Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: Liberator on February 06, 2004, 03:43:15 pm
-
Today is Ronald Reagan's 93rd birthday. I ask you to say a prayer for him, Mrs. Nancy and their family when you can, as we know he is suffering from advanced Alzheimer's Disease, and as such is living the final years of his life with nearly no memory of his wife, family, friends, or life.:(
For those too young to remember or too busy sticking you heads in the sand, Ronald Reagan was President of the United States during the decade of the 1980s. He led the free world to victory over the Soviet during the Cold War which ended in that decade.
RR Info (http://www.presidentreagan.info/bio/reagan_biography_1.cfm)
-
:( Poor guy (the illnesses and all).
*starts singing some song about sadness*
-
He's the guy a full third of the country's named over for some strange reason.
As a symbol, he's still loathsome and forever will be. As a person, sure, poor guy. At least he has something to remember if he ever could, as opposed to most people in life...
-
I feel sorry for the guy, but not that sorry. His policies on medical coverage and research led directly to my grandmother dying of advanced Alzheimer's disease. His fate is, in my opinion, poetic justice.
For the record: Reagan didn't lead our country to victory in the Cold War. He was the lucky guy that was there when the Cold War ended.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
I feel sorry for the guy, but not that sorry. His policies on medical coverage and research led directly to my grandmother dying of advanced Alzheimer's disease. His fate is, in my opinion, poetic justice.
For the record: Reagan didn't lead our country to victory in the Cold War. He was the lucky guy that was there when the Cold War ended.
Thanks for beating me to both of these points, especially the poetic justice due to his health care policies part.
I do think it is terrible for this to happen to any person, but I think it is just as terrible to attribute greatness to someone whose actions do not deserve it.
-
There is info on the linked site as well as in the public record that would indicate otherwise.
Why is it people hate for the USA to have a strong leader?
I don't want this to turn into a politics thread I just thought it might be a nice change to celebrate the birthday of a great man, kind of like celebrating Washington's or Lincoln's birthday.
-
Actually I'm quite glad he got Alzheimer's. The US would have banned research into stem cells if it wasn't for him.
-
If I recall, once he got Alzheimers, half of Capitol Hill suddenly had a reversal of opinion on stem cell. Didn't the same thing happen about Lesbians being able to adopt when a senator found out his daughter was gay or something?
Anyway, I feel sorry for the man, but I don't consider him a strong leader, any more than I consider Bush a strong leader, that's what's so scary, I don't measure strength by the ability to kick someone half your sizes teeth in ;)
Anyway, I'll respect your wishes to try and keep this non-political, and just say, Happy Birthday Ronnie :D
-
Ronnie?
Happer Birthday Gipper!
-
*21 turret solute* stand tall, all you regannauts.
-
How old were you lot when Reagan was actually president? I remember his entire presidency clearly. I'd say he wasn't our worst president ever, but he wasn't the best either. Under the Reagan administration, we saw the worst rape of the American citizenry of any president before or since--with one exception. Bush Jr has done a remarkably good job at treating the American worker like a prison ***** and he's only had half the time Reagan had.
-
I remember the whole of the Reagan Years, but then I remember all of the Thatcher years as well, no matter how hard I try to forget, hell when I was born, there were still 2 prime ministers to go before Thatcher arrived!
I think it's been mentioned by his own aides that RR was more interested in what was going on in other countries than America.
-
http://www.rotten.com/library/history/political-scandal/iran-contra/
While I'm loathe to believe everything I read on the net, this seems pretty ligit, and the Rotten.com library has a history of being accurate... if it is... well, only in America, right?
-
Isn't the Cold War usually considered to have ended at the fall of the Berlin Wall, which was during the Bush I presidency, not Reagan? And wasn't the actual reason for the fall of the Soviet Union massive economic problems and a failed coup?
Given that, I'm not quite sure how you can say Reagan ended the cold war.
-
Originally posted by Black Wolf
http://www.rotten.com/library/history/political-scandal/iran-contra/
While I'm loathe to believe everything I read on the net, this seems pretty ligit, and the Rotten.com library has a history of being accurate... if it is... well, only in America, right?
I haven't read the totality of that, Black Wolf, but if its an article that shows that Bush and Reagan tacitly allowed for the US to funnel aid to known terrorists, yes, its accurate. I remember the coverage when it happened. I especially remember Ollie's fake ass tears before congress and Reagan's "I do not recall" over and over.
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Isn't the Cold War usually considered to have ended at the fall of the Berlin Wall, which was during the Bush I presidency, not Reagan? And wasn't the actual reason for the fall of the Soviet Union massive economic problems and a failed coup?
Given that, I'm not quite sure how you can say Reagan ended the cold war.
Well it was Reagon's policies such as SDI, tax cuts, and research into advanced weaponry (sp?) that bankrupted the USSR that lead to their fall in '91. Not to mention that capitalism is way better then communism/socialism (sp?).
As for the sponsership of terrorists (the linked to article), if I remember correctly they weren't against us at that time, openly anyway.
-
Really trying hard not to delve into the Gipper's politics or defend his brilliant economic policy...
So I'll just say Happy Birthday!
-
Which makes funding terrorism so much better.
And Russia didn't need any help bankrupting itself. If you bothered to take even a passing look at Soviet history, the kleptocrats running the place were so incompetent the whole thing had basically fallen apart years before it became official anyway. If anything, Reagan and his ilk helped gouge huge holes in the American economy playing nuclear brinkmanship with what was essentially a third-world country the entire time.
-
Originally posted by Shiva Archon
Really trying hard not to delve into the Gipper's politics or defend his brilliant economic policy...
You mean the economic policy where the middle class got raped in favor of big corporate royalty? The same economic policy that lets people like Microsoft and Monsanto and all the other huge conglomerates control pretty much every aspect of your consumer life? The same economic policy that made the divide between the rich and the poor grow by over 2500% in eight years? Yeah. Brilliant.
Next you'll be telling us that giving arms and training to Osama Bin Laden and chemical weapons to Saddam Hussein was a GOOD IDEA.
-
It wasn't, but the main problem with humanity has always been that we are very short-sighted.
Answer this question for me though: Are you better off than your parents were at your age? Probably. Will you be better off than you're parents when you're their age? Probably.
The problem isn't that the rich got richer and the poor got poorer, the problem is bleeding hearts who are perfectly willing to become sycophants to the bloody politicians who promise to do good and take care of the poor and down-trodden and then do nothing after the election.
