd margin of error. And thats your proof? And you call me bias? Your're a joke!

Thank you, I rest my case.

Youre biased I already gave my proof.

Moreover, we explicitly balanced the group to be surveyed with approximately equal numbers of experts on the left and the right. --this was from that article.

Even with a 50% margin of error(as you would like to think so) if those people completed the survey, given the equal demographics being surveyed, any statistician will tell you that those number would still be around the same, give or take a few percentage points. Reagan would still not wind up on the bottom so you are still full of biased baloney.

That fact that you refused to listen when it doesn't agree with you proves how biased and how much of a joke you are.

Besides these people are profesors of law, political science, & history which makes their oppinnion more valid than yours.

And here your are you are trying to say yuor oppinnion is better than theirs. Hahahahahaha, sure it is.

The next part

Its amazing how you can comment when you dont know your own history.
Read a Book!

IT wasn't parity, the USA had the bomb first in 1945, Hiroshima! Nagasaki! Remember! Sheesh. The USSR detonated its bomb in 1949, the Pentagon determined to maintain its Atomic supremacy began a unparelled military construction (conventional and non-conventional) which was accellerated during the Korean War. The USSR followed suit. That was the start of the Arms race.

Carter was a bad President, I said so yesterday. I dont know a single renouned liberal who would deny this. I have even heard people on the far left like Al Franken say it. They (and I) admire his accomplishments as an ex-president but no denies Carter was bad Leader. So to call him the 'liberal Ideal' proves that YET again that you are lying.

Secondly Carter was only in office 4 years. So you are going to have to explain how in 4 years Carter reversed 30+ years of the Truman Doctine.
The SALT II treaty was signed in 1979 I Reagan undid it in 1983. Although the treaty was honored by both sides There was enough time for it to take effect. Before Reagan recontinued[ the arms build up.

Although he was not a good president, your 'Blame Carter' theory doesnt hold water. There wasnt enough time for SALT II to be effective. Incidently, Remember my first post about Conservatives always blaming someone else for their mistakes. -thanks for proving me right.

You want to know why Reagan is popular amongst todays Republicans? I don't deny he was popular. I just think he was a disaster, although I admit he's nowhere near as bad as the jerk we have now. In my mind if there is any doubt about Reagan, there will be none about Bush II. He has all of Reagan and Bush Vices and none of their virtues. But I digress, Its because Reagan founded the far right wing movement (with a few others). Thats the only reason.

You have repeativly slandered me by calling me bias. I bet you must think im a liberal democat right? Wrong. I'm ex-GOP moderate.
I say this to prove I am not bias. I disagree with liberals on Bush Senior. I dont think Bush Senior was a bad president (I even voted for him). Why? Serveral reasons but principally because Bush got unfairly blamed for the economic mess left by Reagan and when he tried to fix it by raising taxes (Ok the read my lips part was stupid) the whole conservative base turned against him. But at least unlike Reagan and Bush II, he took some measure of responisiblity. I am proudly not a NEOCON, neither was Bush I. Bush I called NEOCONS 'the crazies'.

Try explaining my biasness on that!

Your first statement already proved tyour absolute left wing bias, so shut it. So this is none other than left wing propaganda.

You already showed you are unwilling to listen to what most of the top historians have to say.

Secondly you blame Reagan for everything bad, and make all kinds of excuses for Carter, you are indeed a joke and show your absolute bias.

Everything so far you have said here is from a perspective blinded by left wing fantasy and ideaology. You have no capacity to see things on an equal and historical perspective.

And one omre thing I doubt historians will judge G W Bush as bad a president as you say, which again shows your total bias.

Gladius


Your Post said 'unbias scholors'. But what you really meant was was Right Wing Scholors. Which is exactly what the Federalist Society is. Next time please be clear. That way, Ill be sure to use a fully Bias source next time like you did. Maybe Michael Moore...

Here the problem with your source. The survey claimed ONLY HALF THE PEOPLE RESPONDED. How do you know that Half that didnt werent all the liberals? Thats called Margin of Error. Yours was 50%. That means a 50% change your data was wrong. To be considered valid it should be 5-6%. Like I said its a useless survey.

There isnt a history teacher in the world that would accept an arguement using a single source, and a bias one at that. If your going to use bias sources then be sure to use the polar opposite as well.

The differences between my sources and yours is I brought 4 of them
from severals political spectrums. You brought 1 from 1 political view.