The problem are the louts who would just as soon take a check from my tax money as opposed to getting a real job.
The problem is nobody takes responsibility for their actions anymore, the "It's not my fault..." syndrome is sweeping the industrialized world and leaving nothing but ruin in it's wake.
The problem is that certain parties and persons in this world believe that everyone should be "equal"[/b], the problem is they want the over acheivers to meet the rest of us down at the bottom instead of encouraging everyone else to meet the over-acheivers on top.
Is it unfair that Bill Gates has nearly a quarter of a trillion in assets? Sure, but I don't begrudge him that. He got it because he is a good buisnessman.
Is it unfair that I don't have as nice a car as some people I know? Sure, but again it's not their fault that I don't, nor is it their responsibility to see to it that I have a nice car. I need to earn it.
Is it fair that most of us don't have GFs with movie star looks? No, but guess what Life ain't fair.
The only fair thing life can do is let you wake up every morning, beyond that it's up to you. You make your life what it will be, nobody else. Not me, not your boss, not the guy in the car behind and certainly not some bloody, vote-whore politician in Washington D.C. Only you.
-
Ah, you're one of those "the poor are poor because they're lazy" types.
No offense, but all you've really said here is that you can't see past the silver spoon in your mouth. You've quite plainly never been poor, never had to worry about getting a source of income not because you want some shiny new car but because you need money to eat for the next ****ing week, and moreover never will engage in any form of real hardship or privation.
To which I say, piss off. People who don't have the vaguest clue what need is have no business telling others about how it doesn't exist, and you damn brats have never earned a God-damned thing; it's the likes of you who've ****ed things up beyond where the greed and ignorance of the wealthy would ever have.
-
My parents used to go without food to pay for ours when we were younger and had no money, we had a fireplace that was only allowed to be switched on for half hour in the morning and half an hour at night, my Dad was working all the **** jobs he could at the longest hours he could to bring in a total income of about £88 a week (which, even in 1989, was a pittance) and they literally scraped a living, it used to get so cold in my old house that the entire toilet (cistern and pan) and bathtub would freeze up. They got no benefits to help them (the reason my dad said he would punch Margaret Thatcher in the face if he ever met her ) and they had to raise five of us little bastards.
Liberator, how can you not understand that there are people that WANT to work to feed their families, to live rather than scraping an existence and they don't have the opportunity for education and don't have the opportunity to earn money to live because their is a system in place to keep honest working people down, to prevent them from doing anything more than scratching the most basic of existence.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
It wasn't, but the main problem with humanity has always been that we are very short-sighted.
Answer this question for me though: Are you better off than your parents were at your age? Probably. Will you be better off than you're parents when you're their age? Probably.
Actually, as a matter of fact, no, I'm not better off. I pay more for services than my parents did--even after inflation is factored in. My health care costs more than it did then, with inflation figured. I pay more taxes now than my parents did back then. I see fewer government services than my parents did. Fiscally, the only good thing Reagan EVER did was to give the US Military a 100% payraise.
The problem are the louts who would just as soon take a check from my tax money as opposed to getting a real job.
Funny, right now I AM one of those louts and you know what? Its not because I'm not trying to get a job (I spend 40 to 50 hrs a week job hunting). Its not because I lack skills (i've got skills on almost every major OS and hardware platform on the market). Its not that I lack experience (I've got 14yrs of experience). Its that, among other things, tech jobs are being shipped overseas to India by the boatload by companies who DON'T PAY TAXES because of Reagan era policies that let them setup tax shelters in places like Vanuatu. And you know what? I'm not the only 'lout' in this boat and living off your tax dollar--and more importantly OUR BLOODY TAX DOLLAR since we paid our taxes too--because when I head down to the unemployment office, I'm surrounded not by a bunch of lazy pukes. I'm surrounded by a bunch of programmers and sysadmins and tech support people who got laid off by corporations that don't give a flying **** about anything but the bottom line. Maybe we should all go and become day laborers and migrant farmers--oh wait, they make even less than we're getting on unemployment.
Oh, as a side note: my parents were able to get by on one man's income when they were my age, with two kids. To afford medical insurance, a smaller apartment than my parents lived in, vehicles, etc, both my wife and I have to have full time jobs. Yeah. We're so much better off. If twenty years of economic degeneration for the middle class isn't 'Long term' enough for you, I don't know what is.
The problem is nobody takes responsibility for their actions anymore, the "It's not my fault..." syndrome is sweeping the industrialized world and leaving nothing but ruin in it's wake.
The problem is that certain parties and persons in this world believe that everyone should be "equal", the problem is they want the over acheivers to meet the rest of us down at the bottom instead of encouraging everyone else to meet the over-acheivers on top.
[/b]
You know, I don't believe for a moment that everyon should be 'equal'. I do believe, however, that in a democratic society, in a system that is built from the ground up to take care of the people, the rich SHOULD have to pay more taxes. Why? Because they CAN and they won't ever notice the difference, whereas someone down here on the bottom, where I'm at, will be struggling this year to pay income tax. Hell, I dont' really beleive that they should have to pay that much more. I'm all for a flat rate tax. Make everyone pay 10% of income (ALL INCOME) and I'll call that fair.
The only fair thing life can do is let you wake up every morning, beyond that it's up to you. You make your life what it will be, nobody else. Not me, not your boss, not the guy in the car behind and certainly not some bloody, vote-whore politician in Washington D.C. Only you.
Try telling that to the employees of the textile mills in this state that got shut down, not because the company was in financial trouble, but because they could move the factory to India where they could pay the employees less. I'm sure that was the employees' choice. Their decisions are what made them unemployed.
Try telling that to the unemployed tech workers whose jobs got shipped off to India. I'm SURE they chose to become unemployed and to have their lives thrown into turmoil. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
What you fail to understand is that while indeed, life is not fair, there isn't any requirement for anyone to make it even less fair than it all ready is. Reagan and Bush's economic policies did not just help the rich, they punished the poor. By giving huge tax breaks to the rich, they created voids in the federal budget. Those voids had to be filled. Who do you think paid for that? THe poor and middle class. Programs for the poor were cut under Reagan and Bush. The middle class saw its taxes increase while the rich saw their taxes decrease. My parents could survive on ONE income and they had two kids. My wife and I don't even meet their standard of living with two incomes and no kids. In raw numbers, my wife and I together make (made, when I was employed) roughly double what my parents did twenty years ago--and we're not even on PAR.
Don't tell me about the long run. Don't tell me about fair. The simple fact is that Reagan and Bush handed this country to the corporations. They raped the poor and middle class because, lets face it, neither of them were poor or middle class and didn't really have to give a damn about the people, or the country after their 12yrs of combined bad management were up.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
Actually, as a matter of fact, no, I'm not better off. I pay more for services than my parents did--even after inflation is factored in. My health care costs more than it did then, with inflation figured. I pay more taxes now than my parents did back then. I see fewer government services than my parents did. Fiscally, the only good thing Reagan EVER did was to give the US Military a 100% payraise.
Funny, right now I AM one of those louts and you know what? Its not because I'm not trying to get a job (I spend 40 to 50 hrs a week job hunting). Its not because I lack skills (i've got skills on almost every major OS and hardware platform on the market). Its not that I lack experience (I've got 14yrs of experience). Its that, among other things, tech jobs are being shipped overseas to India by the boatload by companies who DON'T PAY TAXES because of Reagan era policies that let them setup tax shelters in places like Vanuatu. And you know what? I'm not the only 'lout' in this boat and living off your tax dollar--and more importantly OUR BLOODY TAX DOLLAR since we paid our taxes too--because when I head down to the unemployment office, I'm surrounded not by a bunch of lazy pukes. I'm surrounded by a bunch of programmers and sysadmins and tech support people who got laid off by corporations that don't give a flying **** about anything but the bottom line. Maybe we should all go and become day laborers and migrant farmers--oh wait, they make even less than we're getting on unemployment.
Oh, as a side note: my parents were able to get by on one man's income when they were my age, with two kids. To afford medical insurance, a smaller apartment than my parents lived in, vehicles, etc, both my wife and I have to have full time jobs. Yeah. We're so much better off. If twenty years of economic degeneration for the middle class isn't 'Long term' enough for you, I don't know what is.
You know, I don't believe for a moment that everyon should be 'equal'. I do believe, however, that in a democratic society, in a system that is built from the ground up to take care of the people, the rich SHOULD have to pay more taxes. Why? Because they CAN and they won't ever notice the difference, whereas someone down here on the bottom, where I'm at, will be struggling this year to pay income tax. Hell, I dont' really beleive that they should have to pay that much more. I'm all for a flat rate tax. Make everyone pay 10% of income (ALL INCOME) and I'll call that fair.
Try telling that to the employees of the textile mills in this state that got shut down, not because the company was in financial trouble, but because they could move the factory to India where they could pay the employees less. I'm sure that was the employees' choice. Their decisions are what made them unemployed.
Try telling that to the unemployed tech workers whose jobs got shipped off to India. I'm SURE they chose to become unemployed and to have their lives thrown into turmoil. It seemed like a good idea at the time.
What you fail to understand is that while indeed, life is not fair, there isn't any requirement for anyone to make it even less fair than it all ready is. Reagan and Bush's economic policies did not just help the rich, they punished the poor. By giving huge tax breaks to the rich, they created voids in the federal budget. Those voids had to be filled. Who do you think paid for that? THe poor and middle class. Programs for the poor were cut under Reagan and Bush. The middle class saw its taxes increase while the rich saw their taxes decrease. My parents could survive on ONE income and they had two kids. My wife and I don't even meet their standard of living with two incomes and no kids. In raw numbers, my wife and I together make (made, when I was employed) roughly double what my parents did twenty years ago--and we're not even on PAR.
Don't tell me about the long run. Don't tell me about fair. The simple fact is that Reagan and Bush handed this country to the corporations. They raped the poor and middle class because, lets face it, neither of them were poor or middle class and didn't really have to give a damn about the people, or the country after their 12yrs of combined bad management were up.
First off you DON'T factor in the generally increasing quality of healthcare. More diseases curable, more treatments available, more chance of a healthy life.
And while you have my sympathy for being unemployed ATM, it's worth mentioning the alternative scenario where the government forbids 'the corporations' (those faceless, evil organizations who are always seen as a taker of rights, a terrible exploiter of its poor workers, rather than a provider of jobs, an asset to the economy, and a developer of ever-more efficient products) from making good business decisions - for example, you mention the call centres in India. If things like this were prevented by law you'd have declining revenue, a lack of enterprise and an ever-dwindling economy. Why are you unemployed? Probably because the market for your skills is oversaturated, perhaps because there are better candidates for the positions you're seeking to fill.
And plenty of businessmen suffer the same thing as you every day. The same businessmen that could form large, successful corporations. Some make good decisions, some make (in hindsight) bad ones. Should those whose endeavours go wrong whine about how unfair the market is, how there should be a place for their ineffectual skills? Some things go wrong in life. Maybe your choice of career was one of them, unfortunate as that is.
And if the Thatcher/Reagan years consisted solely of 'raping the lower and middle classes', then why did they return these leaders back to power (in Thatcher's case, twice)?
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
And if the Thatcher/Reagan years consisted solely of 'raping the lower and middle classes', then why did they return these leaders back to power (in Thatcher's case, twice)?
The reason I can think of is that they were/are stupid?
-
Actually, megacorporations don't contribute **** to the economy compared to the smaller companies they're so efficient at exterminating. They duck taxes infinitely more effectively, require far fewer skilled employees to operate and pay their unskilled laborers a good deal less (the latter in my experience, I could be wrong on a global scale), and tend to take off for greener pastures at the slightest hint someone might plug up the tax loopholes they shove billions through. Never mind that chains and conglomerates are death for smaller companies and have turned basically the entire East Coast into one homogenous, hideous sprawl, a crime against aesthetics of a scale unheard of since people started ****ting on pictures of Jesus and calling it art.
The fact that we have more advanced technology now than generations ago has really absolutely nothing to do with Reagan. He couldn't have stopped it had he actively tried, and while he certainly didn't do anything to encourage innovation or better healthcare he didn't damage anything much from a research point of view. Besides which, your statement is totally nebulous- "things are better because, uh, something improved between then and now". Really. Find a specific, concrete, appreciable improvement in healthcare, and we might even get to the point where we figure out how that's relevant in the slightest.
I like how everything's justified from a business perspective these days, rather than a human one. It's very, um, slimy and disgusting. It's okay that massive numbers of people don't have jobs today and due to the crappy social services we offer that's a really really bad thing, they aren't needed by the companies anyway! There's someone better to take their position, so what if they starve? Job moved to India? That's okay, the corporation's happy, they've got cheaper labor now!