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The rest of the rant was a bore. I take something I sad earlier back. Of course I'm bias, so are you. So is everyone in the whole world. Everyone has a bias, and anyone who says different is a liar. Is that the best you can do? Call me bias? I'm yawning. Shame you burned all those calories just to state the obvious.

The fact you went from good discussion to cheapshots (trying to shut me up because I dont agree with you) tells me you dont have enough faith in your opinion to win the arguement. Cant't win? Get Mad!

Thats Right, You just folded your cards my friend. The discussion is now over, I win.

I on the other hand, am smart enough not to sink to your level. Sorry, but you wont get the pleasure of a flamewar out of me.

The discussion was interesting while it lasted, I give you kudos for trying

But you lost.

Very Respectfully Yours

gladius

I just saw your last line about GW Bush.

Guess what your wrong AGAIN!

here's a Link from the History News Network.

http://hnn.us/articles/5019.html


I love it!

Have Fun!

hahaha. You are wrong again.

Even those historians agree it to soon to tell, give it a few years they might change their mind given the big picture.

You believe it when it agrees with you, but when it doesn't you don't. And you say you are not totally biased, whatever.

Your Post said 'unbias scholors'. But what you really meant was was Right Wing Scholors. Which is exactly what the Federalist Society is. Next time please be clear. That way, Ill be sure to use a fully Bias source next time like you did. Maybe Michael Moore...

Here the problem with your source. The survey claimed ONLY HALF THE PEOPLE RESPONDED. How do you know that Half that didnt werent all the liberals? Thats called Margin of Error. Yours was 50%. That means a 50% change your data was wrong. To be considered valid it should be 5-6%. Like I said its a useless survey.

There isnt a history teacher in the world that would accept an arguement using a single source, and a bias one at that. If your going to use bias sources then be sure to use the polar opposite as well.

The differences between my sources and yours is I brought 4 of them
from severals political spectrums. You brought 1 from 1 political view.

this is useless but the other one isn't, right.

You are only saying that because you have been proved clearly wrong!

Here what that survey said:

To the extent that there were any systematic differences, in our survey historians slightly favored Democrats and law professors slightly favored Republicans. Our panels of historians and political scientists were perhaps less explicitly politically balanced than our law professor panel (which was split 12/11 between those believed to lean to the right and to the left). Thus, the panels of historians and politics scholars might have been a bit more liberal than the law professor panel or the general public.

Even one professor in the survey who is clearly left and does not like Reagan, is at least unbiased enough to give him credit for the USSR.

Joel Goldstein explained why he listed Reagan as overrated: “[D]espite Reagan’s successes vis a vis the Soviet Union, other aspects of his foreign policy were disasters (e.g., Iran-Contra, Lebanon) and his economic policies produced recession and huge deficits.” One historian argued, “Reagan’s champions have been too quick to credit him with ending the Cold War, and have brushed past a range of failures from civil rights to the environment to Iran-Contra.”

So much for your saying that this is a completely right wing survey.

That fact that you even say that Fox News is extreme right prove you are totally biased.

Fox is center, or right/center at the most. Believe there are extereme right outlets if you want them.

The fact that Fox has broken the liberal stranglehold on the media has you foaming at the mouth doesn't it.

And you will never get that back, and I'm laughing and I'm dancing. So have a nice day.

Originally Posted by gladius

hahaha. You are wrong again.

Even those historians agree it to soon to tell, give it a few years they might change their mind given the big picture.

Umm then he isn't wrong by your own admission as currently he is correct in how the 415 historians feel and you are guessing that they will change minds later therefore time will prove or disprove your statement not his.

You would have been far better off showing the poll as an "informal", "unscientific" poll than challenging his statements on this one.

Ratchet down, gentleman. Final and only warning.

Monty

Good one, I missed it. well said...

My last post was too arrogent, I apologize for it. Although my point (and link) remain valid.

The moderator is correct, this is suppose to be a friendly discussion and its getting alittle too heated. Besides I have stated my case enough and think I have provided evidence enough to proove it. Whether certain individuals choose to accept it is their business.

One last point

Everyone in politics is bias. thats part of the game. There is no such thing as an unbias politician or political view. The trick is to remain balanced, I do read conservative articles, I mainly disagree with them (although occasional a valid point is raised). Thats why I was able to predict your counter-arguements, because I have heard them before.

You do yourself a desservice by blindly accepting one political view without even listening to the other. This isnt football. You dont have to cheer for just one team. Despite our differences we are still all American.

Something to keep in mind...