I'd ask when in Zoroaster's name the benefit of utterly nonhuman constructs like corporations became more important than the improvement of general human life, but I don't think I want to know any more about it. It's vile and I hope everyone who espouses such idiotic notions gets downsized for the benefit of the company they work for. Apparently, you lot'll be happier that way, so long as the company's making more money without you. Or, wait, do those fine ideas about profit being the highest good dissapear when it's your job on the line?
And, you know, people don't have a very good record at all of making intelligent choices when it comes to leaders. Any passable demagogue will always win over a brilliant leader who can't propogandize properly, and considering how a massive proportion of the dictators and tyrants in the world came into power on a wave of popular support, saying someone managed to get reelected ain't saying much.
-
You know Sid, a few years before 1929 there was the same policy about corporations as today, with benefits shifting to the richer classes.
You know what saved your so proud full capitalist economy?
It was a guy whose last name was Keynes.
Now, if you take a look into his theories there was a principle based on state investment and more than else economical redistribution.
Now, you will surely tell me that Keynes, his followers and those who are skeptical on the Reagan era and today's economical policies are communists.
The sole damned reson these neo liberist governments keeps back to cripple the social system is because the big corporation owners put pressure on the workers by telling them to vote that parties, and all those television headed fools that believes they can pay less taxes without having to renounce on something.
Fortunately i live in Europe, where there are the two world's best healtcare systems (france and Italy), and they are PUBLIC.
So is most of the school system and a lot of other services, and their quality is way better than most private initiatives.
Oh, there are private endeavours on that these services, but only the richest people can waste their money on that.
Oh, and before you talk again about economy, try to check the economical figures, and you will discover that the best growth rates were under democratic party like governments, and not on those liberist.
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
The reason I can think of is that they were/are stupid?
You haven't got a ****ing clue mate. The fact is, the voting system over here is completely ****ed to the point where the losing party can have a huge amount more votes than the winning party but it doesn't mean ****. Exactly what happened with the Tory party from Thatcher to the end of Major, proportional representation is the way forward.
-
Originally posted by 01010
You haven't got a ****ing clue mate. The fact is, the voting system over here is completely ****ed to the point where the losing party can have a huge amount more votes than the winning party but it doesn't mean ****. Exactly what happened with the Tory party from Thatcher to the end of Major, proportional representation is the way forward.
Except that the problem with PR systems is that they let **** like the BNP take seats.
The problem is that as snoj says the electorate is stupid. That's why John Major won even though the Tory party was almost universally hated. The electorate concentrated on the fact that Labour would put up income tax so much that they failed to see that under the Tories they ended up paying far more in VAT etc. As soon as Labour started playing the same tricks they won a landslide victory even though everyone would be better off if they had kept their old policies.
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Except that the problem with PR systems is that they let **** like the BNP take seats.
The problem is that as snoj says the electorate is stupid. That's why John Major won even though the Tory party was almost universally hated. The electorate concentrated on the fact that Labour would put up income tax so much that they failed to see that under the Tories they ended up paying far more in VAT etc. As soon as Labour started playing the same tricks they won a landslide victory even though everyone would be better off if they had kept their old policies.
Yeah but in all fairness, other than the people that vote for them, who really listens to what the Naz...BNP have to say anyway?
I wouldn't say it's stupidity any more than it's greed though, people see a tax cut and they think, ooh more money for me, they don't see the rise in VAT because in all fairness, who actually keeps track of VAT rates? It's not a tax on your direct wage which is what annoys people, though not me, it's not like you even see the money pre-tax then have it taken away, it's just not there, you don't really miss it. Or, I don't at least.
I will say one thing, I don't think I could ever vote Tory, and especially not with that dick Kenneth Clarke in charge, really shot themselves in the foot putting him up there as far as I'm concerned.
-
Well allowing the BNP to gain seats gives them a sort of legitamacy that I'd hate to see the bastards get. Plus when an decsion comes down to 5 votes like the recent university vote would you like having them with the casting vote?
As for the electorate a better word to use is short-sighted. No electorate will ever vote for a policy that will cause short term hardship followed by a longer term without problems.
Worse the electorate is also very uneducated about the policies of the main parties. That's one major reason why they couldn't see they'd be better off under old style labour than another 4 years of the tories.
BTW it's Michael Howard in charge of the torys unless they've had yet another leadership vote while I was asleep :D
-
At least Thatcher took some pride in being British and stood up for the countrie's rights/interests.
Tony Blair seems too interseted in bowing to the whims of Germany and France.
-
We have John Howard.
*sniff*
-
Originally posted by karajorma
Well allowing the BNP to gain seats gives them a sort of legitamacy that I'd hate to see the bastards get. Plus when an decsion comes down to 5 votes like the recent university vote would you like having them with the casting vote?
As for the electorate a better word to use is short-sighted. No electorate will ever vote for a policy that will cause short term hardship followed by a longer term without problems.
Worse the electorate is also very uneducated about the policies of the main parties. That's one major reason why they couldn't see they'd be better off under old style labour than another 4 years of the tories.
BTW it's Michael Howard in charge of the torys unless they've had yet another leadership vote while I was asleep :D
Michael Howard, that's the one, took a blow to the head last night and I'm really disorientated this morning. Plus I can barely muster the interest in the party I support half the time, let alone a bunch of ****s like the Tories :)
Still, New Labour is a step up from the Tories, things in my local area are happening that would never have happened under them. Good things, like local parks being renovated, alleyways being given proper lighting, people that need benefits getting what they need.
Originally posted by magatsu1
At least Thatcher took some pride in being British and stood up for the countrie's rights/interests.
Tony Blair seems too interseted in bowing to the whims of Germany and France.
You mean like how we went to war with Iraq to pander to them?
;)
-
Originally posted by SadisticSid
First off you DON'T factor in the generally increasing quality of healthcare. More diseases curable, more treatments available, more chance of a healthy life.
So that's why more and more of our population takes drugs every single day of their lives to manage new and different 'syndromes' that somehow we survived before the advent of this 'generally increasing quality of healthcare'. No, I hate to break it to you, we AREN'T healthier. We're getting less healthy every year. Our health care system is in a shambles. If you don't think so, let me take you on a tour of the hospitals in all the states I've lived in (I wager its a larger number than most people here) AND all the countries I've lived in (I guarantee I beat out everone on that count, except my fellow servicemen). Our health care system is degrading, not improving. Our health care TECHNOLOGY is getting better, but that's not the same thing at all.
And while you have my sympathy for being unemployed ATM, it's worth mentioning the alternative scenario where the government forbids 'the corporations' (those faceless, evil organizations who are always seen as a taker of rights, a terrible exploiter of its poor workers, rather than a provider of jobs, an asset to the economy, and a developer of ever-more efficient products)
So, there's only two possible situations, right? No corporations, or corporations run the country? I don't think so. First of all, corporations are entitled to the same legal rights as private citizens here in the US. They are NOT, however, bound by the same responsiblities of private citizens. These are two conventions currently enshrined in law. They are capable of changing and buying laws (witness things like the DMCA, which was bought by Disney, for example) but they are exempt from taxes ('our company operates out of Vanuatu!')
I don't have anything against corporations. I like them. They serve to drive business and that's a good thing. On the other hand, like all good things, too much is a bad thing. There are limits in all things. Don't remove them, fix the system that allows them to screw over their customers and employers without repurcussion. In short, corporations should be held to the same standard as the rest of the citizenry (especially since they defend their identity as 'citizens' tooth and nail).
-
Originally posted by 01010
You haven't got a ****ing clue mate. The fact is, the voting system over here is completely ****ed to the point where the losing party can have a huge amount more votes than the winning party but it doesn't mean ****. Exactly what happened with the Tory party from Thatcher to the end of Major, proportional representation is the way forward.
MY VIRGIN EARS!!! j/k :lol:
I suppose I was not making it clear that I was joking. I was refering to the people who voted for The Gipper and conservatives in the first place. I was pointing out from your point of view that those people must be stupid since they voted for The Gipper a second time.
Don't dis the Electoral College, it keeps the system balanced. If we didn't have it only the big cities on the coasts would be deciding who was gonna be the next President. That means that the midwest and the "inner" states would not be represented at all (because they are usally conservative in nature).
-
Of course, the Electoral College was designed so that the people in power could basically ignore the people if they really felt like it. You knew that, right? The people in the Electoral College are not bound at all by the votes of the actual population. For example, you could have an entire state vote 100% Democrat or Republican, but their representatives in the Electoral College could vote for whatever they really felt like. There lies the flaw in the Electoral College: It doesn't really have any laws binding it.
Also, why should small states with virtually no population get a more of a say for the same number of people than a state like NY or California?
-
Originally posted by mikhael
So that's why more and more of our population takes drugs every single day of their lives to manage new and different 'syndromes' that somehow we survived before the advent of this 'generally increasing quality of healthcare'. No, I hate to break it to you, we AREN'T healthier. We're getting less healthy every year. Our health care system is in a shambles. If you don't think so, let me take you on a tour of the hospitals in all the states I've lived in (I wager its a larger number than most people here) AND all the countries I've lived in (I guarantee I beat out everone on that count, except my fellow servicemen). Our health care system is degrading, not improving. Our health care TECHNOLOGY is getting better, but that's not the same thing at all.
I remember a World Health Organisation report into the world's health care came out a few years back. France came number 1. Britain came number 18. America came 38th just above Croatia who at 43rd were still rebuilding from the war (which means that they are probably ahead of America by now)
-
These 'syndromes' are getting on my nerves anyway, when I was young and a pain, I got a clout round the ear and sent to my room, nowadays, not only would I be on something for 'attention deficit syndrome' I would also probably have got my parents arrested for hitting me.
The best one I heard was 'Phantom Syndrome Syndrome' this is where some get a syndrome about the possibility they have a syndrome.
Since I work with teenagers on a daily basis, I can assure you that there are a good few that would greatly benefit from a good slap about the head and being told to get a life and stop feeling sorry for themselves.
I am 30 years old now, and I don't consider my quality of life to be better than my parents when they were 30, and I was there. Yes, money was thin on the ground, there were 5 of us, only Dad working, Mum filled envelpoes to pay for a fence around the back garden, but at least they weren't deliberately kept in a state of constant fear by the government; terrorists, plagues, paedophiles etc etc, and I don't honestly think we have found that many cures for diseases that we didn't invent in the first place in the last 30 years.
Edit : The frightening thing as I read this post is that I DO sound like an old git! ;)
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Of course, the Electoral College was designed so that the people in power could basically ignore the people if they really felt like it. You knew that, right? The people in the Electoral College are not bound at all by the votes of the actual population. For example, you could have an entire state vote 100% Democrat or Republican, but their representatives in the Electoral College could vote for whatever they really felt like. There lies the flaw in the Electoral College: It doesn't really have any laws binding it.
Well the guys who go to the Electoral are elected there by the political parties, so it's highly doubtable that the Democrats guys would vote Republican and vice versa. The amount of votes a state gets is based on the number of Senetors and Representative's the state has. So if a state has 3 votes all major parties elect 3 guys each. If their candidate wins the state then that parties vote guys go to the Electoral College.
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Also, why should small states with virtually no population get a more of a say for the same number of people than a state like NY or California?
IF we didn't have the College, the Presidential candidates wouldn't even give a second thought to the midwest people since they would not need our votes. Which would mean we would not have the "representation" you think a PV (popular vote) would give.
-
So it's somehow equalizing that your vote is worth more than the vote of a guy in New York?
How does that one work?
-
Originally posted by Grey Wolf 2009
Also, why should small states with virtually no population get a more of a say for the same number of people than a state like NY or California?
You misunderstand the way the EC works. There's a delegate for (essentially) each Representative in the state and one for each Senator in the state. Every state has equal representation (2 votes each). Every citizen gets equal representation (Representatives are based on equal sized blocks of citizens). That way pretty much everyone gets equal representation.
It doesn't change the fact that the EC is designed to screw over the poeple in favor of the parties. EC votes can't be split within a state, to the best of my knowledge. That's why my vote for President really means very little: my state will almost always fall to the Republican candidate.
-
You can't give humans things and expect them to take care of them. For humans to truly appreciate thing they must earn them.
The point I'm trying to get across is that there are entirely too many people willing to let someone else make all their decisions for them, even if the decisions don't benefit them in the long run. That the problem with modern dems/liberals/whoever. They are willing to whore themselves out to whoever promises them the most votes/money/power. There are so few men of conscience left in Washington, it makes me sad to think about it.
The main reason the medical system in this country is floundering, is because the caregivers, the doctors and, more importantly, the RNs, LPNs, and PAs, are overworked and way over-regulated, which is what leads to so much burnout in those professions. Everytime they turn around they've got some ungrateful thus-and-so threatening to sue them. The goal should be to provide the highest level of care for a patient. The government should protect the good doctors and nurses from frivolous indictments and should stop the bad ones from practicing. That should be the limit of the governments involvment. Awards from malparactice suits should be limited, by law, to a reasonable amount per case, not per complaint. Medical personel are as human as the rest of us, and can you honestly say that you would volunteer to work a twelve hour shift, then be required to work a second and still be able to think clearly? It's easy to see how mistakes can be made. And our response is to treat them like the bastard child and beat them down because they tripped.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
You can't give humans things and expect them to take care of them. For humans to truly appreciate thing they must earn them.
And you know this how? My parents have given me plenty of stuff that I didn't earn and I've always taken care of it. Hell, this computer I'm using to post here was a $1,500 gift and I'm damn well taking care of it.
And there's years of stuff that I got during Christmas and didn't earn and still take care of. How do you explain that?
Originally posted by Liberator
The point I'm trying to get across is that there are entirely too many people willing to let someone else make all their decisions for them, even if the decisions don't benefit them in the long run. That the problem with modern dems/liberals/whoever. They are willing to whore themselves out to whoever promises them the most votes/money/power. There are so few men of conscience left in Washington, it makes me sad to think about it.
Guess what, Lib? Many of those men of no conscience are Republicans, none of whom I voted for and whom I'm intent on getting out of the White House and Congress when I vote in November. As for those who "are willing to whore themselves out to whoever promises them the most votes/money/power," how is that different from all the corporate lobbyists who throw money at Republican politicians in order to buy political access? Vice President Cheney STILL hasn't released any info on who was on his energy taskforce, even though environmentalists have clamored to be involved in federal energy policy, something that directly involves the health of the environment. Could it be that Cheney doesn't want this info revealed because he's afraid of people finding out that he whored himself out to the energy companies who contributed to his and Bush's campaign?
Originally posted by Liberator
The main reason the medical system in this country is floundering, is because the caregivers, the doctors and, more importantly, the RNs, LPNs, and PAs, are overworked and way over-regulated, which is what leads to so much burnout in those professions. Everytime they turn around they've got some ungrateful thus-and-so threatening to sue them. The goal should be to provide the highest level of care for a patient. The government should protect the good doctors and nurses from frivolous indictments and should stop the bad ones from practicing. That should be the limit of the governments involvment. Awards from malparactice suits should be limited, by law, to a reasonable amount per case, not per complaint. Medical personel are as human as the rest of us, and can you honestly say that you would volunteer to work a twelve hour shift, then be required to work a second and still be able to think clearly? It's easy to see how mistakes can be made. And our response is to treat them like the bastard child and beat them down because they tripped.
This one's a touchy subject. All I know is that people have been clamoring about "frivolous lawsuits" when the system is already designed to weed out frivolous claims. A claim is frivolous only if there is no question that the doctor acted properly and no harm was done. If a claim of medical malpractice can't stand on the merits, the judge throws it out and dismisses it before it ever goes to trial. BUT if there are facts to support the assertion that maybe the doctor did screw up, for whatever reason, then the case goes to trial. That's what trials are designed for: to find out the facts of the case and find out the truth. If a case looks suspicious but the court determines that the doctor did nothing wrong, then no money is awarded. If a case gets so far as to go to trial, then there is a question of fact of whether the doctor is at fault. If the court has to investigate to solve a question, then by definition the case is NOT FRIVOLOUS.
How many frivolous lawsuits are there? I've been hearing people clamoring about frivolous lawsuits for years, but has anyone EVER done a study about how many there are? What percentage of all lawsuits are frivolous compared to how many are valid? (If more than 1% of all lawsuits are frivolous, I'll be very surprised.) Why the push to cap awards when that will do NOTHING to prevent false claims? How the hell will that work? All that will do is to shaft people with valid injuries and deny them a fair payment for their suffering inflicted by incompetent doctors.
The problem is the insurance companies who keep raising the insurance rates and screwing over the good competent doctors and their patients.
And, Lib, my best friend is a doctor, so I know how tough and long the hours can be. But all doctors are trained to call for assistance if they are so exhausted as to be in over their heads during an operation. If they don't call for assistance when they really need it, then that's a mistake in judgment they have to pay for, ESPECIALLY when it costs a patient his life or being maimed for life.
-
Su: Though the proportion of genuine frivolous lawsuits is indeed blown out of all proportion like anything else that newsmen get their hands on (can't blame 'em, really, they're usually pretty funny stories), litigiousness in this country is quite plainly on the rise and it's practically a knee-jerk reaction to sue for any percieved wrongdoing with much of the populace now. One can see this pretty much every day- and actually, I and my family have been threatened with lawsuits more than once, and we're not exactly prime targets.
What stupid lawsuits have to do with the medical profession in particular isn't at all clear. There's no real rising trend of malpractice suits, and the ratio of bad suits to ones where there was some genuine crime involved are, I'd expect, about the same as in any other category. In short, Lib's just talking out of his ass, and whether he got those ass-words from someone else and simply passes them on unaware of their anal origins due to an unwillingness to do research or whether they came from his own ass doesn't really matter.
Lib: Tell that last bit to the guy who's heart surgery gets buggered up by some overpaid twat with a few degrees. He's dead now, or at best crippled for life, with minimal recourse- how does that even compare to the potential loss of some money and prestige? The fact is, doctors are paid huge amounts of money for their services, and we entrust them with our lives. Generally, when there's a genuine case of malpractice, it's not just some innocent "oops", someone's been made sick or killed by another person's failure to do their job. When there's an unjustified suit... well, fine, yeah, it's harmful to the defendant but nobody's really suggested a way to cut back on those without letting more cases of genuine malpractice go unpunished. And, moan how you like about the poor oppressed doctors in their hundred-thousand-dollar villas driving a new car every year (which, actually, is a microcosm of how the fairly small-fry doctor in my family lives, if anything I'm understating), letting people get away with murder is one hell of a lot worse than a coupla loonies trying to sue because they don't like the taste of aspirin. It's well and good to believe in things like "The government should protect the good doctors and nurses from frivolous indictments and should stop the bad ones from practicing."- hell, it's nice to believe everyone can and should live in a magical fairy castle in the sky made out of marshmallows and radium and never have to work again but all be bajillionaires anyway- doesn't mean it's gonna happen, and saying **** like that doesn't do anything towards making it happen. Nobody on any party has done anything creative in that respect, Reagan or anybody else. Mostly, mucking around in that field, like so many, has just ****ed things up worse. And, it being the US government, there's practically no way to un**** what's been ****ed, so **** just piles up higher and higher and higher.
-
The reason why the American health service scored so poorly is cause of the stupid health insurance system that America has.
It's obviously a pointless, stupid system that means that anyone unable to afford health insurance gets crappy health care.
Every single country in the top 10 had a socialist policy involving some sort of national health service that was paid for by taxes (or in the case of the gulf states by revenues from oil).
-
Well, public systems for the basic services are the best way...
You cannot place things such as your health in the hands of greedy privates...
-
My privates should be left well alone ;)
But yes, England is a perfect example of what happens when you turn to corporations to take care of services without taking proper precautions.
Rail : Shot to hell
BT : Charges over 800% of what it spends. Poor service maintenance.
Power : Did a little better but still poor maintenance + cut-throat techniques (cutting off power to 87 year old women in the middle of December because they were 3 days late getting their bill paid, like they did to my Nan).
This is because Corporations are most intent on getting money for Shareholders whilst spending as little money on providing maintenance and service as possible.
The current policy of the British Government is 'Don't look at us, blame them!'.
-
Originally posted by mikhael
You misunderstand the way the EC works. There's a delegate for (essentially) each Representative in the state and one for each Senator in the state. Every state has equal representation (2 votes each). Every citizen gets equal representation (Representatives are based on equal sized blocks of citizens). That way pretty much everyone gets equal representation.
It doesn't change the fact that the EC is designed to screw over the poeple in favor of the parties. EC votes can't be split within a state, to the best of my knowledge. That's why my vote for President really means very little: my state will almost always fall to the Republican candidate.
Really tiny states actually have a bit of an advantage, since their is actually a set minimum for the number of Representatives in a state.
-
Yes. That minimum number of Representatives for any US State is 1. I suspect, however, you mean "very underpopulated states", not "very small states". Rhode Island and Providence Plantations has 2 representatives, and it is the smallest state. Alaska, one of the largest states, only has 1.
Given the population required to have exactly one Representative in the House, the constituents in the Congressional district in question get only a very small fraction of extra representation.
-
I recently saw a new documentary called The Corporation, which examines alot of the issues talked about here. Basically, it examines the corporation and the impact it has on our society. Since, as someone mentioned earlier, the corporation is defined as a legal "person", then the question is asked, would that "person" be diagnosed as a psychopath, were the same guidelines as when diagnosing humans applied . Quite shockingly, yes.
Too bad its ony showing in Toronto, Vancouver and Ottawa at the moment. Really interesting movie, and you can't help walk out of the theatre slightly changed. Even I did, and I had my bull**** filter on high the whole time. I thought, though you may disagree if you see it, though I doubt it, that the pro-corporation side was given the chance to give their side of the story. Various economists, CEOs and business-men voiced their opinions on the matter, though I thought it was a pertty lame defence they mounted.
Noam Chomsky, Michael Moore (though not directed by him), Howard Zinn, Naomi Klien and other (most are less well known) make an appearance. This cast may either get you interested or turn you off, depends on who you are.
www.thecorporation.tv
/pimp
edit: ooh, just checked. It appears that it has started showing in many more Canadian cities, and even more (to the point where it will be showing in almost every major citiy) will be starting in February. I had hoped it would get a wider sceening, and so it has.
-
In the late 1800s (or was it the early 1900s? I can't recall) Ambrose Bierce defined the term 'corporation' as an instrument designed to grant individual profit/benefit without individual responsibility.
Any developmental psychologist will tell you that power and profit without responsibility leads to socially and sociopathically retarded individuals.
-
Originally posted by Liberator
Today is Ronald Reagan's 93rd birthday. I ask you to say a prayer for him, Mrs. Nancy and their family when you can, as we know he is suffering from advanced Alzheimer's Disease, and as such is living the final years of his life with nearly no memory of his wife, family, friends, or life.:(
For those too young to remember or too busy sticking you heads in the sand, Ronald Reagan was President of the United States during the decade of the 1980s. He led the free world to victory over the Soviet during the Cold War which ended in that decade.
RR Info (http://www.presidentreagan.info/bio/reagan_biography_1.cfm)
Agreed! Best. President. Ever.
Thank you Mr. Reagan.
-
Yeah, I read your sig;)
The topic of social responsibility is brought up in the film, and I remeber one comment, made by a Nobel laureate economist. His opinion is that you can no more expect social responsibility from a corporation than you can from a building.
Another interviewee, a CEO I believe, bring up the scenario where everything on the Earth: water, air, land, animals etc, is privately owned. He seems to think that it would benefit humanity, as a natural extension of the capitalist system. That part, and the prospect that it can actually, possibly occur, scared the **** out of me.
Its not so far fetched. Corporations already own the patents of human and animal DNA, and it is now legal to patent life. So, 20 years from now, when you have a genetically-enhanced horse, you will be paying royalities to Monstanto or whoever.
The recent coup in Bolivia was partly caused by the fact that the water (including rain) in Bolivia had been privatized by a US company, Bechtel, and people were no longer allowed to gather rainwater. They had to pay up, which sometimes amounted to 1/4 of their monthly earning just for water. Sufficed to say, they didn't much like the situation. The intersting thing is that as far as I understand, the move to privatize Bolovia's water had been pushed by the US government as a condition for future trade agreements.
/rant
-
hmm, that sounds sort of like the thing England did with salt in India
-
[q]England [/q]
Britain. We're all equally empire builders over here ;)
-
Originally posted by Beowulf
Agreed! Best. President. Ever.
Thank you Mr. Reagan.
Gee, I dunno, I thought Abraham Lincoln was the best American president ever, considering how he is the man most responsible for America surviving the time it was in the greatest danger of being destroyed (i.e. the Civil War). Reagan definitely had his good points, but I can't call him the best president ever.
(It's kinda strange that a few people are still pissed at Lincoln because he destroyed the Confederacy...) :wtf:
-
It boggles my mind too, Su.
Down here, people proudly fly the Confederate battle standard AND proclaim their "patriotism". What I don't get is how these people can take pride in the largest single group of traitors and turncoats in the history of the nation, and still claim to be patriots. It seems to me, when the South took up arms against the federal government (the North), they fell under the classic definition of 'traitor'. Their descendents are proud of this stuff and yet somehow consider people like me 'unamerican' and 'unpatriotic' for not blindly following the dictates of our appointed (not elected) leader.
-
Explanation for the behavior of the South: Georgia was a dumping ground for English criminals before the American Revolution.
Explanation for the behavior of Australians: Australia was a dumping ground for English criminals after the American Revolution.
:D:D:D
-
YUO == MORON
More than just Georgia was a dumping ground for english criminals. Australia got very, VERY few of the criminals, and only small parts of it were used for penal colonies.
A quick trip to the history department of the local university (not your local high school) is in order.
-
Geez mik. I'm kidding around.
And uhh... while I may be in high school, my history teacher used to teach at UConn. And we happened to be discussing this in class today.
Where did the nice, non-argumentative you go?
-
I've always been argumentative. Sometimes I'm nice and sometimes I'm not. More not lately, it seems. Shrike pointed it out too.
You touched on one of my hot buttons: American ideas about England's use of Australia and the Americas as penal colonies. Its one of those things that Americans have a different version of history for than the entire rest of the world (outside of the tertiary education system). I'll give you credit though: you actually new that the Americas were used as a penal colony (well, sort of).
-
I don't think the South turned traiter during the Civil War.
The US is made up of (atm) 50 seperate nations, hence the name "United States". The Constitution binds the member States in a very close alliance that on the surface makes them seem like one nation, and somewhat act like one too.
The Federal government is to the States what the State government is to us. The Senete was suppose to represent the States governments originally and the House of Representatives was suppose to represent the people of the States. But later the Senete elections were changed so the people of the States voted them (the Seneters) in instead of the State Legislators.
So back to the South. When the southern States withdrew from the Union (US) they in effect became foreign powers. These foreign powers banded together into the Confederate States of America.
So this brings in the question, "So where do my loyalties lie?" I'd say it's first your State then the US. Which is shown to us by General Lee of the South.
BTW I'm not saying the slavery is OK, I'm just saying that the south was more in the right legally then the north. True the South started the war over a fort, infact that's basicly what the war was about. But as we can see it exploded into something over slavery.
-
The US started out as a confederacy (hence the name), but that lasted an extremely short time until the Constitution was written and the federal government as it exists (more or less) today was created. The states are no more independent nations than provinces in any other country.
-
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
I don't think the South turned traiter during the Civil War.
The US is made up of (atm) 50 seperate nations, hence the name "United States". The Constitution binds the member States in a very close alliance that on the surface makes them seem like one nation, and somewhat act like one too.
This is flat out wrong. It is a hallmark of constitutional law that the federal law is supreme over state law. This is what is known as the supremacy clause. Whenever any state law conflicts with federal law (especially the Constitution), the federal law ALWAYS takes precedence. (I'm a lawyer, so I know this because I studied it for three years at law school.)
Stryke is absolutely right; the 50 states are not separate nations loosely unified. They are like provinces in other countries. There is a reason we call ourselves Americans before we call ourselves "Marylanders" or Georgians" or "Vermonters" or whatever.
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
So back to the South. When the southern States withdrew from the Union (US) they in effect became foreign powers. These foreign powers banded together into the Confederate States of America.
No. Before the Civil War, the people of the Confederacy were American citizens. They broke away from the Union and took up arms against it to defend the "right" to keep slaves. If they had won the Civil War and become de facto independent, then, and only then, would they be considered a foreign power. It's kinda like the Revolutionary War; even though we issued a Declaration of Independence in 1776, we didn't actually become independent and a foreign power distinct from England until we won the Revolutionary War in 1781 at the Battle of Yorktown.
Kinda makes you wonder, doesn't it? Do the British look on us as former traitors because our rebellion against their rule was successful? How does history determine the difference between a war for independence and a traitorous rebellion?
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
So this brings in the question, "So where do my loyalties lie?" I'd say it's first your State then the US. Which is shown to us by General Lee of the South.
No, it's exactly the opposite. It's to the US first, then to your state. When I became a naturalized citizen (I'm an immigrant, FYI), I had to swear an oath of loyalty. I did not swear that oath to any one state, I swore that oath to America as a whole.
General Lee thought the way you said he did (that is, state before country), but after the Civil War ended, he spent the rest of his life regreting that decision. Northeners looked on him as a traitor and shunned him, while Southeners saw him as a failure because he lost the war.
Lee may have done what he did for noble reasons, but he still took up arms against the country he swore an oath to defend. When the Emancipation Declaration changed the nature of the Civil War (see below), Lee should have realized that the cause he was fighting for (namely, states' rights) was dead. He wound up fighting for the wrong cause (slavery) instead. He commited treason (either against the Union for rebelling or against history for fighting for slavery) any way you slice it.
Originally posted by HotSnoJ
BTW I'm not saying the slavery is OK, I'm just saying that the south was more in the right legally then the north. True the South started the war over a fort, infact that's basicly what the war was about. But as we can see it exploded into something over slavery.
True enough but also false. The point of "more in the right legally" seems irrelevant when you take account into the fact that Southern military cadets fired an unprovoked shot against a naval military vessel. That's like saying the Japanese were in the right legally when they attacked us at Pearl Harbor. The Japanese thought they were fighting for righteous reasons of independence from foreign powers as well.
I remember from my 6th grade history class (a long time ago; God has it already been 20 years?) that my teacher said that the Civil War was originally about states' rights, but that the Emancipation Declaration by Lincoln changed the whole nature of the Civil War and made it about slavery. A shrewd political move if ever there was one. Thank God it was good for the country, too.
And that fort that fired the first shot of the Civil War, isn't it part of the Citadel military academy in Charleston?
-
its Ft. Sumpter in Charleston, SC.
depending on the source, a confederate blockade either attacked the fort to prevent reinforcemts from arriving or the union fort attacked the blockade to allow the reinforcements to arrive.
-
Incidentially, Fort Sumter isn't much of part of anything except the landscape anymore. It got blasted to bits in the war and never was rebuilt.
-
Anyway, back on topic.
I loved Ronald Reagan. I was a Democrat back then (I was also an atheist.) and I was on the "Democrats for Reagan" bandwagon. He was the first Republican president I ever voted for (I mean, twice.). And I became a Republican because of him.
I feel nostalgic for Reagan, as our beloved Bush is really non-responsive to the conservative call, especially in light of what he did with the illegal immigration tolerance crap and the Clinton gun ban.
But I pray that God will show mercy on his faithful political servant. Mercy... :(
Rampage